A roundup of commentary from soldiers and their spouses and Iraqi citizens:
Dragonfly, the blog of a personal friend whose husband is currently serving in Iraq. This post is particularly insightful. I admire the grace and strength with which she approaches life while her husband is at war.
She Who Waits from the loving wife of a marine serving another tour of duty in Iraq.
Intel Dump from Phillip Carter who served in the Army's 101st Airborne Division as an adviser to the Iraqi police in 2005 and 2006.
Great Baghdad, the blog of Al-Rasheed, a 33-year-old man living and working in Baghdad. In "The Federal State of Iraq" he supplies an analysis of what some politicians and pundits positively spin as federalism in Iraq.
My War
"Endlessly surprising…delightfully profane… an unfiltered, often ferocious expression of his boots-on-the-ground point-of-view of the Iraq war."
- Arianna Huffington
An American Soldier, in Still Alive, January 15, 2007, Rob offers a first-hand account of Al Qaeda's strong presence in Iraq.
Baghdad Burning, a young Iraqi woman tells of her plight and that of her country.
365 and a Wakeup from soldier who returned home in 2006. Excellent photos from a soldier's viewpoint. Albums accessible from the right column. Links to United States Central Command and Military.com sites.
(Blogs of current soldiers and military spouses are subject to regulation under military code and therefore may be subjected to heightened scrutiny.)
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Petraeus Wants to Delay Decision to Decide
From The New York Times online
"Delay Decision on Major Cuts, Petraeus Says"
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: September 10, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 9 — The top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, has recommended that decisions on the contentious issue of reducing the main body of the American troops in Iraq be put off for six months, American officials said Sunday.
I can picture his testimony now, "I have informed the Decider in Chief, my decision is to delay the decision to decide." There's a line reminiscent of a Danny Kaye movie in here somewhere.
See Daily Kos here for more.
Oprah and Obama: What Will Be the Impact?
Late yesterday, Oprah Winfrey hosted a political fundraiser at her home in Santa Barbara home, raising some three million dollars for Barack Obama. Obama is the first political candidate to receive such public support from Ms. Winfrey despite her long history in the public eye.
Could Oprah's support of Obama significantly impact the Democratic Presidential Primary? It could, but the degree to which it will depends upon the degree to which Oprah is willing to tie her image to Obama's politics and the Democratic party.
Undoubtedly, Oprah has demonstrated the ability to influence American pop culture and buying patterns. With her book club and "Oprah's Favorite Things", she has demonstrated influence arguably unrivaled by any single television personality. For all the influence she wields though, she has to an obvious extent avoided publicly endorsing any political candidate, until Obama.
People are taking notice of her interest in Obama and that will serve him well. While hosting a three million dollar fundraiser at her Santa Barbara home brings big money and an intimate personal touch, both trademarks of Ms. Winfrey's business sense, it is likely not enough to sway a major voting block.
Could Oprah have the sort of impact required to change the outcome of a presidential primary? Yes, but it would come from involvement more akin to the type we saw with Michael J. Fox's very public endorsement of candidates supporting stem cell research in 2006. Oprah certainly has the skill, the funds, and the wherewithal to be significant influence in the Democratic Presidential Primary and the 2008 Presidential Election, but whether she will remains to be seen.
* A cross-post from Political Popsicle/Political Pollyanna.
Could Oprah's support of Obama significantly impact the Democratic Presidential Primary? It could, but the degree to which it will depends upon the degree to which Oprah is willing to tie her image to Obama's politics and the Democratic party.
Undoubtedly, Oprah has demonstrated the ability to influence American pop culture and buying patterns. With her book club and "Oprah's Favorite Things", she has demonstrated influence arguably unrivaled by any single television personality. For all the influence she wields though, she has to an obvious extent avoided publicly endorsing any political candidate, until Obama.
People are taking notice of her interest in Obama and that will serve him well. While hosting a three million dollar fundraiser at her Santa Barbara home brings big money and an intimate personal touch, both trademarks of Ms. Winfrey's business sense, it is likely not enough to sway a major voting block.
Could Oprah have the sort of impact required to change the outcome of a presidential primary? Yes, but it would come from involvement more akin to the type we saw with Michael J. Fox's very public endorsement of candidates supporting stem cell research in 2006. Oprah certainly has the skill, the funds, and the wherewithal to be significant influence in the Democratic Presidential Primary and the 2008 Presidential Election, but whether she will remains to be seen.
* A cross-post from Political Popsicle/Political Pollyanna.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
The Senator Larry Craig Bathroom Sex Scandal: A Rush to Judgment or No?
I rarely have trouble making decisions. Ask anyone who knows me well, I usually have an opinion -- an opinion that I am happy to share. But when it comes to the Larry Craig bathroom sex scandal, I still have questions, on a couple of levels.
First, I'm not convinced that people would care as much if the scandal didn't revolve around accusations of homosexuality. At this point, it's significant that news conversations revolve as much, if not more, around Craig's sexual orientation as around sex of any kind in a public place, or even the fact that Craig is married, which is often mentioned only as an afterthought. Really, shouldn't the point be that the man was accused of soliciting sex in a public restroom?
Second, I find Craig's guilty plea perhaps persuasive, but not determinative of his guilt for anything other than legal purposes. As any lawyer, I am fully aware that it is sometimes in individuals' best interest to plead guilty to crimes which they did not commit. Sad, but true. Unfortunately, in this case, it was clearly not in Craig's best interest to plead guilty, but he did, and that cannot be undone.
Third, "You have to be guilty in order to plead guilty" which has become the mantra of CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, usually a quite well-reasoned commentator, is misleading at best. While, yes, that exact language may be printed on the plea form that Craig signed, it is basically meaningless. It is a standard convenience clause included in an attempt to preempt later challenges to guilty pleas. This is something I expect Toobin knows full-well, which leads me to my next and final point.
It is the reaction of Washington insiders coupled with Craig's willingness to plead guilty which I find most persuasive of his guilt, far more so in fact than his actual guilty plea. No one in Washington came to Craig's defense. When the story broke, it was immediately reported that Craig's sexuality had been a point of ongoing discussion for many years. While Craig and fellow "Family Values" Republicans argue against extending equal rights in many arenas to homosexual individuals and couples, they seem fully aware of closeted individuals who serve the party well and at the highest levels. This is something they seem to have little problem with until there is a scandal. The fact that no one came to Craig's defense, not even the staunchest Republicans, makes me believe the accusations against Craig and his guilty plea were something they found not only believable, but almost expected. If he did not actually commit the crime to which he pleaded guilty, it would require more cynicism than I can muster even for the Republican party.
More troubling than the scandal or its impact on politics, I find it deeply disturbing that we live in a society where many men find it more amenable to seek out anonymous sex in public restrooms than acknowledge an identity they are told is sinful and morally reprehensible. This only furthers deep and shameful secrecy that destroys the lives of these men and others.
First, I'm not convinced that people would care as much if the scandal didn't revolve around accusations of homosexuality. At this point, it's significant that news conversations revolve as much, if not more, around Craig's sexual orientation as around sex of any kind in a public place, or even the fact that Craig is married, which is often mentioned only as an afterthought. Really, shouldn't the point be that the man was accused of soliciting sex in a public restroom?
Second, I find Craig's guilty plea perhaps persuasive, but not determinative of his guilt for anything other than legal purposes. As any lawyer, I am fully aware that it is sometimes in individuals' best interest to plead guilty to crimes which they did not commit. Sad, but true. Unfortunately, in this case, it was clearly not in Craig's best interest to plead guilty, but he did, and that cannot be undone.
Third, "You have to be guilty in order to plead guilty" which has become the mantra of CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, usually a quite well-reasoned commentator, is misleading at best. While, yes, that exact language may be printed on the plea form that Craig signed, it is basically meaningless. It is a standard convenience clause included in an attempt to preempt later challenges to guilty pleas. This is something I expect Toobin knows full-well, which leads me to my next and final point.
It is the reaction of Washington insiders coupled with Craig's willingness to plead guilty which I find most persuasive of his guilt, far more so in fact than his actual guilty plea. No one in Washington came to Craig's defense. When the story broke, it was immediately reported that Craig's sexuality had been a point of ongoing discussion for many years. While Craig and fellow "Family Values" Republicans argue against extending equal rights in many arenas to homosexual individuals and couples, they seem fully aware of closeted individuals who serve the party well and at the highest levels. This is something they seem to have little problem with until there is a scandal. The fact that no one came to Craig's defense, not even the staunchest Republicans, makes me believe the accusations against Craig and his guilty plea were something they found not only believable, but almost expected. If he did not actually commit the crime to which he pleaded guilty, it would require more cynicism than I can muster even for the Republican party.
More troubling than the scandal or its impact on politics, I find it deeply disturbing that we live in a society where many men find it more amenable to seek out anonymous sex in public restrooms than acknowledge an identity they are told is sinful and morally reprehensible. This only furthers deep and shameful secrecy that destroys the lives of these men and others.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Mortgage Market Woes: A Brief Explanation of the "Loan to Own" Approach of Lenders
If you have any financial decisions to make, other than just how to spend the interest income from your inexhaustible trust fund, it's important to understand the cause and impact of the current mortgage crisis. In this video, John Vogel, from the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, gives a brief, easy to understand explanation of the "Loan to Own" theory that furthered the competitive mortgage lending frenzy.
I found it interesting and think you might too.
Video from Beet.TV
I found it interesting and think you might too.
Video from Beet.TV
Monday, August 27, 2007
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Debating the Democratic Debate
Watching today's Democratic Debate, you might have thought Barack Obama was the front-runner and other candidates were desperate to bring him down. You might have thought that until you noticed Hillary Clinton's responses were largely unimpassioned and low-risk. Then you might have thought the nomination was hers to lose and the other candidates, in large part, would rather attempt to make themselves look better by stepping on Obama instead of sparring with the front-runner.
Biden, Richardson, and even Edwards (Say it isn't so!), nitpicked Obama's answers, while avoiding direct confrontation with Clinton. While Obama is perfectly capable of holding his ground in any toe-to-toe debate, the tactic of several individuals working together to belittle another can be amazingly effective, especially in public settings.
Edwards, Biden and Richardson came across as more interested in bringing down Obama than in answering questions. It is, after all, easier to point out somebody's inadequacies than propose your own solutions.
If you are competing for the nomination, why not point out the inadequacies of the front-runner? Is the nomination process really so far afield from populist democracy that before even the first vote is cast, Washington insiders know full-well who the nominee will be? It certainly seems so.
Clinton was never engaged in a full-court press. She simply held the ball, waiting for the clock to run out, while the other players scrambled to keep Obama at the other end of the court.
Dodd performed admirably, and Kucinich and Gravel used the debate as a platform to blast politics as usual, but overall, the lasting impact from today's debate is the way in which candidates who could be front-runners bowed to Clinton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)