Ahwa Talk

North Korea's policy of making its people miserable

2009-12-10T12:18:00.000-08:00

From the Independent comes this depressing story of North Korea's devaluation of its currency. Key quote:

Famine, compounded by a series of natural disasters, is thought to have claimed 2-3 million lives inside the country since the mid-1990s. Mr Kim has responded with a series of limited Chinese-style reforms designed to loosen central control over the economy.

The reforms have increased wealth disparities and incubated a growing class of wealthier farmers and merchants who are evading state controls and using bribery to keep government officials in line, say Pyongyang watchers. In January, the government failed in its attempt to rein in the reforms by limiting or closing private market.

"Currency reform was probably the only option left to neutralise the wealthy merchant class," a North Korean defector and analyst, Cho Myong-chol, told Chosun Ilbo yesterday. "The latest measure has made everyone poor again and possibly raised the North Korean government's hopes of regaining control over its people."

This is a great example of a nation intentionally stymieing growth as a means of political control. It's also a nice counter to those who argue that economic reform is inherently more important than political reform. I don't see either happening in the DPRK, but it is hard to imagine a move like this taking place in a more accountable system.

Conservative hypocrisy on budget deficits

2009-11-14T10:56:00.000-08:00

What he said.

Failures in Journalism: Politico Edition

2009-11-12T12:32:00.000-08:00

Shorter Manu Raju: "Al Franken promised to not be a partisan politician when he ran for Senate. Recently, he wrote an amendment that many Republicans voted against. This has caused politicians to argue over the amendment. Therefore he has failed to be bipartisan. If Franken wants to be seen as a serious legislator, he should stop proposing legislation that people may disagree on."

This once again proves that the most secure jobs in America are those that are in the political journalism profession. Once you're in, you can't be fired not matter how idiotic you are.

Failures in Journalism: Yahoo News Edition

2009-09-04T13:02:00.000-07:00

While I was living in Egypt, I was frequently frustrated by journalists proclivity to mention Facebook groups as significant evidence of public opinion. I wish I had examples on hand, but it wasn't uncommon for a writer to end a story noting that already, a Facebook group supporting some cause had gained 15 or so members. This is pretty worthless information and sloppy journalism, that just shows how journalists need to be trained to use quantitative and qualitative analysis, as well as how to distinguish between the two.

Sadly this type of work happens here in the U.S. as well. Take Yahoo News, who recently ran a story about the fake controversy surrounding Obama's planned education speech. I won't even get into the absurdity of criticizing our Head of State, for performing Head of State functions, that will be done by others. What I do want to take issue with is this articles' "research" into public opinion.

Across the blogosphere, comments covered the spectrum, from critical tosupportive, and from one student, a little anger:

"I sent my children to school to be educated NOT indoctrinated." — justamom
"The fact that people want to keep their kids from hearing the President of the United States encourage them to do well in school shows a true level of ignorance." — Firefey

That's right, scrolling through the comment section of online news sites now counts as research. I really don't care what "justamom" thinks about the speech, and not because she's just a mom, but because I don't know if she really represents anything. Quoting the head of the Florida GOP is newsworthy, because of his position, but if you want to demonstrate substantial public opinion, this is not the way to go. Also, the author noted that she took these names from the blogosphere, even though they where comments from traditional news sites. Somebody who does journalism on the internet should understand the difference between the two.

Failures in Polling: Pakistan Edition

2009-08-14T19:54:00.000-07:00

I normally like the Atlantic, which is why I was so disappointed over this recent entry. What's so baffling is that the author, Heather Horn, manages to do a fair amount of thinking without ever coming to the conclusion that maybe, just maybe it's possible to not like both the Taliban and the United States.

Horn starts out on the wrong foot by stating:

Not only does this poll seem to contradict the last, but the numbers even within the Pew poll look extraordinarily contradictory.

I'm looking at the two poll responses: one is stating that a majority of Pakistanis view America as the greatest threat to the country, the other is expressing widespread concern that the Taliban could take over. Those may seem to overlap a bit, but they certainly don't contradict each other. Any person with a basic ability to understand political polling in the United States (and sadly most journalists seem to lack that ability) would be able to tell you how slightly different wording on a a similar question can yield very different results - these two questions are actually asking entirely different things.

I can see it as perfectly reasonable that a Pakistani may hold pretty unfavorable views about the Taliban for any number of reasons, but still view another country firing missiles inside its borders a threat. This inability to look past an American bias and assume that not trusting the Taliban should equal admiration for the US seems silly.

Even the headline: Pakistani Public Opinion: Less Extreme Than Previously Thought?, is pretty sloppy. Why should we consider a dislike of America an extreme position, at least if it's in a foreign country?

Horn follows up with a nice round up of analysis, but then sadly, ends with this

Pakistanis Oppose Taliban, Still Revile US, rang The Associated Press' headline. Yet another way to spin the data.

Hmm... for once a headline writer at the AP manages to correctly identify the story without complety distorting the data, and this is what gets labeled as spin?

Obama in Cairo, my advice

2009-06-03T23:40:00.000-07:00

Because I love America so much, and because I care about my president, I would like to help Mr. Obama before he makes his speech to the "Muslim World" today. This is a pretty important thing to me because he's actually going to deliver this historic address mere minutes away from where I lived only last week. This knowledge of the neighborhood, along with my vast experience working with the Arab media, has given me, I feel, remarkable insight into the "pulse of the Arab street." So, without more delay, I give you my suggestion for what President Obama should say today.

President Obama:

"Thank you, thank you. It's great to be here at Cairo University today with such a diverse group of Egyptians. As I look out at this audience I see liberals, conservatives, even quite a few Ikhwan members. In fact, I haven't spoken in front of this many brothers since the last NAACP convention.

(hold for laughter)

But seriously, it's great to be in such a wonderful country. People are so friendly here, not like back home. On my cab ride over here - and by the way what do you guys think of these new white cabs, pretty nice huh? - anyway my driver...he told me that America was number one. And he wasn't even the first taxi driver today to tell me that. In fact, I think if I stay here another day, I can find all the people who have a favorable opinion of the US; because according to John Zogby and USA Today, it's only 14% of you.

(hold for laughter)

But I'm not going to let this discourage me and my mission. Partly because I bring a message of hope, and partly because I don't trust Zogby tracking polls. If we all trusted Zogby, John Kerry would be president and Hillary would have won the primaries...but neither of those things happened did they?....plus our internal polling shows that our approval rating is hovering around 70%, although we won't release crosstabs on that, you just have to take our word for it. Not that I look at polls of course, but you know, they're our there.

But back to my taxi ride. I talked to my driver about what he though about America. Apparently the government is bad but the people are good. So I guess he voted for Reagen.

(hold for laughter)

But what was so striking was when I asked him what were the issues that mattered to him most in life. And you know, they were the same things that matter to Americans as well: Affordable health care, education, a good job. See we tend to think in the US that every little action in the Arab world is a referendum on US policy, but I know things are quite a bit different then that. At the end of the day, the average Egyptian isn't worrying about Barack Obama, they're thinking about the same bread and butter, or aiesh and butter, issues that Americans are everyday. We tend to simplify US-Arab relations in a narrative that encourages the "Clash of Civilization" concept, but this is neither productive nor accurate. Most people in both our nations don't have time to hate people they've never even met, who live across the world; they're too busy taking their son to soccer practice.

So that's my take home message to you all today, yes we have our differences, and no they will not all be resolved, but we can all agree we deserve affordable health care. Sorry, I'm hoping that issue is as hot here as it is back in the US - it's really big in the US right now.

Thank you for your hospitality and your generosity, and goodnight.

Terrorism in America, Newt Gingrich is an idiot edition

2009-05-11T04:10:00.000-07:00

One of the only reason's I have a twitter account is so I have instant access to Newt Gingrich's latest ideas for revitalizing the Republican Party. This is because whatever type of day I'm having, I can always read his latest musings and take comfort in the fact that the revitalization of the Republican Party will not happen in our lifetime. The most recent example of this is Newt announcing his appearance on Fox News where he covers 'releasing terrorists into the U.S." His quote: "Just had remarkable interview with chris wallace on foxnews sunday. I asserted releasing terrorist trainees into america on welfare is insane "

I do agree that putting terrorist into American society and then paying for their unemployment would be a pretty stupid policy. The only thing worse than someone who is trying to kill Americans, is someone who is trying to kill Americans while using food stamps to pay for their crack habit. This might come as a surprise to those of you who have yet to hear about President Obama's plan to subsidize terrorism (Republican's want to privatize it), but of course, the reality of the proposal is a bit different.

We all (most of us) want to close down Guantanamo. Only problem is that we don't really have a place to send a lot of the prisoners too. They will be tortured or killed in their own countries and nobody else seems to want them. Therefore, we have to put them in prisons right here in the U.S. Republicans, who I guess are of the belief that these terrorists have some prison escaping ability that the average inmate lacks, are screaming about how this will endanger the U.S. now that we have terrorists on our soil. I really wish I was making this up. Even assuming one of these guys managed to escape, he would still face the issue of being an Arab, who doesn't speak much English, running around an area where the local news would alert everybody to the presence of an Arab who doesn't speak English. Do Republican's really think he would manage to hijack a plane in those circumstances? Or maybe he can pull off a suicide bombing?

I'm also not so sure what Newt means about the welfare part. Is he implying that by feeding terrorists while in prison, we're putting them on welfare? Does he hope if we take them off "welfare" maybe they will go out and find a job? If this is his logic, would he support legalizing marijuana so we would have less people on "welfare?" Or should we just let all prisoners starve?

But in case you thought using this idea as a way to destroy Obama was limited to Newt, listen to what Michael Goldfarb had to say about comparisons to our internment of Nazi POW's on American soil during WWII:

“Here’s a clip of Rep. Pete Hoekstra at the presser this morning explaining to a particularly thick reporter why the threat posed by al Qaeda detainees is different, and far more serious, that that posed by German prisoners of war. As Hoekstra explains, the Germans didn’t kill three thousand American civilians as they went to work."

I really want to come up with a devastating takedown that's not weaker than simply posting the statement and leaving it as is. It is true that the Germans didn't kill that many American civilians when they went to work, although they almost took over the world, which would make them far more dangerous than Al-Qaeda who have a lose hold on a part of Pakistan that nobody even really wants. This would seem fairly obvious to most people, altough it flys over the head of Goldfarb. My advice to the GOP - drop the "Al Qaeda is more dangerous than the Nazi's" line, not even Al Qaeda thinks its true.

At least I find it troubling...

2009-02-24T03:33:00.000-08:00

Reported from today's fiscal summit:

Baucus said he wanted to get at least 60 votes in the Senate, but maybe as many as 70votes on a health care reform bill.

70? Am I being too partisan when I say that there are not 10 Republican senators who would sign off on a health care bill that would make a difference?

Arkansas, where the calendar is lying when it reads the present time

2009-02-19T02:51:00.000-08:00

From Newsweek's On Faith comes a humorous/disturbing story about Arkansas trying to out-Alabama Alabama.

Apparently Arkansas has a little bit in its state constitution that bars atheists from serving in elected office. This is funny because the US Constitution has a not-so-little-bit in it about not being able to bar atheists form serving in elected office. This normally wouldn't be a big deal since every state has outdated laws that are never enforced, plus not a lot of people would want to run for office/live in Arkansas. Apparently however, recent attempts to change the constitution, and make it compatible with things like liberal democracy, freedom, the 18th century, modern western thought, have well...failed:

In 2005, state Rep. Buddy Blair filed a resolution to affirm Arkansas' support for the separation of church and state. The resolution lost 39-44 in the House.

Luckily for the residents of Arkansas, the state still recognizes the importance of the second amendment:

Meanwhile, in a related story, the Arkansas House passed a bill Wednesday allowing people to bring their guns to church.

"Due to many shootings that have happened in our churches across our nation, it is time we changed our concealed handgun law to allow law-abiding citizens of the state of Arkansas the right to defend themselves and others should a situation happen in one of our churches," said state Rep. Beverly Pyle.

I could make some distasteful comment about how if your getting shot while praying, you probably weren't praying correctly, or to the right God, but that's not really the issue here.

I'm actually for this new law. I'm no theologian, but I'm pretty sure this was the type of thing Jesus would have supported. Sure he never mention guns in the Bible, but that's just because there were no guns back then. If you believe in a living Constitution (and I'm sure they don't in Arkansas), you should believe in a living Bible too. Forget that whole turning the other cheek part, just think how much better things would have been if they had guns back in the day. Do you think the Romans would have screwed with Jesus if the Apostles were packing heat? Probably not! Oh sure, this would be counter to the values of the Bible, and the story of Christianity, but if the Arkansas legislature doesn't mind ignoring the Constitution, we shouldn't really be surprised.

New York Times: G.O.P. Governors Support Obama

2009-02-17T02:41:00.000-08:00

For good evidence that Congressional Republicans were simply opposing the stimulus bill just on partisan grounds, comes this wonderful story from the New York Times. It seems Republicans who are actually obligated to govern support TARP. This of course puts them at odds with the modern-day GOP, which hasn't been concerned with governing in some time.

The Case for Israel

2009-02-11T02:47:00.000-08:00

I've read a number of prominent Jewish and pro-Israeli writers discuss the future of the Jewish state, and wonder if it is as necessary as it once was, or if its presence actually puts Jews in more danger. (For example by creating one big target for a nuclear-armed Iran) I really don't have an opinion on this, its a tricky issue that I'm rather hesitant to wade into. The question of whether a Jewish state is "necessary" is pretty important however, because its the only real way you can justify its creation.

Despite my criticisms of Israel, when I read stories like this, It makes me pretty sympathetic to claims that Jews still aren't really safe. The fact that it is unsafe for Jewish kids to attend public school in a liberal, secular country like Denmark is pretty shocking and unbelievably disturbing. I want to state that I've never lived in Europe and I can't speak to the actual level of antisemitism that exists in day-to-day life, but I read about stories like this a bit too often to dismiss this as propaganda.

Critics might claim that it's Israel's actions that stir this type of hatred against Jews. Not only does this not address the immorality of the issue, but it fails to recognize that maybe, also, it's these types of actions that lead many people to support the state of Israel.

Putting the screws to NR

2009-02-11T01:32:00.000-08:00

Cliff May over at the The National Review has a problem with a pretty reasonable assessment by Steve Clemons' :

Steve Clemons, an analyst at the New America Foundation in Washington, says he knows how to achieve peace in the Middle East:

At the end of the day, Obama has to be willing to put the screws to Israel.

Would it ever occur to him to propose "putting the screws" to the Palestinians, recommending that the Obama administration tell Gazans, for example, that they need to decide whether they prefer to live in peace, or whether they'd rather sacrifice their lives and those of their children to Hamas’s explictly (sic) stated cause: the annihilation of Israel?

Hmmm.... maybe its because the US has done all of these things. We've never had a problem putting the screws to the Palestinians, and I don't think Clemons is saying we shouldn't stop calling them out when they warrant such action. When however, you sign a peace agreement that states that Israel needs to put a freeze on settlement building, and Israel continues to build settlements anyway, and you do nothing to punish them, while then, maybe a little though talk wouldn't hurt.

Fighting for Tomorrow

2009-02-09T00:42:00.000-08:00

According to Zeinobia over at Egyptian Chronicles, Ayman El-Kholi has won his fight to be head of the Al Ghad (tomorrow)party, beating out NDP apologist Moussa Mustafa Moussa. Although Al Ghad is the most prominent opposition party in the country, I haven't really heard much news about this in any of the Dailies. This is probably due to the perceived insignificance of any of the legally recognized parties. (I think the success of the otherwise poorly organized Kifeya was somewhat attributable to the fact that nobody had faith in opposition parties to achieve anything.) The very fact that the administrative court (government) made the final decision on a who would take the helm really shows how thoroughly the NDP has managed to control the rules of the game.

I don't think however that we should completely discount the potential significance of Al Ghad. It would be nice after all to have some organizations besides the Muslim Brotherhood that offered up their own policy agenda every now and then. One of the problems with the current state of the liberal opposition in Egypt is that it really doesn't go beyond criticizing the NDP. That's not to say they offer no substance, but the Facebook phenomenon and Kifeya were really just loosely held together, ad-hoc movements that had a unifying grievance. This is great for putting pressure on Mubarak, but more has to be done if there is any hope of replacing him with something better.

Update: On a not so serious note, I really wish the party hadn't used the name "Ghad" which is the more classical word for tomorrow, as it sounds similar to the Egytpian food chain "Gad." To Egyptian's I'm sure there is no confusion, but with my non-fluent Arabic I can't help but be reminded of hummus when I hear about Al Ghad. I suppose using the Egyptian word for tomorrow "Bukra" might be associated with simply putting something off for tomorrow because it can't be done today. That's usually the context in which I hear the word. Of course it would also be an accurate description of real reform in Egypt, but they probably don't want to admit that.

Polling Gaza

2009-02-07T23:47:00.000-08:00

I’m always curious as to why the level of scrutiny of polling in the United States is never applied to some other pretty important polls elsewhere. Maybe it's because election polls are eventually proven accurate or inaccurate, whereas others are onetime snapshots of public opinion that can't really be challenged.

I mention this because of an article in the AFP discussing attitudes of Palestinians after the war in Gaza. Now the poll may be accurate, I’m not sure, but there were some red flags that were raised which the article doesn't address. I don't' really fault the pollster here – like in the US, it's mostly the fault of the media in the way they report polls.

The article leads with the headline: Poll: Gaza Boosts Hamas Support.

It then goes on to say:

Hamas would get 28.6 percent of the vote compared with 27.9 percent for the rival Fatah faction of Western-backed president Mahmud Abbas if elections were held today, according to the survey by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre.

In Gaza, the poll put Hamas at 28 percent against 33.6 percent for Abbas' Fatah. In the West Bank, the poll gave Hamas 29 percent support against 24.5 percent for its rival.

Why do I have a problem with this? First of all, the headline, which states: "Gaza Boosts Hamas Support" is inaccurate. In order to show that it boosted Hamas' support, we would have needed an earlier poll taken before the war to measure support then. If such a poll was taken, it would have to be by the same firm with the same exact methodology. The article doesn't mention any such poll. So whatever the actual current level of support is, we don't really know if it was an increase or a decrease. This didn't stop the writer from blindly assuming a phenomenon based on no empirical evidence.

The article then goes on to mention the numbers listed above, which is fine, but uses them to make blind assertions about who actually enjoys more popularity. Given the narrow gap between the figures however, I think this is rather reckless. For example, it's declared that Hamas would win an election because it gets 28.6 percent compared to 27.9 for Fatah. It doesn't take much to observe that that's only slightly over one percentage point. Given that the polls margin of error was stated to be plus or minus 3, we can't really assume a victory based on a 1-point difference. A margin of error of 3 means that the actually results could be anywhere from Hamas - 25.6% and Fatah – 30.9, to Hamas - 31.6 and Fatah - 24.9. We can predict the real numbers would lay somewhere close to what was stated, but the article doesn't predict, it makes a bold statement about something the poll actually doesn't say.

I also wonder about the way the margin of error was calculated. The article states:

The pollsters surveyed a sample of 1,198 people -- 758 in the West Bank and 440 in Gaza -- and gave a margin of error of plus or minus three percent.

Okay, that’s fine, but if you're going to poll both territories together, and then divide them separately, it's not the same margin of error. Anytime a pollster in the US looks into demographic subgroups of a poll they know that the data isn't as accurate as the entire poll because they're not dealing with as large as a sample size. If we plug the number of respondents in the West Bank, compared with a rough estimate of the population (2,345,000) and assume a standard deviation of 95, then the margin of error for that territory would be 3.55. If we do the same for Gaza, the margin is 4.29.
That’s using the equation: square root of p (p -1) / n x 1.96. Where p = percent of respondents polled to the population, n = total population.

I also have to wonder about the accuracy of the survey given the difficulty in taking an accurate poll at this point in time. Polling a territory that was just bombed seems like it would be prone to all sorts of errors. First of all, how many people have working land lines at this point in time? Of those who do or don't, there might be a difference in affiliation. Maybe somebody who wasn't able to answer a phone for whatever reason would be more likely to support Hamas. This may be because their house was destroyed, are still at a hospital, taking care of others, etc… Or maybe any of these situations would make them more likely to support Fatah, or neither, we don't know, but there could be a difference that would greatly throw off the findings of the poll.

This isn't helpful

2009-02-05T03:29:00.000-08:00

Barak okays new West Bank settlement in return for evacuation of illegal outpost

For those of us who sometimes forget that Labor's record on settlements is even actually even worse than Likuds. I realize this move was part of a bargain to get settlers to dismantle an illegal outpost, but I find it ridiculous that a government has to negotiate and bargain with its own people committing an illegal activity.

Light Rail in Dubai

2009-02-03T23:59:00.000-08:00

With all the ridiculous spending going on in Dubai, it's nice to hear they're investing in something that really is worth the money. If only we had spare money to waste in the United States, we could also invest in more public transport.

Of course we do have a rare oppourtunity to spend a lot of money on a lot of stuff, but we seem to be squandering the oppourtunity. TARP only sets aside $43 billion for transportation projects, including $12 billion targeted for mass transit. I'm for improving public infrastrucure, and roads are important, but I don't see how we're supposed to kick American's off our fuel comsuming habits if we put pavement so high ahead of public transport.

Random thought on paper

2009-01-30T12:04:00.000-08:00

When I was growing up, our elementary school classes would consistently ram down our throats the importance of the environment and how we needed to protect it. I'm grateful for them doing this, I think it helped to create a generation of more eco-conscious citizens. After reading this story , however, I wonder if one part of what we were taught may no longer be relevant. As everything in school is typed instead of handwritten, as newspapers and magazines are shifting to the Internet, and as even books are now available online, it seems that people have less and less need for paper. I have no clue if this phenomenon is great enough to have an effect just yet but it seems to me if we don't us paper anymore, that whole debate about over logging may go away.

Facebook

2009-01-30T11:39:00.000-08:00

I just saw an ad for something on TV here, not sure what it was, I think an album, I missed the commercial, but the ending promoted the product's Facebook site. I used to joke that in Egypt, not having a Facebook profile was like not having a phone number. The thing was, there was some real truth to that. I wonder if having a Facebook page is going to a standard feature of any organization in the future.

Lack of updates...

2009-01-28T07:11:00.001-08:00

So there's been a lot going on in the region that I really should be writing about. Unfortunately my life has been too chaotic the last few days to really have time to blog. For the record, yes Obama did an interview on Al Arabyia and yes I think that's a good thing.

How bad of shape are we really in?

2009-01-24T12:49:00.001-08:00

I've been hearing a lot about the critical state of journalism recently. Don't get me wrong, I believe all of it, and as someone who things it's a pretty important profession, am genuinely worried. I do realize however that I might be hearing so much about it because I usually read stuff written by journalists. I know there are many reasons beyond the recession that can be attributed to the current climate, but it makes me wonder how many other industries out there feel like they're in just as much trouble, only we never hear about it?

Newspapers for example, are finding themselves in an unsustainable business model because they're producing something that others are doing online for free. But the same can be increasingly said for movies and music. The last two are supposedly inelastic commodities, but the reality is people nowadays expect to have access to more things for free. I have no idea what the answers are to these things but it's worth thinking about.

Mike Ricter may run for Congress

2009-01-24T12:34:00.000-08:00

For those of us who care about both hockey and politics, I find this rather exciting. Okay it's not really that exciting, but worth posting anyway. With Kirsten Gillibrand's accession into the Senate, rumors are floating that the former New York Ranger's goalie, Mike Richter may make a run for her seat. It is always nice to see an American hockey play get publicity, especially since our program has been lacking of late. This does bring up the question of celebrity candidates however. We only seem to raise the issue when it's a Senate seat in question, but why don't we ever do it for House seats? Yes I know that there are more of them, and an individual congressperson isn't, on average, as important as a Senator, but ideally, both would require a serious legislator. If one were to closely examine the list of currently serving congresspersons however, you would find a great deal who are either unqualified or just plain crazy. This is pretty easily explained by gerrymandered districts vs. entire states, but it still seems odd that we expect so little out of the lower house.

Nkunda captured in Rwanda

2009-01-23T08:40:00.001-08:00

In the world of obscure news that actually affects more people's lives than the stuff we hear about on MSNBC, milita leader Laurent Nkunda has been arrested after crossing the Congolise border into Rwanda. This is signifigant because Nkunda has been widely believed to be a proxy leader for Rwanda. This probably means that the Congo and Rwanda are getting serious about a real peace deal, which is really good news.

How we got here

2009-01-20T10:00:00.000-08:00

I just finished watching the inauguration at an upscale coffee shop here in Cairo. It was a great speech – a surprisingly liberal speech – that spoke to what I wanted to hear. I remember watching the inauguration in 2000, still bitter about the disputed election outcome. It was fortunate I didn't yet know what the next eight years would bring; it would have made it that much more unbearable.

Of course we don't know how this new President will fare, but that doesn't take anything away from what this moment means. Even if four or eight years from now, we look back at the Obama Administration as a failure, I will always take pride in this moment. That's because whatever happens from here on out, nobody can ever take away what our country did to get here. It's not just the obvious of electing an African American to be president, it's why we did it and how.

Throughout the campaign, I was nervous that so many tactics and talking points of the right – ones that have worked in the past – would work again. To me Sarah Palin was the epitome of this line of thinking, the one that held that rural Americans are more authentic than those who happen to live in an urban environment, that the further inland you lived, the more you loved your country. The notion that higher education was a sign of being out of touch, and being ignorant made you more like the average American. Indeed, even the notion that we should want someone who was "average" was a never challenged idea that Republicans shoved down our collective throats. The problem with this line of thinking was it appealed to the lower nature of Americans. It wasn't just the right who allowed this to happen, the mainstream media sheepishly followed along, with commentators making issues out of which beer was the most middle class.

The conservative movement, once led by respectable leaders, turned into the equivalent of a boy in high school. Being smart isn't a virtue for a young boy, being tough is. If you did do well in school, you'd better not let people know. Beating up the biggest kid in class however, well that would earn you instant respect. That's what the authority voice in America was, and that's what we became. We admired the wrong things, sometimes just because we thought everybody else did.

What Obama did for us was make being smart cool again. While John Kerry and Al Gore, were both mocked for their ability to speak French or use fuzzy math, Barack Obama was never phased by that line of attack. He never had to don a hunting suit and shoot quail to show he cared about central Pennsylvania. Part of this can be attributed to his being such a remarkable candidate, but I think the true change was that our country grew up.

In 2004 Democrats choose John Kerry as their nominee. An accomplished and admirable man, his choice (which I supported) showed Democrats were more insecure than anything else. Scared of being called unpatriotic, we picked the tallest, most deep-voiced man we could find. The fact that he killed at least 20 Vietnamese for a war he didn't even believe in was only so much better. His choice of a running mate, John Edwards, completed our insecurity. Because we believed the notion that 90% of American's had southern accents, we had to have one of those on our ticket as well. But despite these efforts, it didn't work. Easily disproven attacks, none of which had anything to do with policy, sunk the Kerry campaign, leaving Democrats wondering how they would ever talk to White, Pabst Blue Ribbon-drinking American's again.

In 2008 none of that mattered. We picked a skinny black guy over a war hero. We chose the guy who didn't wear an American flag lapel pin everywhere he went. We did it because we realized it didn't matter. We weren't kids in high school anymore – we had grown up. Now we had to deal with real issues like health care and balancing a budget. We realized being tough didn't matter if you couldn't pay your bills, or put your kids in a good school. We did it because we realized the most important part about your President isn't if he shares your faith or background, but if he can govern.

None of this guarantees anything about the next four years, but if it wasn't true, the next four could only be so much different than the previous. Obama is just one man; we need an entire country to be serious about doing what's right. Here's hoping that will last.

Photo of the day...week...year

2009-01-18T08:11:00.000-08:00

Media wars are important - in some ways the most important part of modern warfare. Perceptions of who wins wars can be more important than on the ground results. That's how Egypt won and Israel lost the Yom Kippur War. I've written how Israel has been looking to redeem itself after the demoralizing results in Lebanon. I think this picture on CNN.com shows that whatever diplomatic blowback Israel will get - it has reestablished its goal of restoring the supremacy of its military capabilities.

The caption below reads: An Israeli soldier holds up an Israeli flag after leaving Gaza on Sunday.

You can't fake pictures like this, no matter how good your PR efforts are. Israel is leaving this conflict confident. Before I felt that Hamas would be able to claim victory no matter what happened; now I'm not so sure. This was clearly not a replay of 2006.

Whether or not this will actually have a postive effect on the Middle East probably depends on what your definition of postive is. I don't see how this victory fits into a long-term postive for Israel.

The American Center and Israel

2009-01-17T08:47:00.000-08:00

Ezra Klein has a new column in Haaretz about American support for Israel. I'll just say its worth a read, as is his blog over at the American Prospect. Klein has written some of the most honest, original thoughts during this operation; his blog is now one of the first things I read every day.

Health Care Debate

2009-01-17T08:24:00.001-08:00

Over at the New Republic, Jonathan Cohn has a new blog about health care in the United States. Cohn has been one of the best advocates of a single-payer system around, so it's nice he's been given his own forum. (Also anything that distracts us from Marty Peretz's delusional rantings about the Middle East is a plus).

If you're like me, you believe health care is one of the most pressing issues our country faces. You may also believe like myself, that it's crucial to pass a real reform bill this year, as the public's appetite for such massive spending might not be so high in 2010. This is a debate that can't be ignored, it needs to be pushed relentlessly until something happens. Check out the blog, it's worth your time.

Crashing Planes

2009-01-17T08:17:00.000-08:00

How come every time some event like this recent plan crash happens, we have to endure talk about God's role in everything? I don't even have access to cable news here in Egypt, yet I've still heard plenty of voices from mainstream outlets about how the survival of all the crew is proof of "a miracle from God." I would think a more efficient deity could simply pull off the same end result (people not dying) by simply not having let the plane crash in the first place. That would also have the added benefit of not putting people through the horror of experiencing the crash, added to the long term trauma that many of them may have to endure. Of course there is no real evidence that whenever a plane doesn't crash, it's only because God willed it - just like there's no evidence that this was a miracle either.

Update: No one wants to give credit to Unions

Palutube Takes the Media War to Another Platform

2009-01-15T15:44:00.001-08:00

In yet another example of how free media can have an potential impact across the world. Israel and Hamas are now battling each other through viral videos.

While the IDF has made use of Youtube, Palestinian activists have recently launched Palutube, apparently based out of Russia. It's easy to get carried away with the significance of this in regards to uncensored media (with the exception of Fatah throwing up roadblocks to the creation of Hamas' terrestrial station, The Palestinian Territories has always had a freer press than the rest of the Arab World.) Overall however, increased traffic to sites like this can only make it easier for similar channels being created in other parts of the region.

The story of Arab and Egyptian bloggers has gotten a lot of play in the past year, with their actual significance still unproven. We really haven't seen viral videos however play much of a role in Arab citizen journalism. It has happened, and has had quite an effect. Several years ago a police officer was taped beating and raping a man. The video, posted on Youtube, forced the Egyptian government to prosecute the case. These incidents may be few and far between, but viral video has proven itself as a potential very useful tool in citizen journalism.

Note: I find some of the material on this site disturbing, and am not endorsing any message from the site.

- Also, how come blogger's spell check doesn't recognize the words "bloggers" or "Youtube?" The last one is owned by Google!

Democrats and Isreal

2009-01-15T15:30:00.000-08:00

Pew Research has a new poll out measuring American's opinions of the current situation in Gaza. Not surprisingly of course, most of us support Israel by pretty solid numbers. What did strike me however was the partisan gap in support:

By nearly three-to-one (55% to 20%), Republicans approve of the military action Israel has taken in the Gaza Strip. Independents, by a smaller margin (44% to29%), also approve of Israel’s actions. However, a plurality of Democrats(45%)
disapproves of Israel’s military campaign, while just 29% express a positive opinion...

Then there was this:

There has been a wide partisan gap in Mideast sympathies in recent years. Currently, 69% of Republicans say they sympathize more with Israel in the Middle East conflict, compared with 47% of independents and 42% of Democrats. Partisan differences in basic Mideast sympathies have been about that large since 2006. Nearly one-in-five Democrats (18%) and 10% of independents currently say they sympathize more with the Palestinians than Israel in their dispute; just 5% of Republicans say they sympathize more with the Palestinians.

This may seem pretty obvious to some, but I see it as containing both potentially worrying and positive information for Israel. The Jewish State's support has historically come from the Democratic Party, with the GOP only jumping on with the rise of the religious right. And while I don't think unwavering Democratic support for Israel has always been in its best interest, I think unwavering Republican support will be only worse. After all, at least the Democratic Party has American Jews who are aware that the settlements are a threat to Israel's long-term existence. Sarah Palin thought she was adequately prepared to defend Israel because she had an Israeli flag on her desk. I don't mean to paint some vague stereotype that Republicans are stupid and Democrats are smart -that's not true at all. But the base of GOP support comes from people who aren't terribly concerned with learning a lot about the region. The reason conservatives support Israel vs. the reasons liberals do is entirely different, and the motives are important.

Right now Israel needs an honest friend who is willing to support it, but challenge it when it screws up. If you believe it's your Christian duty to support Israeli expansion, or think it can do no wrong because its supposedly the only democracy in the Middle East, then you're probably not going to do that.

I realize Democrats haven't always been stellar on this point as well, but at least there is a possibility. The J-Street Project is a great example of pragmatic, non-ideological bound people who are looking to challenge the status quo thinking on Mid-East policy. That's where the the positive news from this poll comes out. If Democrats were to remain the party of Israel, than the increased diversity in opinions could benefit them. If the GOP manages to take that mantle away however, I it would be harder be optimistic about real progress in the region.

Department of the Obvious

2009-01-15T14:45:00.002-08:00

Am I the only one who finds it a bit odd that Osama bin Laden has called for a jihad against Israel? Hasn't there been a jihad against Israel for some time now? I half expected the actual message to say: "I call on you to fight Israel…which you actually should have already been doing anyway, because you know…it's Israel. I know we got distracted with Iraq, India, and the NFL playoffs, but come on, let's keep our eye on the ball people."

Also, he's a little late to the game on this one isn't he? Nasrallah has been calling for resistance since well over a week ago. Look Osama, you've missed a lot of news cycles where you could have been getting good coverage. You need to get a new PR guy or find a way to send your videotapes to Al-Jazeera quicker. Something tells me his status in the Arab World isn't what it used to be.

Won't somebody please think of the fish!

2009-01-15T14:45:00.001-08:00

PETA has a new campaign to make people aware of the horrors of fishing. Their strategy? Openly rebrand fish as "seakittens." The theory being that while people don't think fish with their cold alien-like stares are cute, kittens are simply adorable. And if you find an animal adorable, well, you would be less likely to want to eat it – a theory easily disproven by the existence of veal.

I care about animals as much as the next person with too much spare time, and do want to see them treated humanely, but there is something intellectually dishonest about this campaign. People don't just want to eat kittens because they're cuter; they also have a far higher conscious level than fish.

Aside from that, this seems to break every rule of what a successful campaign should be. When you try to re-label something, you don't openly admit you’re re-labeling it. Could you imagine if big tobacco started a website that said: "Look we have a problem, people don't like us and know our product kills you, so we're going to make some pretty intensive efforts to change words that currently have a negative connotation into ones that will sound better to you!" No, they wouldn't. Instead, they would start some third party group dedicated to overturning the ban on the selling of cigarettes in public schools and call it "Young Consumers for Choice." Of course, big tobacco is run by people who know how to achieve their goals instead of making themselves look like absolute idiots. Here's hoping that one day the actually important issue of animal rights is represented by competent individuals.

Update: A fellow animal-loving but PETA-disgusted friend emails me suggesting I place our cat underwater, take a photo and send it to PETA with the note: "I tried this to see if your campaign works in reverse. It did: I feel slightly more inclined to eat a kitten when it is dressed as a fish."

Motivations Behind Israel's Gaza Raids

2009-01-08T11:36:00.000-08:00

Of all the criticisms direct at the Olmert government one of the most important has been the question of what does Israel hope to achieve by all of this? It goes without saying this is an important question, but so far Olmert's government has not really answered it.

If the goal was to permanently destroy Hamas as a threat to Israel, I assume that this operation would have more support from those of us who don’t wish for the Jewish State to be destroyed, just get upset about its daily actions. No one in Jerusalem however is talking about this as a realistic goal, because everybody knows it isn't. As long as one Hamas member is left standing, they're going to declare victory. Maybe Israel feels that if it can get a new treaty; one that allows it to manage the southern border. Then it can effectively cut off any new supply of weapons that may come in. This would be a victory in one sense, but it's not just the rockets that are the problem with Gaza. A whole host of other issues loom large over what to do with the Hamas run territory.

Two of the most common theories as to why the strike took place have to do with elections, both in the U.S. and Israel. The first is that Israel knew it would have to get this strike out of the way while Bush was still in office, as an Obama administration wouldn't be so tolerant. That's probably true, but Israel has demonstrated a willingness before to skirt the United States approval if it feels it needs to do something.

The theory that this was done because of the upcoming Israeli elections seems far more probable – and far more egregious. It did look like Netanyahu would have won fairly handily, and to be sure this would have been disastrous for the region, but I don't know if it can all be attributed to that. This move does put Likud in a box. After all, Netanyahu can't move to the right by claiming he would have unleashed a bigger military campaign. It takes a pretty cold person to start an operation like this just to stay in power however. Of course you could always argue that less Palestinians will be killed this way than whatever would happen with a Likud government. That's pretty hypothetical however.

My theory is that after the 2006 war with Hezbollah, Israel has been planning for anther war in which it could redeem itself, especially its air force. Although Israel made some strategic victories in Lebanon, the general perception was that Hezbollah won the day. The fact that the group is now stronger than ever only reinforces the notion that Israel is in fact beatable. I think Israel wants to erase that memory by making the most recent one of an overwhelming victory. The Israeli media effort has been more impressive from the start. They've downplay any notion of wiping out Hamas, giving them more room to declare victory.

What Egypt Can Do

2009-01-08T11:13:00.000-08:00

I try not to make a habit out of announcing my sympathy for the Egyptian government, but right now is one of those times. Egypt has been criticized by many influential voices in the Arab World for its relations with Israel as well as its role in sealing the Gaza border.

Critics accuse Egypt of being complicit Israel's operation, citing such evidence that Olmert met with Mubarak about a week before the first bombs hit. Rumors have been flying that Olmert told Mubarak in advance of the strike, something that is entirely believable. Jordan's King Hussien warned Golda Meir about Egypt and Syria's coming strike in the days before the Yum Kippur 73 war.

What I don't understand is what people think Egypt could really have done about this. It seems that all the anger over the Arab World's historic inactivity when it comes to actually helping the Palestinian people is being directed at Cairo.

I think the blockade of Gaza is a travesty, the conditions for residents in the territory are deplorable and it is completely immoral for Israel to have instituted this policy. It would seem like the next logical step would be to hold Egypt equally culpable for its role in sealing off the southern border. In reality however, I don't feel Egypt has a choice in the matter. While other voices may argue that Egypt should open the gates, I don't think it's realistic to expect Cairo to take such an action. Voicing solidarity with your fellow Arabs is one thing, but I can understand why a government would not feel letting 1.5 million refugees flood into its country is in its national interest. It's easy for Nassrallah to tell Egypt what to do, but he's not the one who would have to manage the situation that would result form lifting the blockage. I would like to see Egypt bring more supplies into Gaza, but seeing as the government can't even feed and take care of its own people, I wouldn't expect it to go out of its way to help others.

Pressure is on Egypt and Jordan to break their ties to Israel, I think this might be the reason why the emergency meeting of the Arab League was pushed back several days. Maybe Cairo thought that a few days to cool off would lessen the calls for them to sever their links.

Surprisingly, I've found that many Egyptians actually agree with my position. Don't get me wrong – people are pretty upset over Israel here, but they always were. The same goes for Mubarak's regime. I've just got the sense that the average person really doesn't want to have to deal with the entanglements of their neighbors. I was curious as to whether the small conversations that I had reflected at all what the general population thought, when I came across this article in the Egypt Daily News, describing the diversity in opinion about the conflict in Gaza. Surprisingly, many people seem pretty open about their opposition to Hamas. This is a far cry from 2006 when Hezbollah was widely praised by the population. This quote from the article seemed to sum up a sense that I've noticed:

"Hamas is acting against the Palestinians," said Mohamed Kamal, also a central Cairo shopkeeper, and one of a dozen Cairo residents interviewed by Reuters this week. "There is no reason for firing rockets. What are they hitting anyway?" he said.

The Western media likes to portray the "Arab Street" as a sort of monolithic bloc of angry peasants, who are constantly at war with their own governments. The Arab media with all of its slants and biases doesn't do much to counter this. Despite this however, public opinion can be very fractured, with significant portions of the population holding views that we don't think they would. I keep reading in the Western media about massive protests throughout the Arab World, and in other countries that may be true, but in Cairo, there's no "angry street" or massive mobs. Yes there were some large protests organized by the Muslim Brotherhood, but that’s to be expected. For most Egyptians, it's been a perfunctory comment against Israel, and then a sigh as if they just feel like giving up on ever seeing anything change. I know how they feel.

"If you don't help out, we will"

2008-12-21T09:48:00.000-08:00

There's a somewhat small debate going on in US policy circles over to what extent we should be funding the Lebanese military. I would think this news that Russia is selling Lebanon 10 Mig 29 Fighter jets won't make things easier.

Apparently the best the Pentagon was willing to do was a single engine Cessna, which would have been helpful in taking out small domestic targets, and not much else. The new MiG's would, according to the article, become a potential challenge to Israel as well.

I don't know how true that is. First of all, Lebanon is only getting 10 of them, which isn't enough fight a drawn out air battle. Furthermore, having planes is one thing, but an advanced system of trained pilots is another. It would take some time for Lebanon to train pilots in the new jets to a level that would make them capable of fighting an intense war. The MiG 29 has a mixed combat record, and I can't find any record of it going up against what it would face in a war with Israel. I think the Israeli airforce, with its far larger fleet of F-15 and F-16's would be more than able to handle something it shouldn't really be going to war with in the first place. It should also probably be noted that this is not kind of fleet you would be mounting an invasion with - so unless you have plans to invade Lebanon, you shouldn't really be upset. Now I understand that things don't work with that in real life, if Russia decided to supply Lebanaon with SAM batteries, that would probably raise a little bit more of an outcry, but they didn't.

This seems to me less legitimate concern over military capabilities, and more complaining that the Russians aren't going to let us sit around and do nothing. It seems rather natural that Lebanon would want a real, capable air force rather than the joke we were offering them.

Obama, Health Care

2008-12-05T11:28:00.000-08:00

With all the talk about the auto industry bailout and the latest stimulus package, I've been somewhat worried about Obama's commitment to pushing for health care early on in the administration. (I would like universal coverage but sadly, Obama's plan technically falls short of that). I've heard the issue dismissed recently in the belief that with all the money required to save the economy from another depression, we simply don't have enough for comprehensive health care reform.

Not only do I think that this is not true, it misses the point. Almost everybody can agree that the way to get out of this crisis is through more spending, hence the stimulus plans. I can't think of a better way to put more money into the pockets of everybody than a real, functioning health care system.

Our current system has become an unquestioned burden on far too many Americans; one that strains our economy in countless ways. People are less likely to look for better jobs for fear of losing their employee health benefits during the process; this also discourages people from becoming self-employed or starting their own business. In addition, businesses of all sizes have become increasingly burdened by the costs of keeping their employees covered. One of the most expensive costs that the auto industry has to face is the health coverage for its workers, even after they retire.

I really don't see pushing for health care reform as being an impossible task, in fact I think now would be the best time to do it. Forget about not having 60 Senate seats to work with. Obama would face some opposition from Southern Democrats anyway, but there was always going to be enough Republicans he could pick off. Just off the top of my head, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, George Voinovich, Mel Martinez , Arlen Spector and Norm Coleman (presuming he holds on to his seat) come to mind.

The issue could be sold to the pro-business crowd in Congress as something that’s necessary for businesses to survive, for the reasons mentioned above. I would even think it would be possible for Democrats to cut a deal – agree to universal health care, and in exchange, Democrats won't push for Card Check. This might anger the unions, and it would be a broken campaign promise, but there are other ways to deal with them. The UAW isn't going to be in much position to argue, and Obama can placate them by saving the auto industry. (As mentioned above, saving the industry would be easier with health care reform). SEIU wouldn't be as easy, but universal health care would benefit its member so significantly that I think a deal could be brokered with them. Union's have typically been very good about fighting for government programs that would technically make them useless. While pushing for quality health benefits for their members is one of the main reasons for their existence today, past behavior indicates that they would be more than happy to abdicate that job if it brought its members health care. This could especially work if Democrats allowed the unions to take credit with its members for passing the plan.

I also see this as something that has the potential to really cement Obama's legacy as a President. It could even have a lasting effect on the political landscape, giving Democrats a loyal base in the same way the New Deal reforms did. (Just think of what the National Health Service did for the Labour Party in Britain). Contrast this with a stimulus package that nobody would ever really know for sure its actual effects.

The only issue left would be what would the plan look like. While I actually like Senator Ron Wyden's (which was pretty similar to Hillary's) I don't know if something like that would be feasible at the moment. It's also not what Obama pushed for in the primaries. I do think however that moving towards as system similar to France's would work in the States – as long as we don’t say were basing it off of the French. By creating a government run program that everybody can buy into – regardless of past medical conditions, we would be giving affordable access to millions who don't have it now. We would also be giving people currently paying too much health bills a more affordable option. The plan would be immune from those who warn of the pitfalls of socialized medicine, because individuals could still choose from any private plan they wish. It is true requiring companies to not deny coverage based on previous medical conditions would raise premiums for us healthy folks, but that pool of people is shrinking anyway. Besides, there would always be the government plan for us. Sure the powerful Health care lobby would put up a huge fight, as they would be bound to lose a lot of money in the event, but polls during the last election showed support for universal coverage at an all-time high. This isn't 1994, it’s a different environment and Obama needs to take advantage of the situation he's in.

More Cartoon Controversy

2008-12-01T04:05:00.001-08:00

Photo Courtesy of Alex Segre via Flickr.

I'm ashamed to admit that I haven't had the opportunity to really find out the reaction amongst the Egyptian population about Obama's victory. The day following the election, I became horribly ill, and spent the next week and a half in an Egyptian hospital. The only Arabic I was practicing had to do with asking what drugs they were injecting me with at the time. (I never fully learned the vocab). I felt rather robbed of a special moment in my life because of this. Not just to see Egyptian's immediate reactions, but to bask in the glory myself. So now I've had to play a little bit of catch-up when it comes to observing what people think. One of the occurrences that I missed during my sojourn in the hospital was this cartoon printed in Al Ahram:

It seems like an appropriate enough cartoon. The depiction of the president elect Barack Obama with the US flag behind him and thebubble quoting Obama as saying the change has come to Washington. Looking up to the Obama depiction was an excited Egyptian woman congratulating the African American senator, reminding him not to forget that people around the world have been hoping and praying for his success. This was followed by the Arabic phrase: `uqbal inna' meaning may the same [change] happen to us.
According to the opposition weekly Sawt al Umma, the cartoon appearing in the leading Egyptian daily Al Ahram, caused a sense of an emergency among the Egyptian leadership. The independent weekly stated that150,000 copies of the paper's first edition were quickly removed from the streets and destroyed and the `troublesome' phrase disappearedfrom future prints that day. The before and after cartoon depictionappeared in Sawt al Umma.

The writer of the above, a Palestinian blogger named Daoud Kuttab, goes on to talk about how Obama's victory has given hope to many citizens of countries such as Jordan and Egypt, in the hope that they too can overturn their governments.

I don't question the analysis of the writer; I think he probably had his finger on the pulse of Arab youth much more so than I do. It does however somewhat fly in the face of my previous perceptions of what an Obama victory would mean.

My general understanding talking to people over the past year was that Egyptian's appreciation for Obama was very much based on his identity and what he represented to them, not policy. One thing that stood out fairly dramatically was that nobody I talked to seemed to be under any illusions about what would happen in an Obama administration. People defiantly believed that US policy would improve regarding the Middle East, but it seemed well understood that Obama was still going to maintain a policy generally supportive of Israel.

In this sense, Egyptians were far better informed than many Americans. While rumors spread in the US that Obama was a stealth Muslim, I don't think anybody in Egypt believed that Obama's first move as President would be to tell Livni to dismantle the Neve Manyak settlement. People knew he was against the Iraq war, but had tempered expectations about overall policy. His popularity seemed to rest more on the fact that his rise signified that Americans wanted something radically different, and that his win would be the beginning of at least a more evenhanded, respectful treatment of Arabs.

This type of acknowledgment of reality would make me question whether anybody could think that Obama's win could pose a threat to the Mubarak regime. Unless Obama wants to really shake things up, I don't see a real push towards democracy in Egypt being high on the US agenda. After all, Egypt is arguably the most important US ally in the region besides Israel. The Egyptian army (half of which is funded by the US) is the largest in the Arab World, and its cooperation with the US and Israel leaves the Jewish State with no conventional military threat. Egypt's position of influence in the Arab World, containing a quarter of its population, and playing host to the Arab League, makes its close friendship that much more important. Mubarak has also been cooperative with the US and Israel when it comes to the sealing of the Gaza border. On top of this, Cairo's rarely reported mediation between the West and Hamas is certainly a valuable asset. This isn't' all to say that only a President Mubarak could deliver all of this, but it's safe to say a more democratic leader probably wouldn't be on board so strongly with all of those issues. I hope President Obama looks to real democratic and human rights reform in the Middle East, but I suspect that nobody on his team is going to want to rock the boat too quickly, especially when it comes to our most important allies.

Kuttab continues with a story of imprisoned Egyptian opposition leader Ayman Nour, the man who received the second largest vote count in the last Egyptian Presidential election. Nour wrote to Obama:

"The writer of these lines is a human being, about your age, who was — and still is —dreaming like you of change and reform in his country. However, in our countries legitimate dreams turn into horrifying nightmares!!"

Nour is a secular politician, with high name recognition, but there is no way to tell if somebody like him would take charge in the even to a power vacuum in the country. Is Obama going to push for democratic reform in a county like Egypt when conventional US opinion seems to be that the Muslim Brotherhood could take over? (I'm not saying they actually would) From the list of foreign policy advisors he's collected so far, and from previous statements, I don't see any indication that democracy in the Middle East is goal number one. Joe Biden, for example, who is sure to play a major role in decision making, has stated he was against the Palestinian elections that brought Hamas to power.

Which leads me to the last point that Kuttab makes:

"Some of the same skeptics are now optimistic. After seeing America at its best, there is a renewed sense of confidence in American-style democracy throughout the world. However, this growing confidence aboutthe possibility of political reform can turn into a disaster if change does in fact stay limited to the American shores. If young reformers in the Arab region are again crushed after the change candidate takes power in Washington, their hopes for genuine reform in the Arab world will be set back for years, once again."

Pundits have talked about a similar set of expectations that Obama faces domestically, but I wonder how significant they are in the rest of the world. What do people really expect from President Obama? If after two years of an Obama administration, and the Middle East looks essentially like it does now, what will the opinion of Obama be?

To go slightly off topic, (but only slightly) I feel this is one of the worst legacies that the Bush administration has left us with. The idea of Democracy promotion has been so tainted with neo-conservatism and failed experiments in the Middle East that I think the American public and policy makers have soured on what should still be an important part of US policy. The answer for the last eight years isn't' isolationism (and I don't think Obama will resort to this) and just because democracy wasn't successfully forced down Iraqis throats doesn't' mean we still shouldn't push for those values. I agree that maybe a focus on human rights should come before elections, but both are important and shouldn't be ignored. It's not just that we're better off with more democracies in the world; I think people really may be looking at the US right now to show real leadership on this issue.

President Bush had made several small attempts to prod the Egyptian government into democratic reforms; unfortunately his reputation was so tarnished in this region that it was only interpreted as bullying. Meanwhile the actual reforms that Mubarak was pressured into taking only led to the elections in which Nour was arrested.

I hope President Obama makes continued efforts to gently push leaders like Mubarak into making real change. Of course part of this can come from Obama himself. Putting an end to extraordinary rendition and other policies where the US is complicate in the suffering of Arabs would demonstrate that Obama isn't going to go along with human rights abuses as long as it keeps the radicals out of power. It would also make any advocacy of real reform that much more credible. Either way, it seems like Obama finds himself in a position where he actually has a bit of soft power capital to use; at least among certain people.

DSCC still looking for money

2008-11-18T07:05:00.000-08:00

Well over a week after the elections I'm still receiving a fair amount of fundraising emails from various groups, which isn't altogether surprising. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in particular has been hitting me up a lot in emails talking about the three outstanding races still left to be decided: the probable pickup in Alaska, the recount in Minnesota (where I think Coleman will hold on) and the runoff election in Georgia. Whats significant about all three races however, is that of them, only the Georgia race is one where my money could possibly help. The other two are a matter of finishing counting the ballots, or recounting them. I also think its stands out in that of the three races, I would put Georgia as the least likely for Democrats to win. Democrats probably won't see the record turnout they did on election day, and overall excitement will be down. Plus now that its clear Democrats will have overwhelming control of the government, Georgians might be more inclined to keep a Republican in the seat to balance things out. This would follow the logic that allowed Mary Landrieu to win her Senate runoff in 2002 after less vulnerable Democrats lost in the main election.

Of course the emails I'm getting aren't highlighting the Georgia race - they're harping on the other two, and the razor thin vote margins. This is a good way to get people fired up, but I think a somewhat dishonest form of fundraising. Would my money be spent in Alaska or Minnesota? I don't think so, it would only be spent in Georgia, so why can't they say that?

Below is the text from just one of the emails which I think displays what I'm talking about.

Dear David,

The staggering scope of your victory is only beginning to sink in. Because of all of your hard work and dedication, Barack Obama will take the oath of office on January 20. It's going to be astonishing.

Because you helped the DSCC win at least 6 new Democratic Senate seats, he'll hit the ground running with big majorities in both houses of Congress. Those big majorities are essential to delivering the change we need.

Thank you - from all of us at the DSCC - for all your effort and all your support. The American people owe you a huge debt of gratitude. And our tremendous record of accomplishment this year isn't finished yet. There are still three unresolved Senate races where your time, money, and effort have put us on the very cusp of victory. Here are the latest updates:

Alaska:
Mark Begich holds a solid 1,022-vote lead over seven-time convicted felon Ted Stevens with 24,000 votes still to be counted. We should have a final count sometime this week, but I am cautiously optimistic that Sarah Palin's next senator will be a Democrat.

Georgia:
The race to win the December 2 runoff is boiling over. Saxby Chambliss, the NRSC, and the right-wing attack organization Freedom's Watch are all blitzing the airwaves. But thanks to your generous support, the DSCC and Jim Martin have been able to nearly match the Republicans dollar-for-dollar and fight back with ads of our own. Chambliss is campaigning with John McCain and Mike Huckabee, but special elections like this one are won and lost on voter turnout. That's why the DSCC already has staff and volunteers on the ground in Georgia, getting people ready to vote on December 2. Our proven strategy has worked over and over again, and I know we can do it again.

Minnesota:
Al Franken trails Norm Coleman by just 204 votes - seven one-thousandths of one percent (.007%) - and an automatic hand recount of every vote will begin soon. Coleman and his right-wing buddies are scared the recount won't go their way. So they have already started trying to undermine the process, intimidate ballot counters, and disenfranchise enough voters to win at any cost - just like in Florida eight years ago.

The DSCC and the Franken campaign won't allow them to distract from ensuring that every vote is properly counted. It might take a few weeks, but we need to count all the votes fairly. It's the only way the true voice of the electorate can be heard.

The DSCC is doing everything we can to win these final races. We'll make sure every vote is counted in Alaska and Minnesota, and in Georgia, we'll unleash the same proven field program that has already won 12 new Democratic seats in the last two elections.

We need your help to win, and even as little as $5 from you can make a big difference. Our new and condensed campaign plan shows that we need to raise $100,000 before midnight Friday. It's so crucial to make this goal, that if you give before the deadline, a group of Democratic senators will triple your contribution. Your $5 will go that much further towards giving President-elect Obama an even bigger Senate majority to pass his agenda.

Click here to rush a contribution of $5 or more to the DSCC. We still have three more chances to grow our Senate majority for change.

You have already accomplished so much to elect great Democrats and change this country. Stand with us over these next few weeks, and we can win as many as three more Senate seats to make it even easier for Barack Obama to hit the ground running on Inauguration Day.

Thank you again,

J.B. Poersch
Executive Director

Election Day Weather Reports

2008-11-04T02:13:00.000-08:00

The folks at Harvard's Kennedy School have apparently put up a website that monitors voting conditions in every state. This brings up a questions I've always wondered about the media's fascination with weather conditions on election day.

Every two years I hear reports about what the sky is going to look like tomorrow and how this is going to have an effect on turnout. I have to say, I'm skeptical about the relevancy of it in the first place. Don't get me wrong, it many cases, I'm sure weather plays a role in final turnout. If a bad snow storm hits, I could understand how that could keep some people home, and I do believe that primary caucus turnout would be subject to particularly bad weather. Local races of low interest also might be somewhat vulnerable, but I really don't see how rainfall would have any effect on a high-profile Presidential race. After all, most people drive to the polls, not walk, and if you live in an area where it's raining on election day, it probably means you live in an area where you're used to rain and drive in it all the time. I know there are a lot of less-than-passionate voters out there, but does anybody really stay home for that reason?

I would like to think that somebody has done some research on this to try to see if there is any quantitative evidence to back it up. Of course I could see a lot of problems with doing a completely accurate study. Simply comparing areas with heavy rainfall vs. those that were sunny wouldn't take into account a whole host of other important factors such as historical participation habits and local ground operations. (Urban environments in competitive areas would be subject to more investment from respective campaigns, and therefore, see a more intense turnout drive).

I imagine however, you could compare a number of areas, maybe by county,(to be safe, maybe divide urban vs urban and rural vs rural)measure their turnout vs. national turnout, then compare that number to the historical average of that county in previous elections. Even then you would only be able to compare Presidential year elections as off-years would be subject to fluctuations in competitiveness of downballot races. This is also making an assumption that the importance of a competitive downballot race plays no effect on overall turnout when there is a Presidential race at the top of the ticket. That's a somewhat risky jump, but seeing as significant statistical evidence of a drop off in voting for downballots is always present, I think it might be an acceptable and necessary omission. Plus for the sake of this study, we would be concerned mostly with dispassionate voters, who would be the most likely to only vote at the top of the ticket. This study might be made more difficult with the emergence of early voting, which allows voters to avoid election day variables. It could be argued however, that early voters are far more likely to have a high interest level, and show up regardless of weather conditions.

If this is a reasonable thing to look at, I wonder what the numbers would look like? My guess is that you might find some small discrepancy, but anything under 5 percent could easily just be random fluctuations that could exist for a number of reasons. But I suppose that's my point, this is all just speculation and yet we treat it as something else.

Update: I think there is a group that could be potentially influenced by rainfall - elderly voters who don't have a ride to the polls. I still see this as somewhat suspect as both parties will ensure their seniors have a ride to the polls as one of the most crucial steps of any ground operation. However I will concede that there could be a number of seniors who would feel comfortable driving in normal weather conditions, but not in the rain. I don't know if this would be offset by the fact that seniors are significantly more likely to vote than other age groups however. Worth noting.

The Home Stretch

2008-10-30T02:59:00.000-07:00

It seems that the race has tightened a noticeable amount in the past few days, according to RCP, Pollster.com and fiverthrityeight.com. I'm not going to get into specifics about the methodology of each analysis because it appears that whatever the true numbers are, we really have witnessed what seems to be a several point gain by McCain that appears to be tapering off a bit.

We can usually attribute this to an almost inevitable tightening in polls in the last few days of an election. The only (semi)troubling aspect about this for me is if this is the case, then it shows a high level of undecideds breaking for McCain.

Conventional wisdom is that in the last few days of the election, undecided will typical break to the challenger by a ratio of about 60 to 40 percent. This is usually attributable to the fact that somebody who was undecided is probably less inclined to favor the incumbent. The best example would be somebody asking you if you wanted to be with your girlfriend or boyfriend a year from now. If your answer at any point is undecided, then you're probably a bit unsatisfied. Likewise, if you're undecided about your current leadership, you probably think somebody could do a better job.

This race of course doesn't have an incumbent individual, but it does have an incumbent party, and most numbers seem to indicate that people are issuing a collective punishment on the GOP. This would normally lead somebody to conclude that most undecideds should break towards Obama - but I actually think the opposite.

Obama has been riding a wave of positive press for several straight weeks, while McCain has suffered setback after setback. Poll numbers showing a massive swing towards Obama and downballot Dems indicate to me that a general consensus has emerged among most people. I think Obama plateaued about a week ago, with everybody who could be convinced, being convinced. Still being on the fence after such a lopsided level of press coverage would lead me to believe that very little could persuade that person to vote for Obama. (I realize this could be my partisan opinions coming out)

I'm assuming the tightening in the polls is due to undecideds, but that in itself is just speculation. I don't have access to poll crosstabs (or time to analyze them) so I can't tell if that number has shrunk in the past week. I mostly want to attribute it to that because I can't think of any other event that would cause a shift in opinion. Have McCain's "spread the wealth" attacks really been that effective? We really can't tell, but it doesn't seem like a winning line to me.

Overall this doesn't worry me a great deal. The overall numbers still make things look pretty difficult for a McCain victory. Both candidates are drawing the same level of support from their party, but Dem party id is far higher than Republicans this year. A McCain path to victory would require him siphoning of a solid majority of independents, a group he is trailing badly with. (Independents aren't the same as undecideds) There's also the fact that despite the national numbers getting closer, McCain seems to have been making very little headway in the key battleground states. Obama's superior ground operations coupled with his cash on hand advantage seem to be keeping the eight or so important states immune to slight national fluctuations.

I think the most important thing to look for these next few days will be if the trendline continues or flattens out (as it appears it is). If we don't see any difference in the battleground states it will also be a mute point. So despite whatever outlying Zogby poll that Fox or Matt Drudge try to pull out, I think this race is still pretty out of reach for McCain.

Sarah Palin, Clothes, 2012

2008-10-29T04:32:00.000-07:00

Christophr Orr over at tnr.com flags down this youtube showing an internecine feud on the right over the Sarah Palin wardrobe issue. Orr correctly points out:

Notice what's missing from all this skirmishing? Anyone associated with the Democrats or the mainstream media. At this point, Barnes, Wallace, Kristol,Palin, Duncan,et al. are just about the only ones keeping this story alive.

Orr goes on to claim that is the opening round of a 2012 battle between Palin and anti-Palin factions of the GOP. I think this is about right (although I don't believe she will be a serious candidate at that time). It's rather remarkable to see the conservative media keeping a story like this alive and debating it in such a way. It certainly shows a lack of discipline from the GOP that they can't get a unified message out through what should be a friendly media outlet.

Finding somebody to blame for the outfits should be a non-issue, because the issue itself is a non-issue. Mini events like this may serve some small significance in occupying one news cycle, but beyond that their effect has to be pretty minimal. This isn't saying that these things can't play some role; John Edwards 500 dollar haircut got some play among the late night comics. But after the Iowa Caucuses, I don't know of any serious analysis that showed it factored into anybodies decision.

The fact is the wardrobe issue came about well after the McCain/Palin ticket starting plummeting in the polls, and even further after her negatives had gone sky high. The finger pointing between Republicans seems to be more a pre-loss blame game than anything else. If the ticket goes down in failure, and it increasingly looks like it will, there will be several decisions and moments in which we can look back at and see where the race was lost. This one however, won't be one of them.