Return of the War Party

Before protest can ramp up against Obama's move to a new full-scale war effort in Afghanistan, rumblings increase for the war to follow. As Pat Buchanan says,

The campaign to conflate Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria as a new axis of evil, a terrorist cartel led by Iranian mullahs hell-bent on building a nuclear bomb and using it on Israel and America, has begun. The full-page ads and syndicated columns calling on Obama to eradicate this mortal peril before it destroys us all cannot be far off.

But before we let ourselves be stampeded into another unnecessary war, let us review a few facts that seem to contradict the war propaganda.

I always find it a bit scary to agree with Buchanan, but I'd recommend his "Return of the War Party" column on Human Events.com.

Happy Valentine's Day!

Many Valentine's Days ago, my husband and I were starving young entrepreneurs/ journalists. When this day rolled around, there was no cash for buying cards or gifts, but that didn't stop us from celebrating.

At a card shop, we each shopped carefully for exactly the right card. We then met in the middle of the shop, exchanged cards, read them appreciatively, then returned them to the shelf.

(Thank goodness this blog doesn't have Hallmark sponsorship because I think that'd be a deal breaker!)

If you choose to commemorate the day, may your valentines be thoughtful and original as well as loving.

You Just Didn't Understand!

The caller on the other end of the line was apoplectic. "Why won't you let us run the ad supporting you?"

"You don't understand," I said, "I just. . . ."

In the background in my office, my boss waved for my attention: "I didn't make myself clear," he coached. I had to take responsibility for the misunderstanding.

That very important lesson is one columnist Phillip Morris might want to take to heart. His earlier column claimed it was time to do away with Black History Month now that Barack Obama has been elected President. His follow-up column asserts: "Black history (let's get used to just calling it history) should be studied and celebrated contextually 12 months out of the year -- not just in February."

I agree 100 percent that American history should be taught in a way that incorporates the contributions of all the groups making up this country. However, I also think that Americans aren't to the point that each major group will get its just due quite yet. For that reason, I'm still for the special emphases we put on different groups.

I don't want less black history scholarship. I want more. Just don't call it black history. Don't confine it to February. . . .

Many argue that America's greatest strength is its freedom and diversity. If that's true, then it's time we perfect the embrace of the diversity by studying it intensely and understanding its historical and contemporary connectives.

Our global standing and our children's fortunes depend on it.

I'm with you there, Phillip, but you lose me when you continue,

Perhaps it's time that we choose a month for reflection and simply call it, "Thank God I'm an American" month.

Let's stop squeezing our past into convenient historical ghettos.

That sounds strangely like jingoism [Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism] and is not what we need. We may be proud to be Americans (despite what has recently been a disastrous foreign policy), but we also need to understand the entire world and our place in it.

“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.’

But the tax collector, standing far off, would beat his breast saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.” -- Luke 18: 9-14

Our prayer (for those who believe in prayer) might be better if it is thanksgiving for our luck at being born in a developed country and having the advantages we have, then asking forgiveness for what we permit our country to do to other countries in our names.

Every Company for Itself; Too Bad About the Workers

While Washington tries to figure out how to stimulate the American economy, American companies are still putting profits first. This story of a Virginia company closing an Ohio plant to send jobs to Mexico just burns. Some 316 Ohioans are affected, according to the Columbus Dispatch.

MWV Calmar, a subsidiary of MeadWestvaco Corp., will close the Washington Court House plant in early April and consolidate the plant's functions with one in San Luis Potosi, Mexico.

The Mexico plant is "more seamlessly scalable and features more advanced production equipment and processes," the company said in a news release.

MWV Calmar makes containers used for perfume as well as health-care and gardening products.

The Richmond, Va.-based parent company announced in mid-January that it would close 12 to 14 plants as part of an attempt to save $250 million to $300 million by mid-2010. No specific locations were listed at that time.

So where do you think they will send the other 11 to 13 plants? China? India?

But, please, let's make sure this company's owners and managers get their tax breaks and golden umbrellas.

Yup. Riiiiight!

I'd like to see Congress end all tax breaks for companies who move American jobs offshore but bring the products back into the USA. Didn't Obama mention that on the campaign trail?

Of course, the offshore gambit could get worse. Buckeye State Blog quotes a CNNMoney report that IBM, which has laid off over 4,000 American workers, is offering to match laid off employees with jobs in India or another “low-cost” country. It's still unclear but suspected that IBM means for the worker to accept the prevailing wages and benefits of the "low-cost" country.

How many rupees do you think you are worth? And, what health benefits are included?

Instead of "Do you want fries with that," we English majors might find ourselves asking, "Do you want naan or pratha with that?"

Is Black History Month Still Needed?

Just because a person is black, it doesn't mean he sees the world as do other blacks. It also does not mean s/he shares the same experience of others. That's the same as a person of any race/gender/religion/sexual orientation/age/profession or any other category.

Phillip Morris' column this morning in the Plain Dealer might provide some evidence to support those statements. He opines that it's time to cancel Black History Month. Now that the US has "the courage and conviction" to elect a black man, "are we mature enough as a nation to accept as fact that our histories really are one. . .?"

Just because Morris is African-American, some people might assume he is speaking for all African-Americans. That'd be as likely as people believing I speak for all Ohioans. Or all educators. Or all women, or whatever. If one person, such as Obama, achieves a certain status, it in no way indicates that others of his racial status have equal access to education or other stair steps to achievement.

In the same newspaper edition, a headline reports "Blacks denied more loans despite higher income."

Higher-income blacks in Ohio were denied home loans in 2007 at a rate higher than lower-income whites, numbers that point to a continuing trend of racial bias in mortgage lending, a study by the Cleveland-based Housing Research & Advocacy Center concludes. …

Statewide, nearly 33 percent of higher-income blacks had applications for home-purchase loans denied in 2007 compared with 28 percent of lower-income whites. Higher-income blacks were denied refinance loans 54 percent of the time compared with 53 percent for lower-income whites.

And when upper-income blacks were approved for home loans, they were far more likely than lower-income whites to receive subprime mortgages that carry higher interest rates and higher fees.

The Cleveland metropolitan statistical area, which includes Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina counties, had some of the biggest disparities compared with other state regions. Forty percent of upper-income blacks in the Cleveland area had applications for home-purchase loans denied in 2007, compared with 23 percent of lower-income whites.

Median income in the Cleveland region in 2007 was $60,700. The study defined upper income as being 120 percent greater than the median. Low-income was defined as being less than half the median.

I found it interesting that some who commented on Cleveland.com ASSUMED that the data had ignored other factors such as income-debt ratio or credit score. Why can we assume that blacks would have a less favorable ratio or credit? If we go to the study referenced, we find that a National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) found “wide differences in lending by race, even when accounting for income levels, suggests that more minorities are receiving high-cost loans than is justified based on creditworthiness.”

I grew up in an era when an employer could (and did) look me in the eye and say, "We've never had a woman do this job before. If you do well, we'll consider hiring others. If you don't like it or don't do well, we won't." Women who succeeded in that era frequently became "Queen Bees" who assumed that, because they made it, any woman could do it without any special consideration. That wasn't true then, and it isn't now.

Similarly, just because one American with a black father has been elected President or an African American has a newspaper column, it does not mean that racism no longer exists.

When we lived in China, we university women were bused to a huge rally every year for "Women's Day." I felt that, anytime there is a special "day" or "month," it means the authorities can continue to discriminate the rest of the year.

Until the day comes that we can show that nearly all racial discrimination is historical, not current, we should make certain, through the special month, that we are still striving for greater equality.

Style Becoming a President

Obama has really done it now. That arrogant jerk has . . . relaxed the dress code???

Barack Obama promised change and on his first morning as president he delivered. He appeared at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office in his shirt sleeves.
It was part of the story Thursday on the front page of The New York Times – meant to show that Mr. Obama has brought a shift in presidential style and habits to the White House.

On his first full day in office, President Barack Obama loosened things up by conducting meetings and other official business in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. Images like this one have caused a stir in some Washington circles accustomed to the more formal dress policies of past presidents.

His top aides didn't try to conceal the new president's less formal dress code. On the contrary, the White House released a photograph of it.

It's only worth noting because for the last eight years, President George W. Bush made it a standing order that he and his staff would always wear their suit jackets in the Oval Office.

Well, if George W. Bush wore his suit jacket, Barack Obama had better do it, too. Why let small matters of changing a broken economy and foreign policy, etc., stand in the way.

Really, with all else that is going on, this is something we should worry about?

Obama is also foregoing the announcement, "Ladies and Gentlemen – the President of the United States," for meetings. This morning, rather than being announced, he breezed in with "Hello, everybody – good to see ya."

This Presidency stuff really is going to his head, isn't it? But quick, before we even consider what he says/does, did anyone check if he has on his flag pin? These things are the most important for the Leader of the Free World to consider.

He's also shirking his responsibilities to the U.S. Marine Corps Band. On the first day of his presidency, the band played "Hail to the Chief" everywhere he went. Ever since, the band's duties have been downsized to a single piano player who, instead of playing John Phillips Souza's martial music, runs through Cole Porter's "Night and Day" and Sting’s "Desert Rose," according to a CBS report.

This just proves Obama's mistreatment of the military. What will those poor band members do now? How arrogant is he to think he can decide such things?

Since I haven't posted that much, some readers may think I seriously think this is a problem. Not at all! I'm responding to the horrified gasps I've read from people who, despite their constant criticism of that "arrogant" Obama, are aghast that he would actually refuse the geegaws of the office.

Holbrooke is a Mistake

This is going to sound like heresy, considering that I worked so hard to get Obama elected, but his foreign policy so far leaves a great deal to be desired.

I disagree with his entire Afghanistan policy -- as I did before the election. I had hoped Biden might influence that for the better before Obama made a serious error. I wasn't pleased with Obama's naming Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State because, despite her many good qualities, her foreign policy views were not among them, to my way of thinking. Understanding the desire for a "coalition cabinet," I crossed my fingers.

Obama's naming Richard Holbrooke as special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan really takes the cake, however. It shows that the flawed policy remains firmly in place. Holbrooke, a neoconservative, was a Hillary supporter, so her influence might be all over this choice.

In an attempt to be rational about this, I considered what both conservatives and liberals have to say about him.

Right Web notes:

In making our predictions about Obama’s policies, many of us project our hopes and fears. Many opponents of the neoconservative agenda supported the Obama candidacy based on his opposition to the invasion of Iraq, stated willingness to dialogue with Iran and Syria, and apparent commitment to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Compared to the ideologues and fanatics who were recently in charge of U.S. diplomacy, Obama has seemed a staunch member of the antiwar camp. This explains much of the enthusiasm that he garnered among antiwar bloggers during the Democratic primaries, when he challenged then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, who had voted in favor of the congressional resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq.

But there is a certain element of wishful thinking in this image of Obama. Obama’s earlier opposition to the Iraq War corresponded to the constituency he represented as an Illinois State Senator. But he never proposed that his position on Iraq was grounded in any leftwing or progressive anti-interventionist principles. Instead, he reiterated several times during the campaign that he respected the realpolitik types who were responsible for the more traditional diplomacy of the first President Bush. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reports Obama consulted with one of these realist luminaries, former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft, about his foreign policy picks for the new administration.

Some hopes of progressive and libertarian antiwar activists were already dashed when Obama announced he would retain Robert Gates as defense secretary, and nominate Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and retired General James Jones as his national security advisor. The non-interventionists’s mood was probably not improved after reading reports about the potential role that former Clinton administration aides like Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, or Richard Holbrooke — known for their pro-interventionist approaches — might play in the administration.

Indeed, those of us who were hoping, wishing, and praying for the making of a new U.S. foreign policy paradigm — that would disengage militarily from the Middle East, end the special relationship with Israel, withdraw from NATO, terminate military pacts with Japan and South Korea, and take a less belligerent approach towards Russia—were bound to be disappointed by many of Obama’s selections for his foreign policy team.

Stephen Zunes, in Huffington Post, calls Hollbrooke an insensitive choice.

In the late 1970s, Holbrooke served as assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. In this position, he played a major role in formulating the Carter administration's support for Indonesia's occupation of East Timor and the bloody counterinsurgency campaign responsible for up to a quarter-million civilian deaths.

Having successfully pushed for a dramatic increase in U.S. military aid to the Suharto dictatorship, he then engaged in a cover-up of the Indonesian atrocities. He testified before Congress in 1979 that the mass starvation wasn't the fault of the scorched-earth campaign by Indonesian forces in the island nation's richest agricultural areas, but simply a legacy of Portuguese colonial neglect.

Later, in reference to his friend Paul Wolfowitz, then the U.S. ambassador to Indonesia, Holbrooke described how "Paul and I have been in frequent touch to make sure that we keep [East Timor] out of the presidential campaign, where it would do no good to American or Indonesian interests."

In a particularly notorious episode while heading the State Department's East Asia division, Holbrooke convinced Carter to release South Korean troops under U.S. command in order to suppress a pro-democracy uprising in the city of Kwangju. Holbrooke was among the Carter administration officials who reportedly gave the OK to General Chun Doo-hwan, who had recently seized control of the South Korean government in a military coup, to wipe out the pro-democracy rebels. Hundreds were killed.

He also convinced President Jimmy Carter to continue its military and economic support for the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines.

Ack! ::)