Round-up

1) John B. Judis, "Debt Man Walking", The New Republic: A synopsis of America's debt problem in light of the international global economy - ie, "Breton Woods II".

2) Lexington, "Ship of fools", Economist: This publication, which can hardly be conspiratorialy characterized as a member of the 'liberal media', sharply criticizes the Republican Party's contempt for intelligensia.

3) Blake Hounshell, "One oddity about the al Qaeda tape", Foreign Policy: Al Qaeda shows its racist streak, which isn't limited to Jews.

4) Harold Meyerson, "A Job for Henry Waxman", Washington Post: An argument in favor of Henry Waxman as the new chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee.

Something from a movie

Vladimir Putin's remarks after finding out that Mechel, Russia's biggest steel producer, run by Igor Zyunzin, has been charging its domestic customers more than its foreign ones seem like something from a Hollywood mofia movie, especially the comment about getting Zyunzin a doctor (IHT).

One-size-fits-all ideology

Jonathan Chait dissects Naomi Klein's one-size-fits-all answer to the world's ills (TNR). The picture Chait paints is far from flattering from the would-be heir to Noam Chomsky. Several months ago, the NDP's Leslie Campbell offered a scathing critique, attacking the foundation of Klein's ideology (LRC).

Lazy Journalism: the flip-flop trap

I grow increasingly cynical of the news media these days when it comes to superficial coverage. I’m tired of the claim, counter-claim reporting. Where’s the analysis? It’s not enough, and in some cases, ethical to simply repeat a statement. Moreover, I grow weary of another form of superficial journalism – the go-to-crutch of political commentary – the ‘flip-flop’.

Ruth Marcus is right. Not every shift in policy equates to a ‘flip-flop’, much less a one-size-fits-all transgression. A shift may come as a result of changing circumstances or signal pragmatic considerations. It may even suggest open-mindedness, where a political actor changes his or her mind. In some cases, a political actor is accused of ‘flip-flopping’ based on a shift in tone as opposed to actual policy (TNR).

Our news sources continue to let us down. Yesterday’s editorial in the G&M, entitled “The quest for the middle”, exemplifies such superficial journalism. There is no discussion, much less analysis, on the practical concerns surrounding the new FISA bill and Telco immunity, for example (Wes Alwan).

It’s simply easier to reinforce the ‘conventional wisdom’ than to actually do some analysis.

Misrepresentation: A Door to Fraud

Alex Ely picks up on a couple BBC stories on conmen who “pose as sports agents and dupe young, would-be soccer players” in Africa (FP Passport). Ely then quotes Sepp Blatter, President of FIFA, in order to make his/her point:

European clubs are often the subjects of the wildest dreams of young African soccer players. They have a responsibility to see that these dreams are not abused by criminals.

It should go without saying: creating false pretenses and misrepresentations is and will always be central to the practice of fraud. Moreover, fraudsters tend to target the most vulnerable members of society by exploiting the hope of desperate people – from miracle cancer cures to escaping poverty with potentially lucrative signing or football career. What changes is the method.*

I don’t agree with Ely, here. I’m not ready to put the ‘responsibility’ of fighting fraud squarely on the shoulders of those who are having their names misused as part of a hoax. Arguably there is a moral obligation to take action to prevent fraud from being committed in your name. However, the matter of fraud not only harms the one being defrauded, but also deprives the person or place whose name is being misused from the goodwill normally associated with them. Ely’s quip is incomplete.

* … and sometimes who. Some very lucrative fraud schemes in North America defrauded people who still have no idea that they’ve been duped (ftc.gov).

Continuing Conversation

Archbishop Fred Hiltz relies upon a tried and true cliché – ‘continuing conversation’ – in his opinion piece about same-sex marriage and the 2008 Lambeth Conference this morning (G&M). However, just because it’s cliché does not mean I don’t put any stock in it. To the contrary, in my personal experience, there are the ‘believers’ who focus largely on destination, and those whose priorities center around deliberative process, along with the many shades in between.

As a matter of personal preference in my struggles with faith, I’d rather go through doubt whether I’m truly on God’s side instead of being sure that He’s on mine.

Some Self-Criticism Please: Canadian Health Care

In a bizarre turn of events, an off-handed comment I made about waiting 2-4 months for an MRI, and another 6-8 months to have the surgery for my knee, sparked a heated debate about Canadian health care with two people I had recently met. Aside from learning that I apparently make a bad, or at least controversial, first impression, I realized that I generally have three points I like to make about Canadian health care.

1. A significant number of Canadians are dreadfully ignorant and misinformed about how health care systems operate in Canada.

2. These health care systems are flawed.

3. We are terribly reluctant to admit the first two points, especially the second, because for some reason, many Canadians attach a national identity to health care.

This last point is what irks me. (a) It seems terribly dubious to attach one’s identity to a service, which is partially covered by the government. (b) By identifying flaws in the system, one’s patriotism is often called into question. And (c) we could use some self-criticism in Canada without immediately drawing upon reflexive and ultimately irrelevant comparisons with the US.

Strange Optics: Abortion in Canada

The most frustrating aspect of controversial public policy debate, such as abortion, is that the extremes tend to dominate the framing of the debate. The controversy over Henry Morgentaler’s Order of Canada demonstrates this unfortunate phenomenon, which Reginald Stackhouse captures nicely (G&M):

Fundamental to the argument is the passion with which each side remains transfixed by loyalty to an unreal absolute – life or choice.

In the eyes of anti-abortionists, Dr. Morgentaler is still the Great Satan because they see him unilaterally ignoring the sanctity of human life, including a fetus. Why is that irrational? Because they otherwise passively accept the state's right to take human life if it serves the state's legitimate purpose. So they condone police officers being given authority under certain conditions to take a life. They are passive when Canadian soldiers kill not only Taliban terrorists but Afghan civilians when bombs are dropped from the air.

“Pro-life” thus means protecting the life of the unborn, but not always the life of the born. Yet, being pro-choice is no more rational, regardless of how sophisticated and articulate its champions are.

Basic to their case is commitment to a woman's having unconditional freedom to choose whether she will proceed with an abortion. In a democratic society, that could appeal to any of us except for its being grounded in the same shifting sands of their “pro-life” opponents.

Their appeal for an absolute freedom of choice ignores how no one has a right to that freedom if we want the basic social order that makes a civilized society possible. Those who argue the “pro-choice” line ignore how they – like the rest of us – have to accept limits on our freedom to choose all the time. None of us, for example, is free to disseminate “hate” propaganda. Nor to take “porn” pictures of children. Minors are protected against adult predators who would love the freedom to choose kids for sex instead of adults. In short, men and women have our freedom to choose truncated every day, all day. Why should society not have the right to legislate when and where abortions are licit and illicit?

These strange optics distract from important practical concerns – eg, laws affirming an abortion right (Ottawa Citizen); policies streamlining medical access; and denouncing horrible practices, such as late term abortions.

Of Interest

• Jeffery Goldberg discusses how Jewish leaders, such as Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, may not appear to be sufficiently pro-Israel to an American audience. When you’re half a world away from the conflict, it’s easier to draw absolutes and conflate individual issues with a ‘for or against’ position regarding Israel. The irony is as Goldberg observes, ‘unthinking support can hurt Israel’.

• George Packer outlines the rise and fall of the modern Republican brand (The New Yorker).

Why does the Wall Street Journal Hate America?

Scott Horton questions the WSJ’s respect for “the men and women in uniform who run [America’s] military justice system” (Harper’s). Horton summarizes three broad issues related to the military tribunals in light of the Hamdan case: (1) timing, (2) political manipulation and (3) upholding military legal traditions. And he bolsters his argument by noting that a significant number of military lawyers questioned the military tribunal system as devised by the Bush administration.

All true. However, Horton over-stretches. Just because the WSJ criticizes a position that Horton holds, and happens to share with military lawyers, does not mean that the WSJ hates America. But then again, that’s Horton’s point – to demonstrate the bizarre logic employed by those who are quick to label others as America haters.

I find the WSJ’s strawman of “lawyers” against the military justice system rather disturbing. Obviously, there is no monolithic group of bloodsucking lawyers, who gain up to undermine American justice. Creating a fictitious adversary sure makes it easier to tear them down. However, this strawman disregards the actual principles in question, namely those of Anglo-American judicial values. Hopefully, the WSJ does not believe that we should readily dispense with these values for the sake of expediency.

Break

Well, my schedule has been rather hectic these past few months. And frankly, something had to give. As a result, my blogging has been sporadic at best, and non-existent for the past six weeks. Although I may not have the time to write as much as I previously did, I hope to flag articles that catch my eye and to offer analysis when possible.

Pakistan Paradox

Dennis Ross of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy offers some suggestions to the next President of the United States on how to address “the Pakistan paradox” (TNR). There are multiple layers of irony. It is no secret that Pakistani authorities often turned a blind eye to Taliban activity in the country’s border areas, namely the Waziristan region. Musharraf attempted to hedge his bets with conservative religious parties in these areas while cooperating the US and Nato allies. But the second twist is that the Awami National Party (ANP), which replaced Musharraf’s government in the last election, does not sympathize with al-Qaeda, opposing talks with the international terrorist organization. Rather, the ANP favours talking with local tribes.

So what is Ross’ advice?

One thing is for sure: There has been a change in Pakistan, and it is being driven by those who are emphasizing democratic processes and the rule of law. We should be on the right side of this. What's more, we have little choice. Pakistanis are moving in a direction that we cannot stop but should try to channel. That is common sense and good statecraft.

But as the Pakistanis make their decisions, they should also know that we have interests and stakes and will not be indifferent to what they do. Surely, for their own interests, they don't want those who employ terror and who are responsible for killing Benazir Bhutto to further entrench themselves. Separating the tribal groups from Al Qaeda and the Taliban is a strategy that could work if orchestrated effectively.

To be sure, the new Pakistani leadership might be tempted to cut a deal with Al Qaeda and the Taliban that would see them stop their attacks in Pakistan by permitting them to operate and plan attacks at our expense. We need to prevent that, and we probably can, if we are clear about our interests and needs. We should say that we will help provide financial and other means for their new strategy, assuming it is transparent. We should also repeat what Senator Barack Obama said last summer: If we get actionable intelligence about terror acts being prepared in these provinces of Pakistan and the Pakistanis won't act, we will.

Yoo’s Infamous Memoranda: a legal rubber-stamp for a political agenda

John Yoo’s infamous 2003 memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel at the US DOJ to the Pentagon has been declassified. In it, Yoo argues that certain federal laws do not apply to military interrogators in the war on terror. The Washington Post has divided it up into two parts:
Part 1 and Part 2.

I do not hold a degree from Harvard or Yale and I do not teach law at the University of California at Berkley. However, in my humble opinion, I think that Jack Goldsmith, who replaced Yoo, hit the nail on the head. This memo, along with its 2002 predecessor, stands out for “the unusual lack of care and sobriety in [the] legal analysis.” And this says nothing about the disastrous implications of these memoranda.

On that note, Scott Horton rightly questions the circumstances surrounding the “torture memoranda” (Harper’s). It appears that the OLC served as a rubber-stamp for the political agenda of the White House, namely Dick Cheney, and Rumsfeld’s lawyer, William J. (“Jim”) Haynes II. But more importantly, the memoranda offset the pushback coming from the more sober minded military officials (The New Yorkers).

Aside from the deplorable issue of torture itself, the bizarre relationship between the OLC and the White House demonstrates for a second time that the Bush administration is willing to use and has used the US DOJ as a political instrument. The first instance, off the top of my mind, was the DOJ firing scandal.

What happened to the rule of law?

N.B.: In speaking to Esquire magazine, Yoo attempts to minimize the impact of his legal opinions (via TPM Muckraker)

Al-Jazeera’s Anti-American Bias

According to the Associated Press, Dave Marash, former “Nightline” reporter, quit al-Jazeera “due in part to an anti-American bias”, which apparently stems “more from British administrators than Arabs” (IHT). Marash said that there was a “reflexive adversarial editorial stance” against Americans, which he found “became so stereotypical, so reflexive” that he got angry. He was the last American-accented anchor at the network, and supposedly more Canadians than Americans work at the Washington office.

Goofy Op-Ed Against Canada’s Recognition of Kosovo’s Independence

Scott Taylor argues that Canada should come to its senses, and withdraw its recognition of Kosovo’s independence (Embassy).

While I am more than willing to recognize well thought-out and articulate arguments against such recognition of independence, Taylor’s op-ed falls well short of the mark.

1) He insinuates that the Canadian government placates the Americans, regardless of the merits:

Canada sat on the fence for 30 days, but finally caved in to pressure from the U.S. State Department. So other than once again placating the Americans, what exactly has Canada achieved through this formal recognition of independence?

Let's start by taking the emotional issues off the table and examining the background.

Worse yet, the subsequent appeal to logic directly contradicts the preceding emotional jab at the U.S., ironically suggesting that his appeal to reason is insincere.

2) Taylor’s agreement that Quebec’s situation differs from Kosovo’s is seemingly disingenuous too. He makes the case that Kosovo remains dependent on foreign aid, which is true, while “Quebec is already far more independent than Kosovo can be”. The implication is that Quebec has more of an argument for separation than Kosovo regardless of recent history, genocide and oppression in the Balkans. As I’ve said before, here and here, this context makes a great deal of difference.

3) Finally, the author suggests that the true Kosovo flag resembles Albania’s, and not the “American-designed” flag. Presumably, Taylor thinks that the Kosovo flag should incorporate the eagle reflecting the prominence of ethnic Albanian Kosovars. However, I’m not quite sure why he felt compelled to add “American-designed” in order to make the point instead of stating it outright. I’m also curious why he fails to recognize the intent of Kosovo’s officials, namely Fadil Hysa, who said “We will not have the flag of any other country” (CSM).