Archive for May, 2008

Obama is naive

May 23, 2008

Good NY Times op-ed today about Obama’s recent short-sighted foreign policy comments. I’ll just put the whole thing below.. and don’t you click away! It’s both short and important. Be an informed citizen for a change and read it.

Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed

Published: May 22, 2008

IN his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy expressed in two eloquent sentences, often invoked by Barack Obama, a policy that turned out to be one of his presidency’s — indeed one of the cold war’s — most consequential: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Kennedy’s special assistant, called those sentences “the distinctive note” of the inaugural.

They have also been a distinctive note in Senator Obama’s campaign, and were made even more prominent last week when President Bush, in a speech to Israel’s Parliament, disparaged a willingness to negotiate with America’s adversaries as appeasement. Senator Obama defended his position by again enlisting Kennedy’s legacy: “If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.”

But Kennedy’s one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one’s adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings — his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” — he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.

Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”

But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.

Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

Kennedy’s assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the “roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy went on: “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.”

A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.

If Barack Obama wants to follow in Kennedy’s footsteps, he should heed the lesson that Kennedy learned in his first year in office: sometimes there is good reason to fear to negotiate.

Nathan Thrall is a journalist. Jesse James Wilkins is a doctoral candidate in political science at Columbia.

Went to Narnia and all I got was this crummy “Got Aslan?” t-shirt

May 22, 2008

Saw Prince Caspian this past weekend. I’ll share some thoughts on it below, but first I thought I’d follow up on another post I made in reference to the Planet Narnia book by Dr. Michael Ward. Hugh Hewitt had the author on his show (click “listen now” and then go forward about 10 minutes) a couple weeks ago.

Fascinating stuff. Anyway, on to the film.

First thing I noticed about the film: the kids’ acting was much improved. They were pretty ho hum in the first movie. Not terrible by any means, but they did remind me of watching the old BBC Narnia films (except, you know, they weren’t ugly).

Second thing I notice: the changes from the book, and the fact that, surprisingly, they didn’t bug me at all! I was amazed. Except for Caspian and Susan making googley eyes at each other (LAME and unnecessary), I thought some of the ideas were in the spirit of the book and worked well- much better than, say, completely destroying the character of Faramir beyond all recognition in The Two Towers (the more time goes by, the more I just hate that Jackson et al made that decision- it was completely unnecessary and made NO sense in the movie).

I enjoyed this one WAY more than the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. I have several friends that will hate me for saying so, butI thought the first one was just stupid awful. I really can’t stand it. And this is very odd, because I have always thought that Caspian is by far the worst story of the series, and Lion is probably the second best (after The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, of course).

However, improved does not mean great. It had its problems. Some of these Narnia movies will need to be PG-13 to be able to show the things on screen that need to be shown (I’m thinking of The Silver Chair and The Last Battle primarily), and this one definitely suffered from the PG rating. A movie such as this one, based primarily on 2 large scale, sword and archery waged battles simply does not have the realistic feeling it desperately needs to make you interested in the fate of the characters. Not only that, but Aslan is supposed to be scary in this story. And he most definitely is NOT. I mean, I know that marketing wise it would probably be suicide to churn out seven PG-13 narnia flicks (or even 3 of them), but parents let their kids see rough stuff all time if the parents consider it to have merit. A good example is Saving Private Ryan or Schindler’s List; graphically disturbing R rated movies to be sure, but I know very conservative Christian parents who have no problem letting their older (14ish age) kids watch them because they are meaningful and beneficial films to watch. On a much lesser violent scale, the Narnia movies could have been equally valuable to younger kids. These movies are just too fluffy and cute, and as a result lose the real meaning behind them. The redemption story in Lion was weak. And this story, which is supposed to be about the power and might of Aslan and the nature of a relationship with him in the world of Narnia, has been rendered powerless. Which brings me to the other major problem I am having with these films: Aslan himself.

Now, Liam Neeson doesn’t work as Aslan for me at all, but that’s not the only or even the primary reason Aslan has so far been a failure. The Aslan of the films is not powerful. He is not majestic, fearsome, mighty, mysterious or holy. He is just sort of big and fluffy, and roars now and then. There is no inspiration of awe. When watching Aslan, you are supposed to be thinking, “If I inhabited that fantasy world, I would be drawn to Aslan- I would love him, fear him, and worship him.” Can anyone honestly say this about the portrayal of the Great Lion in the Narnia films? Now, I know this is a monumental task. But so is building a road, and if someone built a road that didn’t go anywhere (much like these films seem to be doing), I’d still complain to them. Loudly.

I really want for these films to be good- truly I do. I don’t get off on being negative and raining on everyone’s parade. I would much rather be able to get 10 times as excited about the next Narnia flick as I am about the next Spiderman, Harry Potter, or Batman. But based on what we have seen so far, I can’t.

I will say, though, that the improvements over the first one are substantial and I am holding out some hope that my favorite of the books- The Voyage of the Dawn Treader- will be the one where all the lessons have been learned, and we really get to immerse ourselves in the world Lewis (NOT Andrew Adamson!) created.

We’ll see. To sum up: overall not a bad effort, especially considering this is probably (in my opinion) the weakest book of the entire series.

Out you go, little buckaroo.

May 16, 2008

Today my land lord calls and informs me that I have 2 weeks to find a new place to live.

Soooo…. if anybody has something available, please give me a call or drop me an email. Thanks.

McCain’s #1 advantage?

May 5, 2008

Bill Bennett just said on his talk show that McCain’s #1 advantage in the general election is going to be that people who like him the least- people like me- will vote for him anyway. The implication is that people who don’t like Hillary will not vote for her, nor will Obama’s biggest detractors vote for him.

This would be nice if correct- but is this true though? First of all, I know lots of libertarian types who will never vote for McCain. However, I realize that this group represents a small fraction of the folks McCain needs to win over, and anyway, these same people wouldn’t vote for Hillary or Obama, either. Bennett is probably right about the majority of people who don’t care for McCain: the most conservative, townhall worldnetdaily dot commers. It’s certainly true of me. However there is a good chunk of folks- the ones Obama would probably refer to as bitter and clingy- who care very little for his positions on immigration and will absolutely stay home. How many of these are there?

Then there’s the other side of the comment. It is obvious that Obama supporters very much lack depth of vision and critical thinking- so it is not surprising to me that they would not vote for Hillary. Would they vote for the pro Iraq war McCain? On the surface it is tempting to say, “of course not; they’re anti war.” However I can name at least 3 people who I know personally that have told me directly they will vote McCain if Obama does not get the nomination. This makes absolutely no sense- but as I said, we’re talking about Obama supporters. Sense doesn’t enter into the equation. There is also the race aspect. Obama of course has incredibly high number among blacks, and those folks will be extremely upset of Hillary is perceived to have stolen the nomination from Obama via the super delegates.

Will Hill Rod supporters vote Obama in the general? I can’t intelligently comment on this one in a sweeping generalization; my sense is that it depends on why an individual is supporting Mrs. Clinton. Those folks who are part of the older, historically Democrat voting crowd, will definitely vote Obama. However, those Clinton supporters who worry about national security above issues such as abortion are likely to cross over to McCain. There’s lots of other issues that could push a person either way.

So, it seems to me that the only group who will not come out for McCain are those that are simply too angry at McCain about immigration issues to do so; the rest will get and and vote for him. Obama supporters by and large will NOT vote for Hillary, and Hillary supporters might get split right down the middle. Based on this analysis, I think Bennett’s comment is an accurate one; but is it a more important factor in a McCain vs Mrs. Clinton or a McCain vs. Obama race? I believe that it may actually be more instrumental in a McCain v Obama race. While Obama supporters will simply stay home if faced with a choice between McCain and Clinton, many Clinton supporters will cross over and give McCain a distinct advantage in a race against Obama.  This is of course assuming that my anecdotal example of friends of mine who like Obama crossing over to vote McCain is not indicative of a larger trend- which it may be for all I know.

Based on this analysis, it’s my opinion that Obama is definitely the candidate to root for if you are a conservative-leaning voter, but more than that it is important that the Democratic primary process becomes as long and drawn-out as possible.  For this reason, I’m rooting for Hillary to win both North Carolina and Indiana this week; not because I think she’ll be easier to beat in the general, just because the longer the dems argue and fight each other, the better it is for McCain (and by extension, the better it is for America).

Facebook is serious business!

May 4, 2008

Obama De-friends Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Facebook:

In an act that campaign insiders said indicated an irrevocable break with his former pastor, Sen. Barack Obama today de-friended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Facebook.

Sen. Obama’s comments about Rev. Wright on Tuesday seemed to indicate that a total rift with his former minister was underway, but his decision to de-friend Rev. Wright on Facebook underscores the seriousness of his decision.

At a press conference in Gary, Indiana, chief Obama strategist David Axelrod said that Sen. Obama had to de-friend the Rev. Wright on Facebook “because he was getting really annoying.”

“Every day, Rev. Wright was sending Sen. Obama new Facebook applications like ‘What Superhero Are You?’ and ‘What 1980’s Toy Are You?’” Mr. Axelrod said. “After awhile, enough is enough.”

Rev. Wright, who was the commencement speaker today at Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Clown College in Sarasota, Florida, made no reference to Sen. Obama, instead saying that the United States government “is plotting to invade the Moon.”

On CNN, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean expressed fears that if the primary campaign drags on much longer, “there may not be enough room under the bus for the candidates to throw their aides.”

With Sen.Obama having thrown Rev. Wright and Samantha Power under the bus, and Sen. Clinton having thrown Geraldine Ferraro, Patti Solis Doyle, and Mark Penn under the bus, “we may need an additional bus,” Mr. Dean said.

Another one for the summer reading list: Climate Confusion

May 1, 2008

If you believe in probable catastrophic global climate change, you should think about reading at least one book in opposition to your opinion. And I have a suggestion for that book.

Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, by former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, Roy Spencer.

Thank you Dennis Prager for having him on your show today.