Author: Scott H

“National Security Mom” – Gina Bennett

For too long, Americans have been intimidated by TV “experts” who tell them why being “tough” is the only way to defeat terrorism. Gina M. Bennett begs to differ in a splendid little book, entitled National Security Mom: Why “Going Soft” Will Make America Strong.
With Professor Richard Kohn’s forward, I agree that “this is a book every citizen should read, and every government official ponder….” If only.
The deceptively simple premise of the book is that “everything I ever needed to know about securing our nation I learned as a child and practiced in parenting my own children.” The companion educational poster for the book is quite accessible even to elementary children.
Yet this is not mere lipstick from a pit-bull “hockey mom.” To the contrary, Gina Bennett doubles as a multi-tasking mother of five children and a distinguished government analyst of terrorism. As far back as 1993, Bennett was presciently warning of a growing threat from Osama Bin Laden.
More recently, she was the principal author of the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the U.S.” The boldness of that report is matched by the delightful wisdom found in this slender volume.
I also am happy to note that Gina Bennett is a University of Virginia graduate, and we share the same mentor, in R.K. Ramazani, who helped instill in both of us a devotion to the principles of the University’s founder, Thomas Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson and the Professor will both be impressed.
So too is Oprah. Gina was recently featured as a model “superwoman” on the Oprah Winfrey show, a much deserved accolade.
Bennett writes first to fellow parents, offering hope, encouragement, and courage to believe that the key to national security is within them. She finds much national security wisdom in the guidance good parents give to their children, such as:

“clean up your own mess,” (e.g. Iraq)
“tell the truth,” (no, really!)
“actions speak louder than words,” (think Abu Ghuyraib, Guantanmo, torture, renditions, etc.)
“don’t give in to a bully,” (To defeat him, ignore him)
“choose your friends wisely,” (you’ll be judged by their actions… “Think for yourself.”)
“learn from your mistakes,” (e.g., surrendering our own values)
“think before you speak.” (or don’t speak at all…. )

Bennett encourages us “to think about our nation’s security in very different terms from the way it is typically depicted,” by de-mystifying the issues in a jargon-free manner.

Continue reading ““National Security Mom” – Gina Bennett”

Happy Yalda

Happy Yalda! Many Iranian friends make a fun festival out of this longest of nights, the winter solstice. While the traditions are ancient, the term “Yalda” or “new birth” ironically came to Sassanian Persia via Christians fleeing Roman persecution.
In recent years in America, as I pondered how we abandoned our core values, I would send private “Yalda greetings,” with an unusual night photo of Monticello, Thomas Jefferson’s home. (see extension) On such metaphorically dark political nights, I took comfort with John Adams, who on the very day that both he and Jefferson died, July 4th, 1826, remarked:

“Jefferson lives.”

This year, I have a sense of hope, that the latest “reign of witches” in America might soon be over.
So I’ll give a different emphasis in my Yalda greetings this year, borrowing a line from this IRNA description of the Yalda traditions:

Because Yalda is the longest and darkest night, it has happened to symbolize many things in Persian poetry; separation from a loved one, loneliness and waiting.

After Yalda a transformation takes place — the waiting is over, light shines and goodness prevails.

Sounds like a plan.

Continue reading “Happy Yalda”

Rafsanjani: Embassy “should not have been taken.”

In reviewing Iranian reactions to the Obama election and emerging team, I came across a recently translated report of comments made by Iran’s still influential Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani on November 4th — on the anniversary of takeover of the US Embassy by Iranian students in 1979. Ordinarily, such days are filled with chants of “Marg Bar Amrika” (death to America).
Yet on this occasion, 29 years later, Rafsanjani, son of the revolution, flatly questions the taking of the Embassy as a mistake.

Continue reading “Rafsanjani: Embassy “should not have been taken.””

Thinking of My Son the Lieutenant

(This is Scott writing…. and reflecting)
It’s been a month since I last saw my son Keith, at a dinner where we said our farewells. I miss him; I am concerned for him. It’s taken me too long to write about this.
My angst comes in knowing he leaves for Iraq soon. As I’ve noted here before, my son Keith is an officer in the Virginia National Guard. His engineering unit is now in final preparations in chilly Wisconsin. He will be leaving soon and directly for Iraq, part of a region I’ve dedicated my own career to studying.
No, I don’t want him to go, not under these circumstances. I’m not like Governor Sarah Palin, who last June proclaimed from a church pulpit how her son going to Iraq was somehow “a task from God.” I think too highly of Providence to be so presumptuous. My prayers for Keith are more modest, and, for the moment, private.
The day after 9/11, Keith volunteered to serve his University’s rescue squad. He joined ROTC and earned a scholarship. Not a path I would have chosen. My late father, once a West Pointer, would smile. From all accounts, Keith is today a good officer; he feels honored to be doing his duty.
We see the Iraq war rather differently. Yet our recent conversations and our last dinner were not to be about the cause, but about… Keith and his family. I was speechless; still am.
Helena at the time helpfully reassured me that “for Quakers, being speechless is our most common and usually deepest form of spiritual connection.” I like that. Just being with Keith, his wife, and my grand-daughter was precious. (Jessica is the one who so kindly delayed her birth until my birthday – 9/11 – last year. She’s an angel, just now learning to walk.).
Yes, I did manage to talk a bit, listened hopefully a lot more.
My son is an engineer in training, with a focus on bridge building. (for VDOT) If only he could be doing that for Iraq! I gather his unit will be engaged in “horizontal construction.” (roads & such) I wonder just why it is that Iraqis could not perform such tasks. It seems “trust” remains in short supply.
At a family briefing day in September, I was struck that most of the speakers inserted quick lines to the soldiers about “how much we appreciate your service” — without quite mentioning what it was they were to be doing. We were mercifully spared any of the Bushisms about a “war on terror” and undefined hoo-ahs about “victory.”
We were there vaguely as “a band of families,” even as we are dispersed up and down the east coast. Most Guard member families are isolated; I doubt my son’s neighbors in Augusta County even know he’s been deployed.
Like Vice President elect Joe Biden, when speaking about his son, I wanted – and tried – to tell Keith I am proud of him, that I admire his courage, that I can celebrate his maturity, his achievements in his own right, that I know he will make good decisions, that he is a good leader
Maybe I didn’t get that all out quite right; I had lump-in-throat disorder.
When Keith was told that his former middle school was asking about what they could do for him, what things they could send, Keith at first was a bit defensive. As his unit’s executive officer, he takes pride in making sure his troops are well supplied. (Think Radar — as a Lieutenant!)
But then he swallowed hard and asked quite earnestly that any care packages be sent to his daughter — Jessica — that she gets extra love and attention while Daddy is away….
In that sentiment, I could not be prouder of my son. I salute you Keith.

“The Reign of Witches” ending.

210 years ago on June 4th, Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Taylor, with words of wisdom that speak as clearly to recent ills as to Jefferson’s day. Jefferson then was worried that American had abandoned its principles, most egregiously in the “Alien & Sedition Acts,” that America was in danger of being torn to shreds by foreign entanglements and wars. Jefferson was fearful for his own freedom to criticize such things openly, and implored Taylor not to let a single sentence be “got hold of by the Porcupines” who would use them to “abuse & persecute me in their papers for months.” (think Murdoch media, 18th century style)
Yet Jefferson remained the optimist in that dark hour:

A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to it’s true principles. It is true that in the mean time we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war & long oppressions of enormous public debt…. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, & then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are the stake. Better luck, therefore, to us all; and health, happiness, & friendly salutations to yourself.

Just over two years after penning these words, Jefferson was elected America’s third president, amid a stark election that historian’s today characterize as Jefferson’s second revolution.
This lesson hardly is meant as a partisan invocation of Jefferson. Our Republican friends must be thinking long and hard about where and how the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower had gone so far off course, how principles both “republican” (as Jefferson used the term) and “American” could have been so cavalierly abandoned.
“Better luck” to us all indeed, in reclaiming the best principles of what it means to be America.

Bachman-Palin Overdrive (BPO)

Rookie Congressperson Michele Bachman is making quite a Palin-esque name for herself. On Thursday, Palin in North Carolina foolishly gushed over how she loved appearing in “pro-American” parts of the country.. A day later on MSNBC, Bachman one-upped Palin in calling for an investigation of legislative colleagues who, like Senator Obama, are somehow “anti-American.”
Bachman is from Minnesota. Joe McCarthy was from Wisconsin. :-} Sam Stein makes the “un-American” connections and provides the video evidence over at Huffington Post.
Bachman today tried to tone down her outrageous blather. She ought to; if she survives her re-election, she could face censure in the House.
Two years ago, when Bachman was running for Congress, she had this to say about her campaign before a Minnesota Church:

God then called me to run for the United States Congress, and I thought “What in the world will that be for?”… Who in their right mind would spend 2 years to run for a job that lasts 2 years? You’d have to be absolutely a fool to do that. You are now looking at a fool for Christ. This is a fool for Christ…..

22 years ago, Bachman graduated from the Oral Roberts University Law School. (back before it closed and Pat Robertson bought it) Among the ORU law professors there then was one Anita Hill. (think Clarence Thomas).
I’ve got nothing against people of faith and convictions entering the public square – I welcome it. Ironically, Bachman first entered politics as a campaign worker for a Baptist Sunday School teacher then running for President — one Jimmy Carter.
Carter’s campaign book, “Why Not the Best,” might be worth re-reading in evangelical circles. Instead of invoking the mindless martyr-seeking business about being “foolish” for one’s faith, why not try a really daring concept — say, as in aiming to be “brilliant for Christ,” a “light” into the darkness?
*****
Update: A Minnesota publisher friend in Bachman’s district has kindly alerted me that Bachman’s opponent, Elwyn Tinklenberg, is a Methodist minister by background. Trailing until recently, Bachman’s MSNBC gaffes have done wonders for his campaign coffers. (see comments for more)

Thunder on the Right: Noonan, Buckley, etc.

Colin Powell just endorsed Obama for President. George W. Bush’s former Secretary of State says he was concerned by the intense negativity of the McCain campaign and by the Sarah Palin factor. He also gives a hoot about America’s “place in the world.” Deeming Obama a “transformational figure,” he anticipated he will be well suited to “reach out to the world.” Very Jeffersonian observation.
Powell follows a growing list of disenchanted voices on the “right” who have been been issuing pointed broadsides against their presumed side in 2008 politics. Consider recent stunning examples:
1. Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, in her latest Wall Street Journal column, Palin’s Failin’, excoriates this year’s discourse in a thinly veiled condemnation of the Republican strategy:

“More than ever on the campaign trail, the candidates are dropping their G’s. Hardworkin’ families are strainin’ and tryin’a get ahead. It’s not only Sarah Palin but Mr. McCain, too, occasionally Mr. Obama, and, of course, George W. Bush when he darts out like the bird in a cuckoo clock to tell us we are in crisis. All of the candidates say “mom and dad”: “our moms and dads who are struggling. This is Mr. Bush’s former communications adviser Karen Hughes’s contribution to our democratic life, that you cannot speak like an adult in politics now, that’s too austere and detached, snobby. No one can say mothers and fathers, it’s all now the faux down-home, patronizing—and infantilizing—moms and dads. Do politicians ever remember that in a nation obsessed with politics, our children—sorry, our kids—look to political figures for a model as to how adults sound?

Noonan lamely claims McCain won the third debate, but then launches into a devastating assessment of his running mate:

“[W]e have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office…. She doesn’t think aloud. She just . . . says things…. [S]he has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn’t, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine….”

I hazard noting that while Palin revels in being a “hockey mom,” she ends up sounding all-too “hokey.”

“In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It’s no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.”

2. Meanwhile, at The National Review, the once conservative “bible” founded by the late William F. Buckley, the earth has split open. First, columnist Kathleen Parker was so horrified by Palin (“If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself”) that she urged her to save face for McCain and withdraw from the ticket.

Continue reading “Thunder on the Right: Noonan, Buckley, etc.”

A “crude” question about gas prices

With Alaska’s governor still proclaiming her dubious energy expertise, I was disappointed that she was not asked to explain the following simple, if “crude” question: With crude oil prices now between a 35 and 40% less than they were back in the summer, why are gasoline prices barely off 10% from their summer peaks?
To be more specific, crude oil futures have fallen from close to $150 a barrel to between $90 and 94 per barrel, while US gasoline prices have dropped on average from just over $4 per gallon to around $3.63. Curiously, spot gasoline is now below $3.00 in Kansas and Oklahoma, while remaining at around $4.00 in Georgia. (the latter ostensibly related to refinery issues)
Naturally, the very Wall Street brokerage firms (Merrill Lynch especially) that had been hyping energy futures to the moon are now either bankrupt or transmogrified into “banks.” The massive speculative money that drove crude prices through the roof is now largely gone, as are the all-too-related, if breathless, warnings that the Israelis were about to emulate Senator McCain and “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” Speaking of which, where’s that ING analyst who early last year proclaimed that energy prices were not as tied to the health of western economies as they once were, and that any shock felt by an actual war with Iran would be insignificant?
Most of the remaining oil “analysts” on CNBC are yet again hawking their current trading position — to the downside, of crude oil prices falling further, even below $80 a barrel. As Helena noted previously, AIPAC even lost a rare one in congress last week; — no uniltaral economic blockades for the moment of Iran — adding to the “bearish” overhang on energy prices.
This could be good news for consumers, and (gas-p) for the economy. But gasoline prices remain stubbornly high. And the media doesn’t notice. It’s a political softball waiting for someone to hit.

Cellular Surprise for Political Polling?

Even as we enjoy new capabilities for gauging political opinion around the world, a nagging technology development haunts opinion polling here in the USA. The uncertainty suggests room for “surprises” come November.
Americans are increasingly ditching conventional telephones in favor of “cellular” and “internet phone” options. (“skype,” vonage, etc.) 15% or more of the American voting population now uses cellular phones only. The trend away from land lines may be accelerating, now that major telecommunications carriers (like Verizon) permit customers to sign up for DSL (or FiOS) without having a conventional phone line.
Pollster are aware of the potential problems, but most polling has shied away from sampling cellular-only citizens. Why? Practically, it’s considerably more expensive. First, there’s the difficulty of accessing cell phone listings. Second, regulations forbid automated calling of cell numbers. Then too, what does a statistician do with those who keep their old cell phone numbers when they move to new locations? And most disconcerting, how do you convince someone to stay on the line to answer a survey, when that person may be paying 25-50 cents per minute for the call? Answer: — you have to compensate them. (assuming subjects don’t hang-up first!)
How do pollsters rationalize excluding 15% of the population? I gather that received wisdom deems the sampling problem to be theoretical — that is, of no consequence, a “wash.”
Yet we do have new data suggesting otherwise. Consider a recent Pew Research Center for the People & the Press analysis of three Pew presidential surveys that included cellular sampling:

In each of the surveys, there were only small, and not statistically significant, differences between presidential horserace estimates based on the combined interviews and estimates based on the landline surveys only. Yet a virtually identical pattern is seen across all three surveys: In each case, including cell phone interviews resulted in slightly more support for Obama and slightly less for McCain, a consistent difference of two-to-three points in the margin.

I’m not quite squaring the phrase “not statistically significant” with “virtually identical pattern.” Furthermore, the study observes:

in each of the three polls, the cell-only respondents were significantly more supportive of Obama (by 10-to-15 percentage points) than respondents in the landline sample. For example, in the September survey Obama led McCain by a 55%-to-36% margin among cell only voters, but the candidates were tied at 45% in the landline sample.

Pew isolates “age” as the explanation for this considerable difference: “In large part, this reflects the fact that a substantial minority of the cell-only sample is younger than 30 – a demographic group that has consistently backed Obama this year.”
If I were a pollster, I’d be starting to sweat. Some firms apparently are debating “adjustments” to account for the youth/cell factor – the one that supposedly is not yet “statistically significant.” (If any jwn readers can explain that solution in “plain english,” please chime in.)
By way of disclosure, I’m about to cancel my own land-line. I’m the last hold-out in my family. While I too am tired of the daily push-poll calls from this or that candidate (another subject!), my motivation is personal – I’m getting even with Sprint/Embarq for never delivering dsl. If the pollsters want to find me, they’ll have to call my unlisted cell.

Arlington Memorial Disgrace

Today’s NYTimes editorial, Witnessing the War Dead, From Afar tears rather deeply at me (sh). No, I’ve never been a fan of this Iraq war and occupation. Alas, I have a son soon enough on his way there.
So excuse me if I don’t quite contain my angst at yet another effort to shroud the costs of the Iraq war — by keeping the media far away from funeral ceremonies at Arlington Cemetery.

The muting of bad war news, which started at the Pentagon, is now an issue as well at Arlington National Cemetery. A public affairs director at the cemetery was recently fired after complaining that rules were tightened to isolate the media 50 yards away — well beyond the point at which news organizations could hear, never mind photograph or videotape, burial ceremonies.

I’m all for decorum, respect, honor, etc. The Pentagon says it is following the wishes of the families. But what of those families who do wish to share their moment of supreme trial? Are they now being coached to stay anonymous, to treat the media, to treat their fellow citizens as “the enemy?” Sure looks that way.
If I’m ever, heaven forbid, faced with this cup, I say in advance….
Dear God, I can’t….
But I can say this. Not all of the media will be welcome. To Michael R. Gordon, the “next Judith Miller,” who continues his under-handed campaign to drum up public sentiment for another war, this time with Iran…. he and his ilk would not be welcome.