Diagnosis: Damn Annoying

Psychologists call it "attention-seeking behavior." I call it damn annoying. I can't get a moment's peace in my own house because of my kids' boundless energy. All kids have energy compared to us old folks, I know, but with my kids, the spark plugs fire double time.

And of course, they can't just use up their energy interacting with each other, unless it is fighting. They insist on preventing me from doing anything but watching them perform.

Especially my oldest boy (9) . All day long, he insists, "watch this, mom." It is the mantra of the house. Watch him dance, jump, run, stand on his head, whatever. Goofy dances, obnoxious dances - I didn't even know dancing could be obnoxious until I saw him move! Then "Hey mom -" and a silly noise. Burps. Farts. Anything disgusting. Something to elicit a reaction, even just a rolling of the eyes. "Hey mom! Look at this! Look what I did! Look what's on TV! Look at this bug! Look what Youssef barfed up!"

My youngest (5) isn't so good at conversation.

But he is practicing, and practicing, and practicing. After all, practice makes perfect. Typical conversation:

Youssef: Mom, does Barack Obama know what I am doing right now?
Mom: No, he can't see you right now. so he can't know what you are doing.
Y: Where is Barack Obama?
M: He is in the White House.
Y: When can I go to the White House, so Barack Obama will know what I am doing? What day can we go?
M: I don't know, maybe in a year or two.
Y: What day mom? Can we go tomorrow?
M: No, you have school tomorrow.
Y: Which day? Tell me mom. What number -

(Raumsie interrupts)
R: Mom, watch this!! (does a dance)
Y: Stop Raumsie!!!! I was talking!!
R: (Laughing and dancing) Look mom! I'm a spaceman picking up dead bugs! (more weird dancing)
Y: (screeching) Raumsie!! Mom, Raumsie interruppid me! Tell him to stop!!
M: Raumsie, you did interrupt. Please wait your turn.
R: Just look mom. I'm a spaceman...
M: I'll look when Youssef is done.
OK Youssef, go on.

Y: What day can we go to the White House? What number do I have to count to?
M: It will be a long time.
Y: Can we go next week?
M: No, you have school next week, and we don't have airplane tickets. They cost a lot of money.
Y: I have three pennies. Is that enough?
M: No, that's not enough. It needs to be at least a thousand dollars for all of us.
Y: How many pennies is that? Is it three?
M: No it's a lot more than that.
Y: How many? ten?
M: No, probably a million.
Y: What's a million? What number do I count to?
M: A million.
Y: What does probably mean?
M: It means maybe.
Y: What does maybe mean?
M: Youssef, stop asking me questions.
R: (doing another, nearly identical silly dance) Mom, now I'm a robot shooting into outer space...

And so on.

My kids are sweet and lovable, but I thank the heavens above for every moment they sleep!!!

Iraq War 6 Years Later

Six years after the first bombs fell on Baghdad on March 19, 2003, the United States still finds itself enmeshed in Iraqi violence and politics. More than 4,000 US deaths and countless (and uncounted) thousands of Iraqi deaths later, billions of dollars spent and political capital lost, the US may finally be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

(Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths range from 150,000 to over a million. The US has refused to keep count.)

Maybe. If the shaky peace holds, Obama's plan and the SOFA are implemented, we could find ourselves militarily disengaged by 2010. However, the cost in lives, finances and political support are incalculable.

While the removal of a brutal dictator cannot be mourned as a loss, can we say that it has been worth it? For us, the American people? Most importantly, can the Iraqis say it has been worth it?

The Iraqis have paid the highest price: deaths in the hundreds of thousands, massive internal displacement and international refugee movements on the order of 4.7 million, and "failed state" status second only to Sudan and ahead of Somalia, according to Foreign Policy's 2007 Failed State Index. (In 2008, Iraq was ranked 5th.)

For those of us who had a pretty good idea before this whole thing started six years ago that Saddam was not a serious threat to the US, there is no satisfaction in saying "I told you so."

Why I am Angry at AIG

Yes, I usually write about international politics, but with the AIG bonus scandal dominating the headlines, I can't help but sound off. Congress hauled AIG chairman Edward Liddy in for a ritual flaying, though they were probably barking up the wrong tree. He was the poor soul hired to fix the mess at AIG and is working for a dollar a year. Nevertheless, public outrage was boiling over, and Congress had to vent. And vent it did:

"There's a tidal wave of rage throughout America," announced Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.). Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) called it a "travesty," Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) found AIG "morally reprehensible," Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) perceived "an insult," and Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) contributed the words "ridiculous" and "unconscionable."

And it got worse from there. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) charged AIG officials with "malfeasance," "violation of fiduciary duty," "arrogance" and "probably illegal" behavior.

"Do you have anything to say for yourself?" Lynch asked.

"I take offense, sir, at the use of --"

The congressman cut him off. "Well," Lynch said, "offense was intended, so you take it rightfully."(from Thursday's Washington Post)

Fallout from the bonus scandal has revolved around who knew what and when about the paying out of these bonuses. Congress is heading towards taxing the bonuses at something like 90 percent, spooking much of the financial sector in the process. But nobody is talking about the real scandal, the creation of the huge bubble in the financial sector by letting loose risky financial instruments in the market - completely unregulated. This is what led to the downfall of AIG in the first place. And now Congress claims innocence and outrage! But there are Congressional fingerprints all over this crisis.

The origins of the crisis can be found in the deregulation movement of the last 30 years. In particular, the Greenspan era was a time of pressing for deregulation of financial markets. After financial interests spent at least $5 billion lobbying Congress, a number of bills were passed overturning past regulations and prohibiting regulations on securities and derivatives. The fact that Congress felt the need to exempt these instruments from existing gambling and "bucket shop" laws suggests that there was an understanding that these financial instruments, which in fact resemble bets and led to the 1907 panic and stock market crash because of widespread speculation, are risky and illegal.

At the heart of the matter are mortgage securities and credit default swaps, a form of derivative (a financial instrument whose value is based on something else. It's basically a side bet) in which one "bets" on the success or failure of an enterprise, and pays out if it fails. (For great discussion of credit default swaps, see this article, and this two part series.) It acts as a form of insurance, but it isn't called insurance, or it would have to be regulated. Insurance providers are required to set aside a certain amount of money to cover potential losses, but in the case of swaps, there is no such requirement. As a result, when the market for mortgage securities began to perform poorly as the housing market fell, the credit default swaps backing these securities had to pay out. But the investment houses selling the swaps didn't have the money to pay off the obligations. They couldn't cover their "bets." AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, J.P. Morgan all fell victim to this problem.

Complicating matters is the fact that credit default swaps are not tracked - no one knows how large the market is, who owns them, what they cover, or if the money exists to pay them off. This uncertainty is part of the problem contributing to the banking crisis and putting a price on "toxic assets." Without transparency, people and institutions are reluctant to make transactions when there is a possibility that the "bets" won't be covered. As long as everyone paid their obligations, the system worked. Now no one wants to do business with one another for fear that the money to pay obligations won't be there later. Banks won't lend to one another, or to us, the average person. The bubble has contracted, but no one knows exactly how far.

So I don't share Congressional outrage - I am outraged at them for letting this happen to us. To me. And for hypocritically venting public rage on an issue so trivial as $218 million in bonuses, when the economy has lost billions of dollars and governments are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to jump-start our economy. And for diverting our attention from the real issue, fixing our economic and financial system so that our economy can grow again, safely.

The photo says it all

This photo, taken outside Jerusalem, is emblematic of the growing gap between Israeli settlers and indigenous Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. The straight, paved, wide road can only be used by Israeli settlers (often called a "bypass" road) while the narrow, winding road is used by Palestinians.


It is easy to see why commerce and transportation are made much harder by this sort of separation. This is the sort of regime that emerged during the "salad years" of the Oslo Accords. Supposedly, the interim treaty was supposed to make life better for both Israelis and Palestinians, but instead, Palestinians found that their land was still confiscated for settlements and bypass roads, their agricultural and industrial goods still barred from export, and the economy still stagnating. In fact, Israel's settler population grew by 40% and housing units in the West Bank increased by 52% between 1993 and 2000. Not surprisingly, Israelis found that their security did not improve.

Today, success in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism depends on good relations with Middle Eastern countries, who desperately want and need progress on Arab - Israeli peace. But how can we press for peace when the future Palestinian state is slowly eroding in the face of determined settlement activity? Both Israeli and American interests in the region rest on the answer to this question.

Picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/david55king/1293158394/

Air Travel is a Bovine Experience - Moooo

Writing from my Blackberry...

I'm off to my extended family home for a funeral. A sad occasion, but also a chance to see family and drink a bit. Had to leave home at 4am for the airport this morning. So now, that makes the time... sometime tomorrow, I think.

For the first time in ages, I'm traveling without kids. Without endless arguing, whining, very loud requests for snacks and to go to the bathroom. At least this time I didn't have to chase someone at top speed down the concourse, or destroy someone's spin on the baggage carousel.

I miss them anyway.

Such is the curse and blessing of parenthood.

Famous Last Words: Watch This Mom!

While my kids jump themselves silly on the trampoline (thank the heavens and stars for trampolines!!!) I can take a break and get my internet fix. It seems the buzz about Chas Freeman's withdrawal won't stop. The Washington Post published an editorial discrediting what is often called the “Israel Lobby” by painting it as a shadowy cabal of power-hungry leaders conspiring behind closed doors. However, Daniel Pipes himself reputedly crowed about the success of pro-Israeli elements, especially AIPAC's Steve Rosen, to start the momentum against Freeman.

What I see is a powerful lobby and its friends who can easily be seen as bearing much of the responsibility for Freeman's choice to withdraw. The paradox is that in getting what they want, the ouster of an unfriendly nominee for office, the pro-Israeli folks may have ended up giving support to those who argue that the “Israel Lobby” is indeed too powerful.

Update: Obama's Choice for Intelligence Post Withdraws

Obama's choice for chair of the National Intelligence Council withdrew today, raising questions about the Obama Administration's ability to stand up to what is called the “Israel Lobby.” Chas Freeman, a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, former Defense Department official under Reagan, and President of the Middle East Policy Council, was well regarded in intelligence and military circles. But he reputedly was insufficiently friendly to Israel and was guilty of making remarks that were regarded as critical of our ally and supportive of Palestinians and ending the occupation.

The National Intelligence Council is given the task of producing National Intelligence Estimates, the consensus estimates of the 16 US intelligence agencies. It was a hastily-produced NIE in 2002 that convinced Congress and many others that Iraq had WMD, especially nuclear weapons (or was close to producing them). Freeman's straight talking style reassured many, including Dan Froomkin, that an intelligence debacle like the one that occurred in 2002 and 2003 would not occur again. He has been described as a gadfly, speaking truth to power, and a “one man destroyer of groupthink,” exactly the kind of person you would want in this sort of position.

This brings up the question of how close to Israel should the United States be? Isn't a little tough love between friends warranted every now and then? Friends of Israel seem not to think so. It appears that both barrels were unleashed against Freeman, starting with rumors in the blogosphere, and growing into accusations that he was on the payroll of Saudi Arabia and had coddled China. It appears to have been too much for the new Obama Administration, prompting a sharply-worded statement by Freeman that accuses the Lobby of derailing his candidacy in order to obtain "control of the policy process."

Although I didn't have high hopes of a revolution coming from the Obama Administration in the realm of Middle East policy, I had hoped for sparks of change. This development sows the seeds of doubt that those sparks will ever light up.

Obama and Israel: A Match Made in Heaven???

Why not start out my new blog with a controversial topic...


Pundits have spun controversy over the topic of Obama's relationship with the state of Israel. How close could he possibly be to Israel if he has a (gasp) Palestinian friend - Rashid Khalidi? The campain rumors abounded about his potential leanings - in favor of Palestinians, quite unheard of among the heavy-hitters of either party. To win the presidency, they said, he would have to win over friends of Israel. And that he did, quite handily, speaking at last summer's AIPAC conference, the grandest of all granddaddys of pro-Israel gatherings. He put to rest many doubts about his closeness to Israel with his "friend of Israel" pronouncements and pro-Israel campaign staffers.

Now that he is safely in office, his administration is staffed with reliable friends of Israel, such as the notable Hillary Clinton, former senator from New York. The occasional outliers are roundly criticized for their opinions, but are certainly not extremists by any stretch of the imagination. The conventional wisdom around Washington seems to be that Obama's administration will continue to be a close friend of Israel, since no one can undo that, but that there may be a bit more pressure on Israel to be more flexible in its peace relations.

One interesting example came out of Hillary Clinton's recent trip to the Middle East. She was quoted as saying very delicately that demolition of Arab homes in East Jerusalem "do not help the peace process" and violate the spirit of the road map. This came after US officials lodged four official complaints with Israel over its settlement and home demolition activities, especially in East Jeruslalem, which is considered occupied territory in the international community but was annexed by Israel after its capture in 1967.

It seems that not only is the American administration turning up the heat, but so are the Israelis - on the ground. According to a Peace Now Settlement Watch report, the government of Israel is planning to build 73,000 or more new housing units in the West Bank. Some almost nine thousand have already been built. If true, this would double the size of a number of settlements, such as two largest Ariel and Ma'aleh Adumi. Such a move would jeopardize the possibility of creating a Palestinian state on that land, thereby undermining decades of American and international diplomacy.

Of course, complicating matters is the recent election of what will likely turn out to be a right-wing government in February's general elections. Likud party leader Binyamin Netanyahu will be the likely Prime Minister, who supports continued settlement building in East Jerusalem and West Bank, territories occupied since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. He is currently trying to put together a cabinet and coalition that is likely to include ultra-nationalist Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister. Lieberman campaigned on the issue of requiring a loyalty oath for Israel's 1.5 million Arab citizens and once suggested Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak could "go to hell" because he will not visit Israel.


So, my crystal ball says to watch for a few hints of a tougher stance towards Israel. However, don't hold your breath waiting for a revolution.

Special status for Jerusalem - Problem solved?

Here's a wonderful example of my ADD tendencies. As I was getting started on today's post (still unfinished) I noticed an interesting article about Jerusalem. Of course, it is summarizing and commenting on an article in this month's Foreign Affairs, which has been sitting in the front seat of my car for a week now, unread. So today's post will wait for tomorrow, and I'll comment on the newspaper, rather than the journal article.

Two thoughtful academics (don't you love them!) have proposed an innovative idea to solve the seemingly intractable problem of Jerusalem. Since the idea of dividing Jerusalem has fouled up many a deal in the past, why not create a "special regime" for the city?

The idea involves joint administration by both Palestinians and Israelis, an "internationally staffed police force"- but the plan would not constitute the "internationalization" of Jerusalem, a big fat RED LINE for the Israelis.

How this would work remains to be seen. I hate to make analogies to personal life, but sometimes it is so appropriate! If two people can't get along well enough to be married, what makes anyone believe (especially judges in divorce cases) that they can cooperate after their divorce to raise their kids? So, is there any way to expect that warring factions could closely cooperate in such a fashion?

Well, in fact, on some issues like security, I expect that it could work. And by eliminating the geographic importance of demography, many of the issues that are sensitive today would no longer be so. However, on issues where power and identity remain intertwined with politics, I fully expect the system to have all sorts of problems, including the one of expecting cooperation where there is none.

But first, not mentioned in the article, is the likelihood of even adopting such a scheme in the first place. The scholars tout the virtues of their idea, but that doesn't mean that people mired in the day to day, mundane details of power politics on the ground would think it's a great idea. So what if Jerusalem "is too small, too densely populated, too architecturally linked, and the Israelis and the Palestinians are too riven by systemic distrust for them to govern the Old City on their own"? That's very abstract for people living in Jerusalem, whose IDs get taken away if they leave Jerusalem (Arabs, that is), whose houses get demolished (Arabs, once again), who almost never get building permits (Arabs, again).

Let me just say that it's an interesting idea, and I hope it gets a lot of looks by pundits and policymakers. As an academic, I like neat little ideas, but if they don't take off on the ground and in policy circles, they will go nowhere.

Brand-New Blog!

I'm going to try my hand at blogging. I have to admit, many days I don't have much to say that I would want to publicly post. I mean really, would you want to know all about my efforts to keep my crazy but lovable kids out of trouble (and the hospital), deal with my EX, and try to balance the demands of my fun but super mega overtime job?

But politics fascinates me, which is why I became a political science professor. So I'll post my musings, thoughts and favorite articles as time allows. (heavy emphasis on "AS TIME ALLOWS")

See ya in cyberspace!

----------------