My Trip to a Gender-Specific Lakefront Resort

I have a confession to make. I am on a trip this weekend where no men are allowed. No kids, either. It is blatantly discriminatory, I understand. My husband has been quite vocal in pointing this out. Naturally. He is stuck at home with the kids. And he is a Republican...

In the same way, Congressional Republicans have criticized President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court for her involvement in a group that promotes women in the judiciary. Law prohibits involvement in racial or gender exclusive groups, they say, so Sotomayor must be disqualified from the nomination.

So? Should we be concerned? Should I resign as self-appointed nominee for Next Dictator of the World because of a single weekend of indiscretion?
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Tehran Tienanmen?

Unfortunately, it looks like Time's option #2 is the most likely outcome in Iran now. Although it is not clear how violent the crackdown on the protests has been, it appears that the clerical regime is in no mood to negotiate or compromise with the opposition. The distressing video of Neda, who was killed before cell phone video cameras, shows that the authorities have at least some of the time used excessive force. Since the top and middle layers of organizers appear to have been arrested, the protests seem to be losing momentum. Twitter alone cannot organize a revolution.

Sad as it sounds, I fear that the wind is out of the sails. Even if that is so, I believe that many of us will not look at the people of Iran in the same light.

Khamenei Throws Down the Gauntlet

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei today warned protesters to stay off the streets and denied accusations that last Friday's elections were rigged. In a Friday prayer session attended by overflowing crowds at Tehran University, he said he would never give in to "illegal pressures" and warned of bloodshed if protests continued. According to the New York Times website, the government has already begun denying permits for opposition rallies.

It appears that this move is meant to break what looked like a growing deadlock and raise the stakes in the emerging political game. He has effectively dared the opposition to move. It doesn't seem likely that such a large and mobilized movement will be easily intimidated. However, the prospect of violence is very real if demonstrations continue. After that it is anyone's guess how the rest of the game plays out.

Endgame?

Speculation about how the crisis in Iran will turn out is rampant. As one analyst remarks on the Foreign Policy website, "Predictions about Iran are a dime a dozen these days. And that's exactly they are worth."

Time Magazine outlines four possible endgame scenarios:
1. Revolution 2.0 - A repeat of the 1979 Revolution that brought down the Shah.

2. A Tehran Tiananmen? - A bloody crackdown that (roughly) restores the status quo.

3. Khamenei's Divine Retreat - The Ayatollah convinces the Guardian Council to order a new vote or to "adjust" the vote so that a runoff is necessary. A weakened Supreme Leader would result.

4. A Zimbabwe Option - A negotiated power-sharing arrangement or "buying-off" of select oppositionists with less important positions.

Interesting and thoughtful speculation. I would argue that option #3 is the most likely, followed by 2 and 4. However, as Charles Kurzman argues, nothing is predictable and if one makes enough predictions, something will almost certainly end up being correct. Ignore the expert predictions, in other words. He probably has made the most thoughtful predictions yet - anything could happen.

Is the Iranian Regime in Trouble?

Even though there are many parallels between the massive demonstrations occurring in Iran today and the revolution that threw out the Shah thirty years ago, it is unlikely that the current Islamic regime is in danger of imminent collapse or overthrow. As much as many of us - me included - would like to see the current regime replaced by something more democratic, it doesn't seem like that is the main aim of the protesters, or even if it was, that it would be successful. The coercive apparatus of the regime is still quite robust, and as long as it remains strong and the regime's leaders are willing to wield it against protesters, the regime structure seems relatively safe for the time being.

What appears to be behind much of the turmoil is a leadership struggle between different camps. Depending on the source, the camps can be characterized as conservative vs. reformist; conservative vs. conservative; or first vs. second generation. (See a terrific article here on the internal power struggle.) No matter how it is characterized, the various camps are all generally in favor of the Islamic Republican form of government and its broad outlines, so the winner of the struggle is not likely to initiate major changes in government structure.

However, depending on who wins, there may be changes in political substance. If Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei wins the power struggle, the many who supported Mousavi and hoped for greater freedom of expression will likely be disillusioned. Their belief in the rule of law may be dashed, since the impression is widespread that their votes were never even counted. Much like after the student riots of 1999, widespread apathy may result. This is what many in the leadership hope for - those who are trying to forestall change.

But if the students are able to extract some concessions, the toppling of the regime is unlikely, but some degree of freedoms may result. More freedom of expression, freedom for women to express themselves in dress, for example. And the expectation that the voting process will proceed in a free manner will be upheld. Keep in mind that the Iranian parliament (Majles) and presidency - elected offices - are not the most powerful in the government. The appointed and indirectly elected clerical bodies are the most powerful positions in the country, and they "supervise" the elected bodies. So even if the elected bodies were freely chosen, Iranian government would be closer to a democracy, but still not quite there.

I wish I could be more optimistic about the likelihood of widespread and radical change in Iran. And, I actually hope I am wrong. There is something inspiring about watching the struggle for freedom unfold before our eyes. We are probably projecting more into that struggle than really exists. However, if that struggle is successful, it could perhaps plant the seeds for something larger in the long run. I believe that is why the Mullahs fight.


"Mullahs - you can't kill a hashtag." - Twitter post reported anonymously on CNN 6/18/09

Obama's Dilemma

The Iranian election imbroglio has been posing a political and moral dilemma to President Obama since the results were released on Friday. There is mounting pressure on him to support the Iranian opposition, despite the fact that it would be wildly reckless and run contrary to a half century of Iranian political history.

On the issue of the veracity of the elections, it is often overlooked that President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad does have a significant base of support among Iran's poor, the religious, and in rural areas. Just because we don't like him doesn't mean Iranians don't like him. Challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi has strong support in many middle- and upper-class neighborhoods of Tehran, where many foreign press organizations operated, but it is not clear if his support was as strong elsewhere. Nevertheless, a number of now widely-reported irregularities in the elections have given many Iranians the impression that the outcome was predetermined - their votes were never counted. This impression is not to be discounted. While elected bodies in Iran may not be the most powerful, elections are nonetheless meaningful, particularly when candidates from various political stripes are allowed to contest. Many Iranians are therefore insulted at the possibility that their votes were simply cast aside. And this possibility appears to be very real, though not a proven fact.

So far, Obama has been cautious in his approach to the elections, saying only that he was "concerned" and urging Iran to respect the standards of democracy. Iran, for its part, accused the United States of "intolerable meddling" in its internal affairs. Since 1979 and before, Iran has been highly suspicious and hyper-sensitive about American interference in domestic affairs. Not that it isn't justified; in 1953, CIA covert operations were responsible for overthrowing an elected, nationalist government and (re)installing the soon-to-be-detested Shah who would later be known as one of the world's most repressive dictators. He would be overthrown in 1979 and replaced by the current form of government.

The pressure for Obama to support the protesters is understandable. The United States believes itself to be a beacon of democracy, whatever its shortcomings. We like to stand up for the values that we believe in, and it seems wrong - in a way - to allow thousands of others to put their lives on the line for the right to choose their leaders without the (self-proclaimed) global leader of democracy voicing its support, at the very least. But it is also clear that American support for the opposition can be the kiss of death. Literally. The leadership has announced that it will begin executing foreign agents and agitators, and those receiving support from abroad. It would be a very, very bad idea to give them an excuse to bring out the firing squads. Obama himself has argued against giving the Iranian regime the impression that the protests are American-led. Although the United States is concerned about the violence, he has said, it is an internal issue for the Iranians to work out. At the risk of sounding cold-hearted, the Iranians don't want our "support." It will simply be counterproductive. In this case, the best help is no help at all.

Update: Settlements Illegal?

Update: today's Washington Post features an article discussing the ambiguity over America's official policy toward Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Although a 1979 State Department legal opinion states that the settlements are "inconsistent" with international law, citing Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, US presidents have not referred to settlements as "illegal'" preferring instead terms such as "illegitimate" or "unhelpful." The last administration went even further, coming close to officially recognizing some settlements close to the green line as demographic "realities on the ground" that would be annexed to Israel as part of a final peace agreement.


I find it interesting that US officials will not comment on this 1979 legal opinion to say whether or not it is still official US policy. Today, Palestinians are in a weak position, politically, diplomatically, and militarily. Their main strength is international law - it is strongly on their side. Is the United States going to stand on the side of international law? Or, will it sacrifice international law for the interests of its ally, Israel?

Anything New Under the Sun?

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's much anticipated foreign policy speech Sunday left much to be desired. While Obama hailed it as an "important step forward," it represents little in the direction of forward movement. Since UN resolution 242 in 1967 Israel has ostensibly supported the two state solution, while it took the PLO until the end of 1988 to indirectly accept the two state solution and Resolution 242.

Now, however, the tables are turned. The once intransigent PLO is now begging for table scraps, while Israel has moved further away from the two state solution. The right is ascendant in Israeli politics, and many on the right argue that the West Bank and Gaza should remain under Israeli control indefinitely, despite prohibiting international law and global approbrium. The land captured in 1967, some argue, is not only strategically important, but the heart of historical Israel. Never mind the Palestinians who inhabit the land, it is argued. Our land is our land! We should keep it all!

Really, it is not much different from the arguments Palestinians presented after 1948...

Like many realists have argued, greater power yields greater ambition. A larger definition of vital interests has emerged from Israel's success in the battlefield and political arena. Now Israel's ability to dominate the region has turned into a necessity to dominate the region.

America has not opposed growing Israeli intransigence. In fact, American policy has tended to mirror Israeli policy. No longer do American presidents refer to Israeli settlement in the Palestinian territories as "illegal" but "unhelpful" or at most "illegitimate" (Obama). The Palestinian territories are not "occupied" but "disputed" territories.

After Netanyahu's speech, President Obama focused on the positive aspects, most notable of which was that Netanyahu apparently reversed his long-standing opposition to a Palestinian state, though his "acceptance" was so wrought with caviats as to make it nearly worthless. Obama, diplomatically, remarked that these caviats were to be negotiated in the future. His optimistic assessment was that the speech represented a basis upon which to start peace talks.

It's hard to know if he is simply leaving the door open to talks, and therefore reacting positively and diplomatically, or if he is mired in the same mindset that leaves the Palestinians out in the cold. Let's hope he doesn't start calling Netanyahu a "man of peace"!

 

Four Problems any Health Care Plan MU...

I'm not sure why, but Obama seems to have the wrong approach to health care reform. This is an important issue but he seems to be allowing others to dictate the course reform will take. He is allowing Congress to write the bill, and taking a back seat in the drafting. He is trying to avoid the problems Hillary Clinton encountered in 1996 when she plopped a complete, complicated bill on the lap of Congress, seemingly with a "take it or leave it" attitude. Of course, Congress doesn't appreciate this, which was one of the many reasons why Clinton's health care reform failed.

Obama, on the other hand, has a very Congress-centered outlook and staff. He knows the importance of Congress in legislative victories and the influences Congress works under. But here, in health care reform, is he taking too much of a hands-off approach?

As of yet, I have not heard Obama articulate the goal(s) he is hoping to achieve with health care reform, other than achieving reform itself. This will leave him dangerously open to buffeting by the political winds as he attempts to get a bill passed. What could emerge may not end up helping solve the many health care problems facing Americans today but instead could be a patchwork of compromises and special interest payoffs that do little to improve the situation.

What he needs to do is to outline the goals he wants to accomplish, specifically, what problems health care reform needs to solve in order to get his final signature. That will keep the process goal oriented and problem-solving, regardless of the specific methods used to solve the problem. Thus, rather than arguing over single-payer or private insurance, mandates or no mandates, a government option or not, just ask if it solves the problems that need to be solved.

Four very important health care problems facing Americans include:


1. Bankruptcies Between 50 - 60 percent of personal bankruptcies in America occur - in part or entirely - as a result of medical emergencies. Many of these bankruptcies occur despite the fact that the patient had health insurance. High deductibles, maximum payout limits, and refusal to cover certain conditions, procedures, or tests leads to catastrophic levels of medical bills accumulating in a short time in many life-threatening situations. Medicaid will not pay until all assets are depleted, including the family home. Many believe they are covered and well-prepared for medical emergencies, only to find that their insurance fails them when they need it the most.

2. Preexisting Conditions Having a pre-existing condition can make it extremely difficult to find medical coverage. Asthma or ADD may be problematic, to say nothing of diabetes or HIV/AIDS. If coverage is not offered through one's work and particularly if there has been a gap in coverage of a few months or more, it can be nearly impossible to find affordable coverage.

3. Portability Related to the above is the problem of portability. Having to relocate means finding new medical insurance, forcing a confrontation over pre-existing conditions or other issues that make medical coverage hard to find.

4. Market Failures Of course, there are many issues related to market failures. The many actors in the field of medicine are trying to make a profit, not heal the world. So medicines are made that are expected to turn a profit for the pharmaceutical company that develops it (Viagra, Claritin) rather than affordable, life-saving AIDS or malaria drugs for developing countries. Private hospitals specialize in expensive, (often elective) procedures, relegating the less profitable procedures to the public hospitals. When private hospitals are held up as a model of efficiency and profitability, we must keep in mind that they are not always serving the needs of everyone.

If private insurance, hospitals and other programs can fix these problems, that's great. But I am not wedded to the so-called "efficiency" of private enterprise, when it comes to medical and health issues. These companies are good at maximizing the bottom line, yes, but not at maximizing the health of their patrons. That is not what they are meant to do. And while government options are notoriously bureaucratic, our private insurance is already overrun with paperwork and hurdles that must be jumped in order to receive benefits. Could public health options be much worse? However, no matter what solution the politicians arrive at - public or private - if it fixes the problems currently plaguing our system and costing lives and income we will be better off.

Obama's Mideast Move

President Obama's speech to the Muslim world given from Cairo last Thursday struck all the right notes. By sympathizing with the Palestinians and calling for a settlement freeze, he suggests a more balanced approach than recent American administrations. But he also denounced anti-Semitism in the Mideast and sympathized with the plight of the Jews after the Holocaust. He underscored America's strong friendship with Israel and its permanence. So Obama plans to keep Israel but with some much needed "tough love" and truth telling.
The extremes on all sides were not satisfied with the speech, of course. And all are waiting to see if the nice words will be translated into action. All sides want peace, but on their own terms. With a right-wing Israeli government in power and the Palestinians severely divided, achieving any progress on the peace front will be extremely difficult.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Internet Addicts of the World, Unite!

I have been without internet access for more than a week now. I need my fix. Now please.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T