Maureen Dowd Captures Obama's Flaws

While I remain an Obama supporter, I also retain many of the concerns about him I have expressed over the years in my blogs. I must say that Maureen Dowd has captured many of my concerns in her column and then some. Unfortunately, I am skeptical that Obama is at all able to change these profound personality traits and philosophical bents. Despite them, he's been a good President, faced with an intractable opposition and the worst economic times in 75 years, and I will vote for him again without hesitation.

Dreaming of a Superhero

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/dowd-dreaming-of-a-superhero.html?_r=1&smid=tw-NYTimesDowd&seid=auto

As funnel clouds form over Washington, Obama still seems absorbed in his endless odyssey of self-discovery.

Chen Guangcheng to the United States

Looks like the Chinese Government permitted activist Chen Guangcheng to depart China for New York University. I hope that removes this as an issue in the American presidential campaign. I support human rights and our Government's efforts in support of human rights. By the same token, I was troubled that the plight of one activist in one repressive country threatened to become a political issue. In my view the United States cannot be put in the position of being some kind of guarantor of human rights throughout the globe and American politicians and other Americans should be criticized for trying to use the plight of activists around the globe as a domestic political football. That holds true, for me, whether the politician be Republican or Democrat. I'm sure some of you will disagree!❖

On Hush Puppies and Shoe Laces

Now when is the last time you changed shoe laces? Seemed like I used to do it often decades ago but seldom if ever anymore. Because of loafers? Or that shoes wear out sooner and fashions change? Or that, as an adult, I am more careful in handling my shoes? Whatever the reason, I had occasion this evening to want to change shoe laces in an ancient pair of Wolverine Hush Puppies that I haven't worn in a long time. 

Oh how I loved my Hush Puppies. I found the attached article in European Car from May 2011 that talks about the shoes' history with a photo of the very shoes I still have. Started in the late 1950's and died out but revived in the mid-1990's for a spell. Gone again. While I had some in the late 1950's my current pair likely dates from the mid-1990's! 

But this story is more about the laces than the shoes! I had a few pair of laces that I had never used but, not knowing where they were, I bought a pair at Ralph's Super Market the other day for $2.50. I found the laces I bought years ago this evening only to discover that a pair of laces purchased at Fedco (you remember Fedco don't you? Yesteryear's Costco) cost $0.37. The label was still attached. Yikes!! And one of my old pair of laces worked fine for the Hush Puppies. Like new again! Well, almost.❖

http://www.europeancarweb.com/features/epcp_1105_hush_puppies_icon/index.html#ixzz1vIxGZg75

Hush Puppies - Icon

By Colin Ryan

It’s supposed to be cats that have nine lives, not basset hounds. But in the world of iconic footwear, it seems anything is possible. Hush Puppies are among the highlights of Malcolm Gladwell’s book, The Tipping Point, as the author theorizes on how this once-popular but struggling brand achieved a fresh momentum thanks to a handful of New York City hipsters. 

The Hush Puppies brand is owned by the Wolverine Worldwide company that makes many kinds of work and recreational apparel. In 1994, when sales were in the sort of place not even people wearing worry free Scotchguarded suede shoes would step in, Wolverine was about to pull the plug. But some young Manhattanites started wearing them (no doubt with a sense of irony) around the East Village and Soho, getting them from small independent shops, and scouring vintage clothing stores. This trend caught the eye of a few street-wise designers, who incorporated the shoes into their new styles. 

Suddenly, from shipping 30,000 pairs a year, Hush Puppies were virtually scampering out the door at a rate of 430,000 pairs in 1995, four times that number in 1996 and even more in 1997. Hush Puppies took the prize for best accessory at the 1996 Council of Fashion Designers Awards. 

Not bad for a brand that has been around since 1958, just as society was becoming less buttoned-down and the demand for casual wear grew. The shoe itself came out of Victor Krause’s obsession with pigskin. As part of the family that owned Wolverine, Krause learned about tanning and believed pigskin could be a viable alternative to cowhide. Pigskin becomes soft and more flexible after tanning and is perfect for a comfortable leisure shoe.

As is so often the case with new ideas, Wolverine’s directors were less than enthusiastic, but his being a Krause probably helped. The new style might have been called Lasers, which was one name on the table, but sales manager James Gaylord (really) Muir came up with the canine appellation. 

Funny enough, Muir was near the Appalachians at the time, having dinner with a regional manager from the southeast. Part of the meal was hush puppies. As anyone familiar with Southern cuisine is aware, these are balls of fried corn dough that got their name by being thrown to quiet down barking dogs. As he heard this explanation, he also remembered that barking dogs was a slang term for aching feet. Cue light bulb going off over his head.

After registering the name as a trademark, the company bought the photograph of a basset hound that became the brand’s symbol (for only $50) and introduced its new product at the 1957 National Shoe Fair in Chicago to instant acclaim. By the middle of 1959, the first one million pairs had been sold. Soon they were seen on the feet of celebrities like Perry Como and Warren Beatty. Queen Elizabeth’s other half, Prince Philip, wore a pair on a visit to the United States. 

Those were the wonder years and they lasted long enough for Hush Puppies to become a recognized part of modern culture. However, despite being invited by President Mikhail Gorbachev to be the first American company to make and sell shoes in Russia, their subsequent popularity sank lower than a basset’s ears, until, quite by chance, a new generation embraced them. 

The second wave saw Kevin Spacey and Nicholas Cage wearing Hush Puppies to complement their tuxedos as they accepted their respective Best Supporting Actor and Best Actor statuettes at the 1996 Oscars ceremony. The late Princess Diana once ordered a special HP collection. 

But it isn’t just owners of barking dogs who give thank-you speeches for Hush Puppies. These shoes are responsible for so much more, albeit inadvertently. Back in 1965, the Rolling Stones were doing a gig in Sacramento, California. Keith Richards touched an ungrounded microphone while still holding his electric guitar, something that could easily have been fatal. Richards was knocked unconscious, but medics believe his was life was saved by the crepe soles of his Hush Puppies, a material chosen for comfort and lightness, but had an insulating effect here. A world without Honky Tonk Women, Brown Sugar and Tumbling Dice would have been all the poorer. Just think, one of the few things in this world capable of killing Keef was thwarted by a pair of cozy shoes.

By the middle of 1959, the first one hundred million pairs had been sold.

The Threat of Military Action toward Iran is the Best Approach

Polls suggest that most Americans are not excited at the prospect of a war with Iran over its development of nuclear weapons.  While some polls show that a majority of Americans favor military action, other polls show that most Americans favor diplomacy and economic sanctions as the first steps to take.  Not surprisingly, poll results depend heavily on the wording of the questions. 

There can be no doubt that few Americans want to see a nuclear armed Iran.  But there are differing views as to whether the United States and others can stop that from happening.  Some feel that sanctions, if broadly applied, could well pressure Iran to not move forward toward developing nuclear weapons.  Others believe that only military action can bring about that outcome.  Still others believe that neither course of action will succeed.  And then there are no doubt a few who believe Iran does not harbor any intention to develop nuclear weapons.

I do not presume to know the answer.  I do believe Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons.  But I do not know whether economic sanctions or military action, short of total war and a military invasion, will suffice to stop Iran’s efforts.  I am skeptical that either will work.  As to sanctions, unless Russia, China, India and other countries join in the sanctions campaign, I believe it will likely not be effective.  And even were these countries to join, states subject to sanctions are often quite able to continue trade despite the existence of sanctions.  However, economic sanctions are worth a try, particularly given the extent now contemplated which presumably would affect the viability of Iran’s central bank.

As to military action short of total war and an invasion, I am also skeptical that this strategy will work.  I am not expert on the locations of Iran’s nuclear facilities but it appears there are multiple locations and that at least some may be underground and heavily fortified.  Then, too, the element of surprise is lacking, something that may have been present when Israel successfully bombed specific nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria years ago.  Any attack on Iran, rather than leading to a popular uprising that some Americans may believe would quickly occur, will, in my judgment, more likely provoke a nationalist reaction leading Iranians of all walks of life and political views to rally around the state.  Any such attack would likely result in a military response, not only against Israel but against American and other Western interests in the area and beyond.  Other Muslim states, even Arab states that might privately favor the elimination of an Iranian nuclear threat, would likely condemn the military action against Iran.  Even were the Iranian program damaged to the point that it could not immediately continue, it is highly likely that such a program would not end but would resume over time.  The ramifications of military action would be huge.

As for total war and an invasion, I do not believe Americans or most others are wanting to put boots on the ground in Iran to stop its nuclear program or replace its regime.  Some Republican candidates for President and other conservatives may be willing to pursue this strategy although their campaign rhetoric might quickly desert them were any elected President.

While I am skeptical that military action short of total war would be effective to either destroy Iran’s nuclear program or to dissuade Iran from continuing that program in the face of devastating damage from such military action, this does not mean that the threat of such an attack might not work to cause Iran to put its nuclear program on hold for an indefinite period of time. 

Some might question how the threat of attack might work if an attack itself would likely not work.  An attack would, as I suggested above, unite most Iranians, lead to a counter-attack, lead to major military activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, call upon Russia and others to decide what action, if any, to take, and likely lead Iran to redouble its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.  But the threat of an attack would not have all these outcomes.  It might go unheeded by the Iranians.  But it might cause them to hesitate and drawback, depending upon whether they actually believed that the threat would translate into an actual attack. 

The credibility of such a threat is paramount.  When President Obama states that he doesn’t bluff, he is attempting to create certainty that, if Iran does not stand down in the face of a threat of military action, there will be military action, whether Obama wants it or would ultimately actually utilize it given all the risks and uncertainties surrounding military action.  When Netanyahu states Israel’s impatience he too is seeking to persuade Iran that a military attack is imminent; in his case he may have no doubts about that (although frankly he should).

But when Mitt Romney states that, if Obama wins re-election, Iran will develop nuclear weapons, he undercuts American strategy by weakening the credibility of America’s threat of military action.  This is foolish politicking at its worst.

But Romney’s assertions raise the deeper question: how dangerous would a nuclear Iran be?  Obama has said that containment of a nuclear Iran is not acceptable; he will not countenance a nuclear Iran.  Israel has clearly articulated a similar position.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons is a bad thing.  Not only does it make more likely a nuclear “accident,” but it also increases the likelihood that such weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists not constrained in their possible use because they have no nation-state to protect.  In this sense, a nuclear Iran, with its terrorist history and links to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and, to a lesser extent, Hamas, poses a danger.  As well, were Iran to develop nuclear weapons, the likelihood is that neighboring states, such as Saudi Arabia, would also want such weaponry.

But there are already a number of states that have nuclear weapons, some of whom are not terribly stable; probably more unstable than Iran.  Most notable among the unstable are North Korea and Pakistan.  To date, nuclear weapons have not been used in military conflicts in part because of the implications and consequences of their use, including the so-called “balance of terror” and the reasons associated with nuclear deterrence theory.  Deterrence theory is far from an established “fact.”  See http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/ten-serious-flaws-in-nuclear-deterrence-theory/32886.  And we know how strong the American reaction was to the prospect of nuclear weapons in Cuba.  But, by the same token, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction has seemed to work and there is much to be said that countries like Iran and Pakistan, and even North Korea, let alone the United States, Russia, China and Israel, would be and are constrained from using nuclear weapons based upon such fears.

I’m not convinced that the consequences of an actual military strike against Iran, including only a chance that it would permanently deprive Iran of nuclear weapons, justify such a policy.  But the threat of military action certainly makes good sense, even recognizing that were America not to follow through there would be some who would consider us a “paper tiger.”  But such a threat, as policy, only makes sense if the threat appears certain to be carried out.  The more certain that the threat will be carried out, the stronger the likelihood that it will achieve the objective.  Anything that detracts from fostering the belief that the threat will be carried out, including comments made by Mitt Romney (and perhaps this blog as well), undercuts the likelihood of its success.☐

It is Time to Leave Afghanistan

In deciding on its foreign policy, the United States should act in its national interest, not simply out of anger, pique or frustration at particular events happening in the world.  With that in mind, I believe that it is time for the United States, and NATO, to depart Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, four American soldiers have now been killed apparently in response to an incident in which NATO soldiers destroyed Korans.  According to NATO, extremist messages had been written in these Korans by captured insurgents at a detention camp and were being used to communicate among the captives.  For that reason these books were included amongst other matter that was burned.  This was a mistake but certainly was not done out of disrespect for Islam or the Koran.

It has spawned an outpouring of anti-American and anti-NATO sentiment in Afghanistan and elsewhere.  Demonstrations have been widespread and violent.  Two American soldiers were killed on a base and most recently two American officers were killed within the heavily secured Afghanistan Interior Ministry.  The Taliban has claimed credit for at least the latter killings which were in fact assassinations.  President Obama has apologized to Afghanistan for the destruction of the Korans.  But that has not contributed to any easing of the demonstrations.

At this point, I believe it is time for the United States, and NATO, to withdraw from Afghanistan, rather than doing so slowly over the next two years.  America has become stuck there as the defender of a corrupt and ineffectual regime, the Karzai government, fighting a civil war against the Taliban.  The initial purpose of America's intervention, to destroy the al Qaida force there led by Osama bin Laden that had engineered the tragedy of 9/11, has been achieved.  While some vestiges of al Qaida may remain in Afghanistan and links between the Taliban and al Qaida may persist, Afghanistan surely no longer presents a danger to the United States by providing a safe haven for al Qaida or for any other reasons.  Instead, the U.S. and NATO are again back in the business of nation-building, something we should by now have learned is beyond our ability let alone our need.  And, the Karzai government appears as corrupt and ineffectual as, if not worse than, any ally the United States has had in these kinds of wars, whether in South Korea, Vietnam or Iraq.

To be sure, departing Afghanistan now does not come without a price.  There's the usual argument that doing so gives the wrong message to American allies that we cut and run; that we make commitments but then abandon them when the going gets tough.  In this instance such an argument is meaningless, as far as I'm concerned.  The United States has been in Afghanistan for years and years.  We have sacrificed our sons and daughters and our finances but for what?  A corrupt regime there that frequently attacks America and ridicules us.  A commitment from America to assist is not a blank check for a permanent presence.

Departing Afghanistan will no doubt ultimately lead to the return of the Taliban to power.  Of course, that may be the case even if NATO remains another two years.  Indeed, media reports suggest that America, and Karzai, are already in negotiations, or trying to begin negotiations, with the Taliban.  America's national interest does not dictate that it remain in Afghanistan to ward off a return to power of the Taliban.  But its return will undermine at least some of the changes that have occurred, most particularly some steps toward the liberation of women.  Females who have stepped forward will likely be crushed by the Taliban and that is an extremely costly consequence of an end to the American presence, but despite such a tragedy it is not enough to justify a continued American military presence.

No doubt a decision by President Obama to move up the departure date of American forces from Afghanistan will lead many Republicans and other critics to claim that he mismanaged that war.  They will claim that, at least in Iraq, at the time of America's departure a government with some semblance of democratic processes and Western leanings was left in power and that little risk existed that Hussein's allies would return to power.  But, not only is it questionable that Iraq evidences a strong move toward democracy or that its government will continue to lean toward the West rather than toward neighboring Shia Iran, Afghanistan is not Iraq and Iraq is not Afghanistan.  To equate the two countries is to make another mistake.  It is about time that America stopped lumping all Muslim countries together.  While there are some regional patterns, each of these countries, be they Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Tunisia, has unique qualities that require the United States to approach each of them with distinct policies.

It is time to let Afghanistan resolve its own internal conflicts.  That will mean a continuing loss of human life as well as continued suffering by the Afghan people.  But America's presence no longer makes sense and no longer seems destined to leave things better off within any reasonable period of time, if ever.  While the American national interest includes spreading the principles of human rights, human dignity, democracy and respect for minorities, it does not dictate that America make war or participate in endless war in the name of those principles, especially when such wars often prove fruitless in the spread of those principles, or in greater national security for the United States.

What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander

What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander - Tolerance Please

I'm struck by the fact that so many Americans are quick to condemn the intrusion of religion into the political structures of various other societies while at the same time they steadfastly seek to impose their religious values onto the political structure of the United States.  No Sharia law, they say.  Down with Muslim fundamentalism, they chant.  Turkey should remain secular, they opine.  The Wahabi movement should not dictate the laws in Saudi Arabia, they cry.  Iran should shed itself of its mullahs, they demand.

Yet, today I heard a flock of Republican candidates for President trying to outdo one another in wanting the American Government to ban all abortions with no exceptions or almost none, to declare that life begins at conception (thereby offering a legal protection to fetuses not historically extended), and probably, had they been asked, to require prayer in the schools, the teaching of creationism, and the imposition of all kinds of other religious and sectarian views of theirs on all Americans.

Wake up America.  Don't be so quick to condemn other countries when you're advocating similar religious and sectarian straightjackets in your own.  If you're tolerant then be tolerant.  If you claim to want to limit big Government, then don't turn around and try to use big Government to impose your own narrow religious views on others.

Erdogan vs. Achmadinejad

Have you noticed?

It is increasingly apparent that the leaders of two Muslim non-Arab states are vying for leadership of the Arabs.  Surprising?  Not really.  Audacious?  Yes, that’s more to the point.  These are two very ambitious, opportunistic and, in my view, dangerous individuals.

And who are they?  They are Mahmoud Achmadinejad of Iran and Recip Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey.  Interestingly, the states that they lead today dominated what is today the Arab world at various times in the past.

The Persian Empire reached its zenith about 500 BC under Cyrus and encompassed modern day Turkey, and the Middle East stretching across Egypt.  The Ottomon Empire at its apex in the late 19th century encompassed Turkey, the Middle East, North Africa to Morocco, the Balkans and lands almost to Vienna, but never Persia.

Today, Iran and Turkey are large, modernizing societies, each with sophisticated populations approaching 75 million people.  They are both heavily Muslim, the Turks predominantly Sunni and the Iranians predominantly Shia.

It seems clear that Erdogan and Achmadinejad have visions of restoring the historical influence of their respective states over the area that is now the Arab world, not through territorial conquest and subjugation but by making alliances within the Arab world, aiding their respective allies militarily and otherwise, and, not least, demonizing Israel, as a means of extending their influence among Arabs in the street.

Both Turkey and Iran have witnessed a resurgence of Islamic identity over recent decades.  In Iran, a religious theocracy secured power in a revolution against the represssive regime of the Shah.  In Turkey, an Islamic party secured power over secular elements that had been inspired by Ataturk and that had been grouped in the military and bureacuracy.  But Achmadinejad and Erdogan have also harnessed and exploited the forces of old fashioned nationalism in their respective societies in consolidating their power.

Achmadinejad’s anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bents have long been on display.  Erdogan appears to have decided that to achieve his goal to lead Muslim Arab states in the region he must adopt a very strong anti-Israel posture.  Turkey, long an ally of Israel in the region, has now turned into one of its sharpest critics and potential enemies.  Erdogan’s miscalculations with respect to Syria, where he is slowly coming to oppose Assad, seem to have driven him to take an even more virulent position against Israel.

While Erdogan appears popular among some activist Arabs at the moment, and Achmadinejad scores some points among Arab Shia, it is far from clear that either will achieve his dream.  From news reports, both have strongly authoritarian streaks and, not surprising for any political leader, are far more focused on pursuing their own interests than on permitting real pluralism to flourish in their respective states or in the region.  While various Arab groups, most notably Hezbollah and Hamas, look to Achmadinejad for support, and while Erdogan may inspire Arab activists in their struggles against the entrenched regimes, it is unlikely that the Arab countries will wish to bestow a leadership role upon a non-Arab, particularly a Shi’ite who comes from a neighboring state with a history of hostility vis-a-vis Arabs.

As for the Turkish government’s new-found hostility toward Israel, where that goes remains to be seen.  At one time Turkey’s deep interest in joining the European Union seemed to have a moderating effect on Turkish policies but that is less clear.  Turkey, a NATO member, and its leader may still conclude that acting to mobilize regional hostilities against Israel does not serve its longterm interests.