Grow some gonads, dude

Shame on me for taking nearly a month to write this up, but the John Randolph Club held its annual meeting in Washington, DC on September 21 and 22, sponsored by the Rockford Institute of Chronicles Magazine fame (the publication of true and traditional American conservatism for which I have had the honor of writing 3 times thus far).

I will cover the event in reverse order, since the highlight was the Iraq War debate during the final banquet that was worth the price of admission for the whole weekend by itself. I spent a bit of time compressing the 80 minute mp3 file of the debate into a 10 minute segment which can be viewed below, with headshots of the speakers. Next time, we simply must have video!

Arguing for immediate withdrawal were "anarcho-communalist" Kirkpatrick Sale (who is trying to get Vermont to secede from the US), immigration activist Peter Brimelow of VDARE fame, and Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com fame.

Arguing for something else (it's unclear what since there wasn't consensus, as you'll discover later) were Chronicles contributing editor R. Cort Kirkwood, Foreign Affairs editor Srdja Trifkovic (whom I had the pleasure to engage in conversation at length during dinner), and author William Hawkins.

Here are the transcriptions of the excerpted parts.

Sale: "[the military's establishment]'s affect domestically has been to create an imperial rule, an imperial presidency, protected by military might, informed by secret agencies, coddling to by Congress, and permitted by the Judiciary that is destroying the basic instruments of our Democracy, an institution that the military does not care much for. Just as surely as the Roman Empire destroyed the Roman Republic – that is the primary reasons why the war in Iraq must be ended – that it would be a blow to the empire from which it might not recover, thus starting the process of withdrawing power from the Pentagon and starting the re-righting of the Ship of State that is now badly lopsided."

Kirkwood: "I'm going to argue against this on a moral level. I think there is a moral case to be made for staying. We made a mistake when we went into Iraq. I concede the point that…there was an illegal and unnecessary war that we never should have gone into. That's obvious, everyone understands this…We attacked a sovereign country that posed no threat to us…We've broken a lot of things in Iraq, and we have an obligation to fix those things, because we did it. It doesn't matter whether our leaders were wrong, it matters that they are held to account for what they did, and that they repair they damage that they've done before they leave the country in chaos, and that cannot be accomplished if we leave the country tomorrow.

There's a consequence for our country. If we depart [Iraq] and we leave it a mess, if this country is inhabitable because of what we have done there, where are these people going to go? They're going to come here. And I don't think anybody wants thousands and thousands of Iraqis coming into this country to change it any more than it's already been changed by the immigration that we have been given no choice over…I am living this every day in Harrisonburg, Virginia – we have Iraqis and Kurds and Russians – I wasn't asked if I wanted these people in my community – the Mennonites just put them there!"

Raimondo: "Every minute we stay in Iraq, the threat of war with Iran increases. Look, it's too late to be against the war in Iraq. It is NOT too late to be against the war with Iran. Wars do not respect national boundaries, and neither do the neocons. If we stay in Iraq, by the end of this year we will be at war with Iran.

'We have to stop al-Qaeda' – Well, I have a good way to stop al-Qaeda. Let's get the heck out of Iraq and let the Shia take care of al-Qaeda – they'll do it in very short order. It won't be pretty, but hey, they'll do a lot better job then we're doing right there, right now.

And let's look at the so-called 'moral case', oh the mass slaughter of the Sunnis. Suddenly, these alleged 'dead-enders', the villains of yesteryear, have to be saved by the brave Americans. Well, you know what, we were always at war with East Asia, and now we're at war with Eurasia. I'm getting sick of this, it's making me dizzy. I'm tired of saving the world. Let the Sunnis save themselves…How many Shia did they kill? How many Shia did they repress?…As they sow, so shall they reap. And that is called Justice.

Are we going to colonize Iraq? And are we going to go into Iran? – and Syria, which they're getting ready to do, you may have seen the mysterious Israeli bombing of some alleged nuclear facility. And of course, probably, 2 years after that war is over, we'll hear, 'Oh, it was only a toy factory.' These people have no credibility."

Then there was an electric tit-for-tat that was among the highlights of the weekend:

Srjda Trifkovic (in rebuttal): "'It's not going to be pretty' is the neocon euphemism for genocide."

Raimondo: "Well, I ain't committing that genocide, so I don't feel very guilty about it."

Srjda Trifkovic: "But you don't mind al-Sistani's boys running into Anbar and sorting things out their own way."

Raimondo: "Just like I don't mind Darfur...If millions of people went into the streets of this Imperial City and said 'you know what? We are going to storm the White House, and you are going to get our troops OUT!'"

Srjda Trifkovic: "You know Justin, you belong to a generation that remembers 1968 more vividly than I, so the notion of letting emotions and gonads guide your political action is less intrinsically urgent in my mental mindset, so I would say NO, I will not run to the Mall and demonstrate."

Raimondo: "Well unless you grow some gonads, dude, we are going to have perpetual war, forever!"

Brimelow: "What does it really matter to the Americans if the Iranians rule Iraq? If the Iranians rule Afghanistan? If they eat each other, what does it matter to the Americans, because we're over here, they're over there. Unless we let them come over here, and by the way, Cort we can stop that immediately, there is no reason to have Iraqi immigrants and refugees over here. They can't get at us.

[The British] have massive experience…They had situations like in India, and India is a really interesting case because the relationship between Britain and India was much more profound and far deeper and intimate than anything the Americans have in Iraq, they were there 200 years when they left. They withdrew their troops to the barracks and they just sat there while the Hindus and the Muslims massacred each other. And it was a black day for the British Empire and for Britain's morale, but guess what? We got over it. They lost between a million and 5 million people when the subcontinent was partitioned, but everybody's forgotten about it. And if America leaves Iraq tomorrow, we'll forget about it in 4 or 5 years.

Foreign policy is not a question of emotion, and not a question of morality, it is a question of national interest. So the only question you have to ask yourself in a situation such as Iraq is 'what is the national interest?' and 'what national interest do the Americans have in holding what is essentially a colonial possession?' There is no doubt about – this is the Algerian War rewrote.

Were the Iraqis crossing the border in vast numbers illegally? Was the Iraqi President trying to influence American politics? Were Iraqi immigrants in the US trying to take over the Southwest and kick Americans around and make them speak Arabic? None of this was true of course – we invaded the wrong country!

William Hawkins then gave his pitch, which was rather akin to neoconservative arguments and all about protecting oil. He seemed to view Iran as a direct threat.

When the time for Q&A came around, I asked (and I'm pleased to say the audience applauded):

"Iran does not have missiles capable of reaching the United States, so how are they a threat to the United States? And even if they had a stockpile of nuclear weapons, they idea that they're going to 'hook up' with terrorists is simply then an issue of border security, whether it's airports or…why are we borrowing money from China so that American soldiers are building schools in Iraq rather than inspecting containers coming into the United States and policing our borders from people coming in to do us harm?"

Hawkins replied, with a less-than-confident look on his face:

"America's interests don't extend just to our own borders…the Middle East has a lot of our oil. And it's not just America's problem, every major country is involved in the Middle East or Central Asia – Russia, China, India, France, Germany – they've all had oil color their policies and approach to this region."

That's true, and that's why Japan paid for Gulf War I. Who is paying for this boondoggle? My kids and grandkids, that's who! For all the reasons that Ron Paul enumerated in the most recent debate in Michigan.

Well, this whole thing didn't end there. Hawkins was unhappy and decided to go to FrontPage Magazine to call his fellow debaters traitorous. You can read his entire bizarre rant if you'd so like. Scott Richert, Executive Editor of Chronicles started a thread about this which attracted more than 100 comments. And my fellow paleoconservative Farm Team infielder and enviably prolific blogger Daniel Larison also dissects Hawkins' arguments. You can also hear from Raimondo himself who gets in a few classic zingers.

Now, a couple of quick notes on some of the rest of the program. Taki Theodoracopulos, the co-founder of The American Conservative and more recently the excellent Taki's Top Drawer site, began with a Friday night address that touched on the familiar themes of bashing the neocons foreign policy delusions. In the course of his address, which was about "The Dishonesty of Public Discourse", he referred to Senator Robert Taft as "the last honest man", and also mentioned Hitler's claim to the Sudetenland.

On Saturday morning, the first panel featured Trifkovic and Leon Hadar of the CATO Institute, an Israeli foreign policy analyst who is excellent. John Hackney as a moderator did a great job of shutting down the rant of an angry Copt from Canada named Dmitri (the previous evening he tried to convince me that Arabic was not my ancestors' true language, blah, blah, blah - insert historically irrelevant argument here). Hadar advocated Israel and even Lebanon and Syria joining the European Union, while Trifkovic only wants Turkey to join so that the EU will crumble to pieces. Hadar took issue with Trifkovic praise of secular Turks, but condemnation of "post-modern post-national" secular Israelis, while Trifkovic rebutted that it was simply a matter of pragmatism.

The next panel was about immigration, and it featured Peter Brimelow and David Hartman, who is chairman of the board of directors of The Rockford Institute, chairman of the Lonestar Foundation, and an authority on pro-business taxation. I listened to the arguments, and Hartman clearly knows his stuff when it comes to tax policy - he had some gripes with the fair tax. Now, I agree with critics of the hyper-glib Republican elite who love to remind us that "illegal immigrants will do the jobs Americans don't want", and there is no doubt that if factories were forced to hire legal workers, they would find plenty of Americans do to the work. Brimelow made an interesting observation though - that some companies, scared about the legal pressure, are actually investing in more automation so that they can decrease the need for illegal manpower.

What I am not clear on, and even subsequent to a chat with Hartman after his presentation, is whether the "jobs Americans don't want" applies to manual labor of minimal skill. For example, a roofer or landscaper who hires almost exclusively illegal immigrants to do the manual work for dirt cheap - let's say he charges $1,000 for a given engagement. If the illegal immigrant pool was no longer available, what would happen? Will Americans do the work for $5/hour? Or will the wages have to be increased to $10/hour? In that case, what happens? Does the owner continue to price the job at $1,000 and just make less money for himself? Or do prices go up to match the increased wages?

The other highlight was the talk by Thomas Fleming, Executive Editor of Chronicles and a true scholar whose knowledge of everything from Classics, to European History, to Church History, to American History and much more in between is formidable. He presented the argument he made in Chronicles June issue, about the origin of the term "separation of Church and State". "Were there any orthodox Christians among the Founders?" he asked.

Although, I did find some irony in Fleming's call to "restore Constantinople", when I read this bit about Congressman John Randolph, for whom the conference was named:

"Very early in life I imbibed an absurd prejudice in favor of Mahomedanism and its votaries. The crescent had a tailsmanic effect on my imagination, and I rejoiced in all its triumphs over the cross (which I despised) as I mourned over its defeats; and Mahomet II himself did not more exult than I did, when the crescent was planted on the dome of St. Sophia, and the cathedral of the Constantines was converted into a Turkish mosque."

Now, some have taken the ridiculous position that Randolph, and not Keith Ellison, was the first Muslim Congressman. Wrong. Randolph was a Christian who questioned his beliefs in his younger years (note he says he had an "absurd prejudice" early in life) - but his personal "Road to Damascus" does add a little ironic spice to the paleoconservative palette.

All in all, an outstanding event - I thank Christopher Check for his hard work and Thomas Fleming, Scott Richert, and many more for making me feel so welcome. I look forward to next year!

continue reading "Grow some gonads, dude..."

David Rebovich

I was as shocked as anyone to learn that Rider University Political Science Professor and NJ political guru par excellence, David Rebovich, died suddenly yesterday of a heart attack.

I had the good fortune of meeting Rebovich in person at the studio of News12, as I taped a segment with him and Steve Kornacki for "Power and Politics" in February of 2004, just after I had launched my congressional campaign.

I got there early and sate in the lobby, Rebovich showed up a few minutes later and we sort of recognized one another from our internet photos, but he sat in another room and we didn't get to chatting until a bit later.

I was delighted to learn that he had also attended Johns Hopkins, and in fact had stayed in the Adams-Baker House of AMRII during his freshman year, just like I did! He also told me that he was starting back-court for the JHU Basketball team with none other than former Philadelphia Mayoral candidate Sam Katz!

He encouraged me and seemed genuinely happy to see a young person take the political plunge. The few times I wrote him emails in response to his columns, he always responded in the same positive manner and I regret not having engaged this terrific person with more frequency.

Condolences to the Rebovich family and all of his loved ones. May God rest his soul with the just.
continue reading "David Rebovich..."

The Iranian public is very happy about...

As a follow-up to the last commentary of our S.I.S. (Savvy Iranian Source), which discussed the victory of Akbar Rafsanjani to head the Assembly of Experts, I posed the following questions:

1. What indications has Supreme Leader Khamanei shown that he is interested in war with Israel?
2. Since I suspect the answer to #1 is naught, what is the level of dissatisfaction with the Iranian public about the lack of bellicose actions?
3. What are the chances for the AOE to challenge the Supreme Leader's authority on foreign policy if there is some kind of dramatic development, like an American targeted attack? Could Rafsanjani be drawn by circumstances into a less pragmatic and more confrontational posture resembling that of Ahmadinejad?

Here are his main takeaways:

• There has been no indication whatsoever that Supreme Leader Khamenei wants to go to war with Israel
• When Khamenei saw that Ahmadinejad (through his remarks about Israel) had "delivered the streets" of the developing countries through his actions, he allowed him more leeway to continue
• Today, with the economy not performing according to his promises, Iran's nuclear program dragged before the UN Security Council and a plethora of domestic criticism against him on various fronts, Ahmadinejad's manoeuvrability is severely limited
• Iran does not want an open war with Israel, partly since it knows the limitation of its capabilities, but also since this does not really serve any purpose for Iran
• The Iranian public is very happy about the lack of bellicose action - they don't want another war
• a great many of Iranian decision-makers, who even fill the boards of many state companies, sit in ministries, etc. are veterans of a war that only ended 19 years ago - these individuals know the real impact a conflict has on a country's economy and they've also seen first-hand the horrors of war
• If there is a direct American attack on Iranian soil, then all bets will be off and pragmatism, etc. will no longer be a major component of Iranian policy
• (In the event of a US strike on Iran,) there are likely to be targeted attacks carried out by proxy groups, both against Israel and against US allies in Europe, in addition to US cities themselves - a sizable portion of Iranians living abroad, who have a lot of money and are internationally mobile, would not have qualms in assisting this "defensive" effort

The full S.I.S. response:

(background) The President in Iran does not have the authority to declare war nor does he control the regular Army or the Revolutionary Guards. There may be individuals or groups in both that support him but that does not mean that he commands a major allegiance which would allow him to use the military for his own purposes. Also, the Supreme Leader has used reshuffles in the IRGC and the Army to ensure that people do not remain long enough to establish power bases or to establish alliances with other political actors.

One interesting thing that most people don't know is that the President in Iran doesn't even control the police forces, since the national chief of police is appointed by the Supreme Leader and the law enforcement forces broadly answer to him. This was one of the things that [former President Mohamed] Khatami was trying to change, i.e. to get the police to be accountable to the Interior Ministry rather than to the General Staff of the Armed Forces.

To Question 1:
There has been no indication whatsoever that Supreme Leader Khamenei wants to go to war with Israel. In fact, just a few days after Ahmadinejad first made his remarks about Israel in 2005, Khamenei gathered the main actors of the regime and made a very public speech in which he stated that:

1. Iran's policy vis-à-vis Israel has not changed (i.e. Iran continues to oppose the "oppression of the Palestinian people" and support their demands for their own rights)
2. Iran would "never carry out aggressive acts against any country". Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Leader's comments, which carry much more weight in policy matters in Iran, where not widely reported by the international media.

At the same time, however, Ahmadinejad's remarks do serve some purposes for the system (and for Khamenei himself). The Arab/Muslim street appears to have very much rallied behind these statements and his remarks have thus resulted in considerable pressure against other regimes in the region. Just as an anecdote, in trips to both Libya and Egypt, when speaking to people and telling them that I was from Iran, I was greeted with great enthusiasm and there was always supportive remarks about Ahmadinejad's bravery and his willingness to stand up to the West. On more than one occasion, people told me that "if every leader in the Middle East was like him, we would have no problems" and how they respected the fact that he's a simple man who is not corrupt.

Needless to say, these are simplistic reactions by average Joes (or average Hassans, when talking about the Middle East), but they nonetheless highlight that Iran has through its recent actions managed to get the support of a large portion of the world's "down-trodden" to support its cause. Ahmadinejad's remarks about Israel, which he later adjusted to more of a moral issue regarding occupation, rights, etc., as well as his comments about the Holocaust all served to change the paradigms of the debate. This was not necessarily in Iran's favour when dealing with Western powers or Western audiences, but these were not the main target-groups of Ahmadinejad. When Khamenei saw that Ahmadinejad had "delivered the streets" of the developing countries through his actions, he allowed him more leeway to continue.

In addition, when Ahmadinejad was making these comments (you may have noticed that their frequency has gone down significantly), he was riding high on a hugely important election victory and was in a period where Iran's more aggressive foreign policy (which, again, he does not control but can influence through his actions and bargaining in the consensus process) in fact seemed to be paying dividends. Today, with the economy not performing according to his promises, Iran's nuclear program dragged before the UN Security Council and a plethora of domestic criticism against him on various fronts, his manoeuvrability is severely limited.

On a general level, Iran does not want an open war with Israel, partly since it knows the limitation of its capabilities, but also since this does not really serve any purpose for Iran. The Iran-Israel struggle is a wider strategic one and not one concerned with territory or things of that nature. Also, both sides need the prospect of an external "existential threat" for their respective identity formations and going to an open war would not be valuable to either. I am firmly of the opinion that the Israelis don't want a war either and that the media (as well as a lot of analysts) are blowing this threat out of proportion. Israeli decision-makers are neither stupid nor ignorant of political/military realities. However, they will use the threat of a "nuclear holocaust" to serve their specific needs and purposes and to push for an internationalisation of what is in essence a manufactured crisis.

The proxy wars being fought through the various Palestinian groups and Hezbollah is a much better option for Tehran, since the battleground remains far from Iran and the costs remain very low (the financial support given to these groups is minuscule compared to what a war would cost).

To Question 2:

I would say that the Iranian public is very happy about the lack of bellicose action. They don't want another war.

One of the interesting things that are often missed in the analysis of Iranian behaviour is that a great many of Iranian decision-makers, who even fill the boards of many state companies, sit in ministries, etc. are veterans of a war that only ended 19 years ago. These individuals know the real impact a conflict has on a country's economy and they've also seen first-hand the horrors of war. This does not mean that they will not defend their country in case of an attack – and I am willing to bet that even a lot of the older veterans who now live comfortable lives would join the fight – but that they are not going to pick a fight unnecessarily with anyone. If you read the statements of military commanders in Iran, they never talk about attacking any country, but simply that they will "strike blows to any aggressors" or how they changed their defensive doctrines to deal with modern threats (for example, saying that they would widen the theatre of action to Western capitals through "asymmetric actions", if necessary). But it's all defensive and never offensive.

To Question 3:
If there is a direct American attack on Iranian soil, then all bets will be off and pragmatism, etc. will no longer be a major component of Iranian policy. There will of course be those who will call for restraint or to handle things in a more diplomatic manner, but the greater majority of decision-makers, and the public at large will no longer care for politicking but will want "revenge" and retaliation. Even Rafsanjani could not under those circumstances argue for diplomacy, but would have to fully back retaliatory actions.

Since there is a clear understanding that the Iranian military cannot conventionally match that of the US (especially if they only do surgical strikes and don’t actually invade, which would be a different story altogether), the focus would turn to asymmetric responses. My guess is that the main focus would be in Iraq but also against US-related targets in the city-states around the Persian Gulf, as well as possibly against Saudi Arabia (although I'm a bit sceptical about this one). In addition, there are likely to be targeted attacks carried out by proxy groups, both against Israel and against US allies in Europe, in addition to US cities themselves. I'm pretty sure a sizable portion of Iranians living abroad, who have a lot of money and are internationally mobile, would not have qualms in assisting this "defensive" effort.
continue reading "The Iranian public is very happy about......"

A Tale of 2 NJ Conventions

On September 15, the Passaic County Republicans held their long-awaited convention to determine who the County GOP would officially endorse for the 2008 Presidential primaries. In principle, this was an excellent initiative aimed to increase transparency and decrease bossism. In practice, it was not optimally publicized and thus missed the mark of attempting to attract more outsiders, but devoted Republicans, to get involved with their local towns' GOP campaigns. Turnout was respectable, but consisted of the same reliable faces that attend all the events and fundraisers. So, all in all, the outreach component of the event fell short, and the local media totally bypassed the event, unfortunately.

Nevertheless, I spoke on behalf of Ron Paul (see below). Also speaking were Pat Kramer for Mitt Romney, Jim Marotta for Fred Thompson, and Rich Goldberg for Rudy Giuliani (whose supporters were out in full force - he won a crushing victory).




Also check out speeches by Joe Pennacchio, Jay Webber, Alex DeCroce, County Chairman Scott Rumana, and candidates Chauncey Brown, Jeremias Batista, Jerry Holt, and Joe Stinziano.

2 weeks later, Conservatives with Attitude, the GOPUSA affiliate run by my good friend and fellow blogger Michael "The Commish" Illions, also known as the wrestler AJ Sparxx, who is known for bodyslamming liberals on a daily basis. This event was well-publicized in advance, and attracted an amazing turnout by Ron Paul supporters - as a result Ron Paul won with 73% of the vote! At this event, Murray Sabrin stumped for Ron Paul, my 2004 congressional challenger counterpart from Distict 12, Bill Spadea, spoke for Rudy Giuliani, State Senator Joe Kyrillos for Mitt Romney, as well as a surrogate for Tom Tancredo.

Looks like "winner take all", which Illions, Kyrillos and I all opposed vigorously, might be more interesting than anticipated!

continue reading "A Tale of 2 NJ Conventions..."

Food, food, food...

September 18 was the "Beefsteak" fundraiser for the Passaic County Republican Party, held at the Brownstone in Paterson (where else?)

I took video - see speeches by Jerry Holt (see below), plus Jeremias Batista, Scott Rumana, and Joe Stinziano.



Turnout was quite good and cameraderie was high - but as always my critique of such affairs is that all we do is stuff our faces and never get anybody fired up about the issues! We need to incorporate multimedia tools like videos, powerpoint, etc. to get the grassroots and donors charged up about not only the chances for winning, but what message we need to deliver.

Things have improved since the Mecca/Murphy days, but we still have a long way to go.
continue reading "Food, food, food......"

Pennacchio stumps, Estabrook glides, Bramnick watches

At my most recent New Jersey Now taping, I had the chance to meet Assemblyman Jon Bramnick from Union County, who has curiously kept his name alive for next year's US Senate nomination. He now seems to be indicating that he will wait until after November's election to make a final decision (Bramnick is independently wealthy, but the $/day figure with less than a year to raise $15 million has got to be daunting him). He has an interesting angle, though - that people are tired of the status quo and he seems to want to run a totally different kind of campaign. He does have a certain regular-guy quality that could make such a plan interesting, depending just how outside-the-box he wants to go. I'm intrigued.

Regular-guy appeal, however, is not running short chez Joe Pennacchio, who has come up with a nice stump speech in which he discusses his Democrat roots, his admiration for JFK and Ronald Reagan, and his vision for the NJGOP. Not much issue-related meat to it, but it's early yet. I haven't heard much from Anne Estabrook or Larry Weitzner, but an inside source described her fundraising operation as "underwhelming". Another veteran operative told me that "the Whitman crowd will write her $250 checks as a courtesy, but they're not going to do much more than that."

Still, she continues to buy up organizational support (I heard a Bergen insider describe newly-elected Chairman Rob Ortiz's modus operandi as "let's see how fast we can sell the BCRO to Anne Estabrook"). I don't think it was a good move for him to personally endorse yet as we still have 2007 elections to be concerned with!

On the other hand, Pennacchio has formed an exploratory committee, which was not entirely necessary given that he already had plenty of buzz and everyone knew he was running. Besides, the only person named was Morris County GOP Chairman John Sette. Largely, the nomination will come down to how much conservative grassroots support Joe Pennacchio manages to get (I am hearing mixed messages from those circles), how well he can leverage his Assembly relationships and convert them to organizational support, and what kind of silly gimmicks Larry Weitzner stuffs into Estabrook's "campaign in a can". And of course, does Jon Bramnick have a crazy trick up his sleeve?
continue reading "Pennacchio stumps, Estabrook glides, Bramnick watches..."

Discriminación

On September 10, the Democrat candidates for President assembled for a debate broadcast on the Spanish channel Univision.

The Republicans were offered a similar debate, but only John McCain was willing to participate. I consider that short-sighted and frustrating.

However, the circumstances of the Democrats' debate were terrible. First of all, this was a debate between individuals who seek to be President of the United States and therefore a forum in which they could express their ideas to the American voting public. It so happens that in this case their ideas were presented in the Spanish language. Sadly, I know very little Spanish - but I still wanted to hear what they had to say! To my amazement, Univision did not close-caption the debate in English or provide a second audio track in English! For once the shoe was on the other foot, and it kicked me and other non-Spanish speakers swiftly in the ass.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I was furious about the rules of the debate which did not allow Bill Richardson (a bilingual candidate of Hispanic origin) and Chris Dodd (who speaks Spanish fluently thanks to a Peace Corps stint in the Dominican Republic) to answer the questions in Spanish to the audience!!! They had to listen to translations through an earpiece, and then reply in English, only to have their English reply translated back into Spanish for broadcast to the viewers. How absolutely obnoxious, not to mention inefficient. Richardson was scolded by the moderator when he attempted to toss in a bit of Spanish in his replies.

Par for the liberal course, I suppose: penalize those with skills and talents so that others don't "feel bad". What quintessentially bad egalitarian PCness! Be forewarned: elect a Democrat in 2008, and this mentality will overrun America's educational and social policy.

continue reading "Discriminación..."

September update

Dear readers,

Please excuse me for not having updated the blog for the past 2+ weeks - it is not that I didn't have much to say or observe - quite the contrary!

But a perfect storm of a hectic schedule, preparations for another long stay in Senegal (from whence I write today), and sadly, the passing of Sito (the preferred Arabic word to call one's grandmother) Gertrude Fattell Ajjan, who was 84, made keeping up to date with the blog all the more difficult. May God have mercy on her.

On a brighter note, you will notice (and hopefully enjoy) the new expanded 3-column look of the blog, which penalizes my overseas cybercafe readers with 800x600 displays (sorry guys), but offers the vast majority more content on-screen and easier access to clips of my tv appearances, which I hope will continue.

I plan to update with a series of quick posts getting up-to-date, and inshallah I will regain my usual pace shortly.

Best,
George
continue reading "September update..."