Currently viewing the tag: “they”
-By Warner Todd Huston
In a recent interview with Channel 4 TV News in Milwaukee, President Obama denied that government employees are responsible for the “budget problems” that the nation faces and that employees such as those in Wisconsin are not to blame. We shouldn’t “vilify” them, he said. Yet, seeming to contradict Obama’s claims USA Today has reported that in 41 states government employees make more on average than workers in the private sector.
In a fine demagogic manner Obama told Channel 4 that we need to understand that these public employees are “our friends and neighbors.”
And I think it’s very important for us to understand that public employees, they’re our neighbors, they’re our friends. These are folks who are teachers, and they’re firefighters, and they’re social workers, and they’re police officers. You know, they make a lot of sacrifices, and make a big contribution, and I think it’s important not to vilify them, or to suggest that somehow all these budget problems are due to public employees.
Naturally Obama is standing up for the very unions that gave him millions in campaign cash as they sought to make of him their bought and paid for presidential candidate in 2008. Still, is he right? Is it wrong to focus on government employees as a budgetary item worth cutting? Are the salaries of public employees nothing to get all excited about?
The answer appears to run counter to Obama’s claims. USA Today reports facts that tend to make the lie to Obama’s dismissal of cuts in public employee pay and benefits.
USA Today finds that Wisconsin is one of 41 states where public employees earn more than the average citizens in the private sector.
The analysis of government data found that public employees’ compensation has grown faster than the earnings of private workers since 2000. Primary cause: the rising value of benefits.
So, as President Obama tries to cajole people into imagining that government employees are not the problem and that they do not earn more than the rest of the country, facts say just the opposite. Public employees live high on the hog while those that pay for them, the taxpayers, suffer.
Transcript of Obama’s Appearance on Channel 4 News:
Well I’d say that I haven’t followed exactly what’s happening with the Wisconsin budget. I’ve got some budget problems here in Washington that I’ve had to focus on. I would say, as a general proposition, that everybody’s gotta make some adjustments to new fiscal realities. And I think if we want to avoid layoffs — which I want to avoid, I don’t want to see layoffs of hard-working federal workers.
We had to impose, for example, a freeze on pay increases for federal workers for the next two years, as part of my overall budget freeze. You know, I think those kinds of adjustments are the right thing to do.
On the other other hand, some of what I’ve heard coming out of Wisconsin — where you’re just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain, generally — seems like more of an assault on unions.
And I think it’s very important for us to understand that public employees, they’re our neighbors, they’re our friends. These are folks who are teachers, and they’re firefighters, and they’re social workers, and they’re police officers. You know, they make a lot of sacrifices, and make a big contribution, and I think it’s important not to vilify them, or to suggest that somehow all these budget problems are due to public employees.
So, I think everybody’s gotta make some adjustments, but I think it’s also important to recognize that public employees make enormous contributions to the well being of our states and our cities.
Not Huckabee or Palin?
The game of footsie played by Newt Gingrich this week has apparently exhausted the patience of Fox News, at which Gingrich works as an occasional contributor. Earlier today, Fox anchor Bret Baier announced that the network would suspend both Gingrich and fellow contributor Rick Santorum until they clarified their intent to run for office in […]
Ross Douthat relays the strongest critique of the Tea Party:
Sure, liberals allowed, Tea Partiers said that they cared about runaway government spending, but polls showed that most of them actually felt more strongly about tax cuts than real fiscal discipline, and believed that the deficit could be pared back without touching Medicare or Social Security or defense.
But the movement has proved these detractors wrong, he argues, noting that "a couple months into the new G.O.P. era, and the party’s Congressional leadership has formally committed itself to providing a blueprint for entitlement reform, the immense political risks notwithstanding." His evidence for this? A Weekly Standard piece that says that a future budget plan by the GOP will include serious entitlement cuts. But in that very piece, we also learn
Still, there remains considerable disagreement among elected Republicans about the wisdom of taking on entitlement reform. Many Republicans, including some with impeccable Tea Party credentials, are uneasy with the idea of making a case on entitlements immediately before a presidential election. They worry that the White House will demagogue any proposed changes to scare seniors, the most active and important voting bloc. It is unclear what, exactly, Ryan will include in his budget proposal.
That plan is scheduled apparently for early April. So lets wait and see, shall we? But if the GOP really does propose grown-up plans to cut entitlement spending, the Dish will be the first to cheer them on. Obama's dismal, total failure to tackle this head-on in his SOTU has given the GOP an opening. If they take it, and regain the mantle of true fiscal conservatism – not petty and damaging cuts to the relatively trivial matter of debt caused by domestic discretionary spending and pork – good for them.
Or, The Continuing Media Narrative of ‘Acceptable’ Racism.
Dr. King once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Apparently, US Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t get the memo.
As reported and applauded by Politico, Holder announced Tuesday that he was fed up with listening to whining whites who claim the justice department deliberately blocks investigations of black on white racism. Predictably, the Establishment media sides with Holder.
“Think about that,” Holder said. “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia, which was inappropriate .. .to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people,” said Holder, who is black.
Holder noted that his late sister-in-law, Vivian Malone Jones, helped integrate the University of Alabama.
“To compare that kind of courage, that kind of action, to say some Black Panther incident is of greater concern to us, historically, I think just flies in the face of history,” Holder said with evident exasperation.”
So the obvious takeaway from this is that some racism is worse than others. Some racist injustice is worthy of prosecution, other racism is not. Apparently, whites simply haven’t suffered enough. They don’t deserve legal protection. So, any injustices committed against white people should be swept under the rug. It’s not worth Eric Holder’s time.
One might be shocked by the statements. One might even wonder why the media chooses not to attack Holder for his patently racist statements. After all, were a white man to suggest this, his career would be over in a hail of media machine-gun fire. Reporters would fall over themselves to attack him, and his family would be ruthlessly attacked in the community. His kids would have to stay home from school (assuming their teachers weren’t on strike, anyway), and he’d get hate mail and death threats for decades.
But the Establishment Media’s lack of moral indignation isn’t surprising. In America, it’s blasphemous to even suggest that whites could be victims of racial injustice.
Whites are the permanent “oppressors” in the mainstream media narrative, while all other races are the permanent “victims.” In fact, “white” and “oppressor” are essentially synonymous — meaning: whites are the bad guys. All whites have been lumped together and typecast in a bad reality TV show. Because whites as a group do not have clean hands, therefore, they are denied the right of seeking justice.
If that isn’t stereotyping, I don’t know what is.
The larger issue, of course, is that “whites as racists” constitutes the fundamental lens through which Holder views issues in America. During the healthcare debate, Holder likened opposition of Obamacare to opposition to civil rights. Not civil rights in the sense that, “all Americans share civil rights,” mind you, but “Civil Rights” as in the struggle for black legal equality in America during the 40’s-60’s. Translation: those who oppose Obamacare are racists. Such language is naked race-baiting and scapegoating. But Holder doesn’t care. Whites are the bad guy bogeymen, trotted out when it gets tough to pass legislation. And his recent comments reveal his paradigm: white Americans are generally racist and any time they oppose any Obama policy or “injustice” at the hands of a racist group, they’re either being racists or they’re simply not entitled to equal protection because they haven’t suffered as much as other groups.
Nobody is seeking to belittle the suffering of other people, here, but America seeks equality. This means equal protection under the law, not equality in historical racial suffering.
Holder’s statements are completely sadistic, and they betray his motives. He has a score to settle, and by his figure whites have a lot more suffering to endure before they have a right to expect justice from the “Justice Department.” Satisfying vendettas is for Mob Bosses, not the US Attorney General’s Office.
The Establishment media’s silence regarding his racist statements demonstrates agreement and approval. Such hypocrisy. Such shame. Such racism.
There has been a lot of discussion and confusion as of late about the role of government unions. What does collective bargaining look like for government workers? The Heritage Foundation has released a new factsheet that explains everything you need to know about Government Unions, what they do, and what they won’t tell you.
For government workers, collective bargaining gives unions a monopoly on the government’s workforce. The government may not hire non-union workers. In the 28 non-right-to-work states (which includes Wisconsin), this means that unions can force government employees to pay union dues or get fired.
There are major differences in collective bargaining for government workers and private sector workers. In the private sector, unions bargain with owners to redistribute the profits created by the company. Governments make no profit. The only thing government workers bargain for is more tax dollars.
It wasn’t always this way. Collective bargaining with the government is a relatively new concept. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt warned us about the dangers of a government strike which he called “unthinkable and intolerable.” The president of the AFL-CIO, in 1955, said it was “impossible to collectively bargain with the government”.
What is happening in Wisconsin is that Governor Walker (R-WI) is trying to reform collective bargaining. He wants to give the voters more influence on where money is being spent. He is not eliminating collective bargaining or “busting” the unions. This is an important battle to fight because there are lots of states are facing large budget shortfalls. This is simply a measure to balance the budget and avoid layoffs.
You can download the pdf of this fact sheet here.
Sitting in a bank account somewhere is $ 610,000 waiting to be spent on art at a new Broward County courthouse.
Or on something else.
County commissioners are scheduled to decide Tuesday whether to write the check to spend that money adding an artistic flair to the new county courthouse that will soon be built in downtown Fort Lauderdale.
Flying saucers at the hockey arena in Sunrise. A leaping sailfish outside the Broward County Convention Center. A giant ball, upside-down “ice cream cone’’ and upended “rice cake’’ outside the current Broward County Courthouse.
They’re some of the public art monuments Broward County commissioners have already bought with tax money over the years.
But the law requiring art in public places was changed in January, allowing commissioners to waive it. With tight budgets that required major cuts, some county commissioners questioned the requirement in recent years as an extravagance county taxpayers could ill afford.
County staff say the art spending for the planned courthouse never was determined, because the whole art law was in flux. There is $ 845,000 in the art fund that was set aside for a family courthouse project, and county staff recommend spending $ 610,000 of it on the new courthouse.
The courthouse art wouldn’t be the big, stand-alone art like is seen now outside the existing courthouse, and outside many other government buildings in Broward County. It would be “functionally integrated’’ into the building, the county says, like the addition of “aesthetic features’’ to the lobby. That could be a colored lighting, or artistic tiling, or a staircase with flair.
Local artist Margi Nothard would be the creative master behind the project, if commissioners say yes.
Babak Dehghanpisheh tours a Libyan prison that has since been torched by Libyan protesters:
Abdul Salam Barghati locks his wrists and ankles around an iron bar with his body dangling just a few inches off the ground. "This was called the ‘Hyundai,'" he says, describing a torture position that Libyan interior ministry forces used at a notorious prison in Benghazi. "They beat us with sticks while we were hanging for hours."
When asked earlier this month about the job loss that would occur if the continuing resolution passed by House Republicans were actually implemented, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) replied “so be it.” “We’re broke. It’s time for us to get serious about how we’re spending the nation’s money,” he said.
And Boehner is evidently not the only one who feels that budget cuts should be imposed with complete disregard for their effect on employment. In an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep today, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) was asked if budget cuts should still go forward, even if they would result in widespread job loss, and replied “yes”:
INSKEEP: I want to ask something that a lot of people are confronting right now, as they deal with the federal deficit as well as state and local deficits that need to be closed. Are budget cuts — government budget cuts — worth it, even if they end up seriously costing a lot of jobs right now?
DANIELS: The answer is yes.
Last week, economists at Goldman Sachs estimated that the House Republicans’ continuing resolution would cause GDP to drop by 1.5 to 2 percent, which CAP economist Adam Hersh explained would translate into a one percentage point jump in the unemployment rate. Before that, the Economic Policy Institute found that the Republican plan would cause a loss of nearly one million jobs.
As if we needed more evidence of the effect GOP spending policy could have on employment, Moody’s Analytics predicted today that the House Republican plan would cause the loss of 700,000 jobs:
A Republican plan to sharply cut federal spending this year would destroy 700,000 jobs through 2012, according to an independent economic analysis set for release Monday…[Moody’s Chief Economist Mark] Zandi, an architect of the 2009 stimulus package who has advised both political parties, predicts that the GOP package would reduce economic growth by 0.5 percentage points this year, and by 0.2 percentage points in 2012, resulting in 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of next year.
Republicans rode into the House majority chanting “where are the jobs?” but multiple independent analyses have now found that the vision they have for the federal budget would make unemployment substantially worse.
Cross-posted on Wonk Room.
When asked earlier this month about the job loss that would occur if the continuing resolution passed by House Republicans were actually implemented, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) replied “so be it.” “We’re broke. It’s time for us to get serious about how we’re spending the nation’s money,” he said.
And Boehner is evidently not the only one who feels that budget cuts should be imposed with complete disregard for their effect on employment. In an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep today, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) was asked if budget cuts should still go forward, even if they would result in widespread job loss, and replied “yes”:
INSKEEP: I want to ask something that a lot of people are confronting right now, as they deal with the federal deficit as well as state and local deficits that need to be closed. Are budget cuts — government budget cuts — worth it, even if they end up seriously costing a lot of jobs right now?
DANIELS: The answer is yes.
Last week, economists at Goldman Sachs estimated that the House Republicans’ continuing resolution would cause GDP to drop by 1.5 to 2 percent, which CAP economist Adam Hersh explained would translate into a one percentage point jump in the unemployment rate. Before that, the Economic Policy Institute found that the Republican plan would cause a loss of nearly one million jobs.
As if we needed more evidence of the effect GOP spending policy could have on employment, Moody’s Analytics predicted today that the House Republican plan would cause the loss of 700,000 jobs:
A Republican plan to sharply cut federal spending this year would destroy 700,000 jobs through 2012, according to an independent economic analysis set for release Monday…[Moody’s Chief Economist Mark] Zandi, an architect of the 2009 stimulus package who has advised both political parties, predicts that the GOP package would reduce economic growth by 0.5 percentage points this year, and by 0.2 percentage points in 2012, resulting in 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of next year.
Republicans rode into the House majority chanting “where are the jobs?” but multiple independent analyses have now found that the vision they have for the federal budget would make unemployment substantially worse.
Cross-posted on Wonk Room.
On Friday the Obama administration rescinded the 2008 federal regulation allowing health care workers to refuse to provide medical care they object to on moral or religious grounds. The Obama administration is retaining pre-existing conscience statutes for instance those allowing…
Political Punch
When asked earlier this month about the job loss that would occur if the continuing resolution passed by House Republicans were actually implemented, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) replied “so be it.” “We’re broke. It’s time for us to get serious about how we’re spending the nation’s money,” he said.
And Boehner is evidently not the only one who feels that budget cuts should be imposed with complete disregard for their effect on employment. In an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep today, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) was asked if budget cuts should still go forward, even if they would result in widespread job loss, and replied “yes”:
INSKEEP: I want to ask something that a lot of people are confronting right now, as they deal with the federal deficit as well as state and local deficits that need to be closed. Are budget cuts — government budget cuts — worth it, even if they end up seriously costing a lot of jobs right now?
DANIELS: The answer is yes.
Last week, economists at Goldman Sachs estimated that the House Republicans’ continuing resolution would cause GDP to drop by 1.5 to 2 percent, which CAP economist Adam Hersh explained would translate into a one percentage point jump in the unemployment rate. Before that, the Economic Policy Institute found that the Republican plan would cause a loss of nearly one million jobs.
As if we needed more evidence of the effect GOP spending policy could have on employment, Moody’s Analytics predicted today that the House Republican plan would cause the loss of 700,000 jobs:
A Republican plan to sharply cut federal spending this year would destroy 700,000 jobs through 2012, according to an independent economic analysis set for release Monday…[Moody’s Chief Economist Mark] Zandi, an architect of the 2009 stimulus package who has advised both political parties, predicts that the GOP package would reduce economic growth by 0.5 percentage points this year, and by 0.2 percentage points in 2012, resulting in 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of next year.
Republicans rode into the House majority chanting “where are the jobs?” but multiple independent analyses have now found that the vision they have for the federal budget would make unemployment substantially worse.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski has a bit of reputation for not liking conflict – and avoiding it whenever possible.
An excellent way of attempting to do this is to say whatever it is each person with whom you engage wishes to hear – even if consecutive conversations require diametrically opposite assertions.
The people with whom you speak all walk away happy, each thinking you’re a swell guy. And you can continue doing exactly what it is you want to do.
Like, say, shoving through in unauthorized fashion overly oppressive Network Neutrality regulations.
—-
As we have previously discussed, President Barack Obama does – and will be doing – this sort of double dealing all the time. (He’ll also repeatedly do it with his oath of office – as again demonstrated by his abdicating his responsibility to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.)
Let us now take a look at Chairman Genachowski’s recent public statements on the subject of Net Neutrality.
Starting with what should have been the end of this entire FCC power grab fiasco. In the October 3rd Washington Post, Genachowski said:
“…(W)e have a Communications Act that wasn’t written for broadband.”
Game over, one would think. The FCC can’t regulate anything unless and until Congress writes a law that says “Hey FCC – regulate this.” And here we have the Chairman of the FCC admitting that Congress has never done this on broadband.
The overwhelmingly Democrat Congress that was at that time convened agreed with Genachowski’s public admission – in large bipartisan fashion. 302 of them, in fact, expressed their opposition – including more than 80 of Genachowski’s fellow Democrats.
And then there was the D.C. Circuit Court, which last April unanimously ruled that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to regulate broadband.
But why should all that opposition – including his own – stop Genachowski? In fact, it didn’t.
As a Christmas present to the Bigger Government world, Genachowski had his Democrat-majority FCC vote in 3-2 partisan fashion to impose broadband Net Neutrality regulations – in direct contravention of the Circuit Court and the 300+ Congressmen with whom he had so recently agreed.
Since then, Genachowski’s statements have been all over the place. Whatever needed to be said to whoever needed to hear it.
The pressure point was the February 16th Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing to investigate the Net Neutrality ruling – called by new Republican Chairman Greg Walden.
The American people had just handed the Republicans 60+ new House seats and the majority because they did not like the Democrats’ vast governmental overreaching – of the kind Chairman Genachowski executed this Yuletide season after said Smaller Government election.
In advance of the convening, the Chairman was scrambling.
FCC chair says net neutrality rules create jobs
FCC chairman: Regulations are ’slowing down broadband deployment’
No contradiction there – seeing as broader broadband deployment is the lynchpin to more Internet gigs and the Chairman just unilaterally imposed huge, undefined and indefinable new regulations.
Genachowski ready to debate Congress on net neutrality
He should start by debating himself.
But at the Congressional hearing, Genachowski wasn’t in a debating mood. He was again all things to all people.
Let us look at but one answer he gave – to Illinois Republican Representative Michael Kinzinger, who asked the Chairman a very reasonable question. Why – when you and just about everyone else on Planet Earth said you didn’t have Congressional authority to impose Net Neutrality – did you impose Net Neutrality?
Genachowski’s answer was at once sycophantic and schizophrenic.
“We continue to be available as a resource to work with Congress on legislation that would provide certainty and address issues around broadband. So, that is our job and we look forward to being a resource to Congress.”
What an annoying and obnoxious answer this is.
Mister Chairman, you can’t “continue to be…a resource to work with Congress” if 302 members of a Democrat-majority Congress told you not to impose Net Neutrality – and you imposed Net Neutrality anyway. You weren’t “work(ing) with Congress” – you were working against them.
And you rushed the Christmas power grab vote to get it in before the new Republican-richer and even more opposed Congress was sworn in. Not very “resource”-ful of you.
By pretending to be amenable to legislation – which you aren’t, else you would have waited – “that would provide certainty” you are tacitly admitting your Web usurpation – which you absurdly asserted would provide certainty – did no such thing.
Two lawsuits (and counting) and multiple pieces of legislation seeking to undo the order – which you had to know were inevitable – provide chaos, not certainty – which you had to know was the inevitable outcome.
And if it is “certainty” and “light-touch regulation” you really want – why is the total Internet takeover Title II reclassification order still open?
—-
Saying whatever whoever is in front of you wants to hear only works for so long. Eventually, a dossier is built – and the inconsistencies become increasingly glaring.
Then candidate-Obama successfully ran in 2008 as the “I’m Whoever You Want Me to Be” nominee. Two plus years in, we know who he really is – regardless of whatever he continues to say.
Likewise, Chairman Genachowski’s “Aw Shucks” façade has – as a result of his actions – fallen away, revealing a pronounced Bigger Government ideologue.
This is unquestionably the “Forget What We Say, Watch What We Do” Administration.
So far, I’ve personally stayed away from most discussion of the Koch Brothers, because it just enables the insane left to come up with more conspiracy theories, but, this one at the Democratic Underground by LynneSin takes the cake: Dear Koch Brothers: You have BILLIONS of dollars! Why keep the rest of us from having some?
Honestly, I can’t even fathom owning BILLIONS of dollars. I mean I get happy feet when I see that I have just a thousand in my bank account and I know for many working families they don’t even see that much.
Maybe you should get a better job and work hard, instead of expecting Someone Else to just give you money. How do you think Charles and David Koch got rich? Or, conversely, you could marry someone rich, like John Kerry.
I mean you could spend a million dollars every single day of your life and you’d STILL never see an end to all of your money. But for many families, every single day they’re checking underneath their sofa cushions and inside their pants pockets just to find a few extra dollars to help pay the bills. And this just isn’t the homeless, the unemployed or welfare cases – this is working families who want to give a good, safe home to their families.
Say, I wonder what several hundred extra dollars not spent on union dues would do?
What I don’t understand is why you begrudges us having healthcare. You realize that no matter what somebody pays for the healthcare whether or not we have a healthcare plan. The difference is this – if our country had a solid, affordable healthcare for every person then the cost of healthcare overall would go down. Why? Because for the poor, they can’t afford to do things like yearly checkups and PCP visits when they are sick so for them their main form of treatment is over-the-counter remedies, expensive emergency room visits and a prayer that it’s not life-threatening or bank-busting.
Based on your belief that ObamaCare will reduce costs, I’d assume that you’ve been taking lots of PCP. Good thing there is this Medicaid program to help poor people out, along with other programs. If you weren’t sitting on your couch saying everyone else should give you money, you’d know that.
Jesus once said ‘It is easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle than a wealthy man to reach the kingdom of Heaven’. That quote wasn’t geared towards us working class but for people like you – Charles & David Koch – and any other filthy rich gazillionaire who would try to squash the working class in order to boost your profits. Sure, people like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckenberg are billionaires but at least I see them giving money back to the community with massive donations to help make this world a better place. Like you 2, they probably couldn’t spend all their money if they tried but at least they are doing good with it and not just making themselves a fat pig.
Actually, that quote was meant for those who worshiped their money over God. Speaking of God, I find it interesting that LynneSin picks the one translation from Matthew 19:24 that uses the word Heaven instead of God. Yet, the Koch brothers seem to be much more religious than the Progressive left. Oh, and then there’s the $ 600 million in charitable donations the pair have made over the past decade, much to medical centers, schools, and the arts. Oh, and that they support drug legalization, gay marriage, and reduced military spending. Oops.
But, of course, we have to end with typical liberal civility
So shame on you Charles & David Koch. May your time in Hell be painfully hot and forever eternal and may the faces of the people who you squashed in order to reap in your billions haunt you every single day. I would suggest you read Dante’s “Inferno” for surely there is a hell like that for you.
Funny how lefties suddenly believe in Hell.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.
This post was written by Barry Rubin and is reposted here with his permission.
By Barry Rubin
I think I was the first person to warn that the Egyptian revolution wasn’t all roses but also had a dangerous amount of thorns. And the more Western governments and media reassure us, the more we worry. Why? Because it shows they have no idea what they are facing and no idea of what they are doing.
Well, there is a welcome exception, Michael Slackman, writing from the Gulf, has obviously been talking to some Arabs there trying to make the Americans see reality. His article is entitled, “Arab Unrest Propels Iran as Saudi Influence Declines” and here’s the lead:
“The popular revolts shaking the Arab world have begun to shift the balance of power in the region, bolstering Iran’s position while weakening and unnerving its rival, Saudi Arabia, regional experts said….Iran has already benefited from the ouster or undermining of Arab leaders who were its strong adversaries and has begun to project its growing influence, the analysts said.”
Unfortunately, this is not affecting coverage further west, where the “loco weed” (see note) of Israel makes observers insane.
Here are some of the things we’ve seen so far:
-Well over a million people chanting, “To Jerusalem we are heading! Martyrs in the millions!” Might this entail some future deterioration of Egypt’s relations not only with Israel but also with the Palestinian Authority?
-An Iranian-made Grad missile fired at the Israeli city of Beersheva. These have been rare in the past because they are hard to smuggle into the Gaza Strip. But now, through bribery, indifference, and ideological agreement, smuggling weapons to Hamas has become far easier. Might this not lead to a new Israel-Hamas or even Israel-Hamas-Egypt war?
-Two Iranian warships were allowed by Egypt to transit the Suez Canal for the first time since the 1979 Islamic revolution. Could this perhaps produce a stronger Iran and a weaker U.S. position?
-In 2009, Qaradawi called on the Arabs to get nuclear weapons in order to overturn the peace which Israel wants.
-Egypt has begun opening the border with the Gaza Strip.
-The Muslim Brotherhood has begun a campaign to replace Egypt’s top clergy with its own men, a move that would give them control of mosques, religious education, and lots of money and media access.
-The Brotherhood also has a long record of helping Hamas. Meanwhile, Hamas, showing growing confidence, is more likely to attack Israel believing-wrongly or rightly-that Egypt will “guard its back.”
Now the American media at least is covering Israel’s concerns (a story that could have been written three weeks ago) but only to show that they are wrong! Take a recent article in the New York Times (albeit three weeks after this point became obvious):
“Israelis worry that Arab democracy movements will ultimately be dominated by extremists, as happened in Iran after the 1979 revolution that ousted the shah. They worry about the chaotic transition between revolt and democratic stability, if it ever comes. They see Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, even if it remains a minority of Egyptian opinion, as pressing for more solidarity with the Palestinians and Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood. And they fear that Israel’s regional partners in checking Iran are under threat or falling.”
Shouldn’t these factors also bother U.S. policy?
For example, another story reports:
“Senior Hamas military commander Ayman Nofal, who escaped from confinement in Egypt during a mass prison break, returned to Gaza where he told an interviewer: `We’re preparing for the next battle.’ Two Israeli officials familiar with intelligence reports said this week that Hamas, emboldened by Mubarak’s resignation and its own successful crackdown on popular discontent at home, had stepped up the smuggling of militants and weapons through Egypt to be stockpiled in Gaza for use against Israel. `It’s not just terrorists coming in. It’s dangerous equipment–Grad-type missiles, anti-aircraft missiles,’ a senior Israeli official said.”
This was said before the Grad missile hit Beersheva. Shouldn’t this also be a U.S. and European concern?
Going back to the New York Times piece, it answers Israeli concerns with a “reassuring” response:
“Arab analysts counter that new Arab realities and democracies should be welcomed by Israel, because the new Arab generation shares many of the same values as Israel and the West. [That remains to be seen, doesn’t it? BR] They argue that there is no support among Egypt’s leaders for the abrogation of the 1979 peace treaty, though it is unpopular with the public, and that the Egyptian Army will not disrupt foreign policy.”
No support? The two best-known reformist leaders-Ayman Nour and Muhammad ElBaradei-have called for revising the treaty. So has the Muslim Brotherhood, which can mobilize millions of people. Even the extremely moderate Egyptian blogger Sandmonkey takes for granted that the treaty will be unilaterally altered.
“`There is no regime that is going to be against or hostile toward Israel in the near term,’” said Mohamed Darif, a political scientist at Morocco’s King Hassan II University. `There has been an evolution in the Arab world, among political elites and in civil society. Israel is a fact.’”
Notice the phrase “near term,” meaning over the coming months. The medium term and long term are, however, also matters of strategic interest, aren’t they? Also the statement misses the most obvious point: it is precisely the existing elites that are being challenged or overthrown. And, of course, this does not apply to those now ruling Syria, Lebanon, and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.
I’ll go here with the assessment of the radical Arab (who is also a consultant to the U.S. Defense Department) As’ad Abu Khalil ridiculing the idea that the “overthrow of the regime would not change Egyptian foreign policy….”
More than a century ago, the great German Socialist leader August Bebel said that antisemitism was the “socialism of fools. Might it also turn out-as happened in Germany later-to be the “democracy of fools” in our own era?
After all, there has been no Arab leader more consistently anti-Israel than Libya’s Muammar Qadhafi. Yet in posters and effigies, opposition demonstrators are putting a Star of David on him to suggest that he’s an Israeli agent! That gives some sense that huge numbers of people in the Arab world-perhaps even a higher percentage among those rebelling against existing regimes-view Israel as a demonic evil behind everything they don’t like at home and in the region.
[I will resist the opportunity to compare this view to that held by various European politicians, journalists, and academics.]
U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron told students in Qatar that some Middle Eastern rulers were using the Israel-Palestine conflict as a distraction from their own oppressive regimes. That’s true. The problem is that it is such a good distraction precisely because doing so is wildly popular with the Arab masses, who may well want more militancy than those governments are willing to provide.
The New York Times article continues:
“But new governments are more likely to increase their support for the Palestinian cause, with Egypt already reopening the crossing with Hamas-run Gaza. That new attitude could pressure Israel to do more to find a settlement, some analysts argue. Most others believe that Israel will instead resist, arguing that it cannot make concessions because it is now encircled by more hostile neighbors.”
You think? In other words, if Syria, Iran, Egypt, Hizballah-ruled Lebanon, and Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip give more help to Hamas; if the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are intimidated and take a harder line to survive, then does that tell us Israel should make more concessions? That’s sort of like saying that when next-door Germany was taken over by a new government in the 1930s it was the ideal moment for France to give up the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine.
Remember that the concessions made by Israel in the 1990s to the Palestinian Authority did not advance a comprehensive peace and that Egypt seems close to changing its own peace treaty to Israel. Why should Israel expect that another agreement would not be overturned by some new revolution, change of mind, or cynical long-term plan?
And what is the thrust of this article? Why that instead of supporting Israel against the heightened strategic danger, the Western response should be to pressure Israel for more concessions (supposedly for its own good). In other words, all of the events of the last year-correction: the last two decades-have taught these people absolutely nothing. That’s why Israel will ignore their suicidal advice.
Often such articles say something so stupid that you know the author has no idea what he’s talking about. In this case, the writer goes extolls how wonderful it is that Turkey is becoming more influential and then adds:
“The Turkish model would be a good outcome for Israel, many Israelis agree. But as they also noted, relations with Turkey have been deeply strained by its new closeness to Muslim neighbors like Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.”
Yes, many Israelis agree that “the Turkish model” would be “a good outcome for Israel,” but only in the context that a revolutionary Islamist or radical nationalist Egypt would be much worse!
If you want to be well-informed about the Middle East, I’m sorry to say that reading Western newspapers is largely counterproductive.
Let me repeat what I’ve been saying for years:
The main threat in the Middle East is revolutionary Islamism as embodied by the Iran-Syria-Hamas (controls Gaza Strip)-Hizballah (controls Lebanon)-Iraqi insurgent-Turkish government alliance and also by the Egyptian and Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood.
The required strategy is to put together a counter-alliance of the United States, Europe, relatively moderate Arab regimes, and Israel. This also means supporting the oppositions in Lebanon, Turkey, and Iran.
The Egyptian revolution removes the most powerful Arab country countering the Islamists (and opposing Iran). It will produce a new government that will not be allied to the United States but will work more closely with its enemies. Eventually, a revolutionary Islamist government may emerge.
Even Russian President Dmitry Medvedev gets it, noting, “It is quite probable that hard times are ahead [in the Middle East]including the arrival at power of fanatics. This will mean fires for decades and the spread of extremism.”
Yet almost everyone in the Western establishment is telling us that this is a good thing. Go figure.
Note: Loco weed, the name given a plant in the old American west that when eaten by horses made them go crazy. See also, drinking the (poisoned) kool-aid.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader
(seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East
(Wiley), and The Truth About Syria
(Palgrave-Macmillan). His latest book is Israel: An Introduction, to be published by Yale University Press later this year. You can read more of Barry Rubin’s posts at Rubin Reports.
Technorati Tag: Egypt.
Given the Arab 1848, and the quickening debate on the right about how to respond, check out the conservative response to George W. Bush's second inaugural address, and its call for an end to tyranny in the world. At National Review in that era, Larry Kudlow gave the speech a somewhat breathless preview:
On the day of his second inauguration can there be any doubt that George W. Bush is the most powerful and dominant politician on the face of the Earth? As his policies reshape the American economy and the world, he has far more clout and influence than his predecessors Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush ever had. The younger Bush is more like Reagan. The Gipper revolutionized the economy with tax cuts and deregulation. He had far-reaching global influence with his vision of overturning the evil empire of Soviet communism. George W. Bush is equally visionary.
Now on to the reacts. Jonah Goldberg liked the freedom rhetoric:
I don't know that anyone thinks Bush is going to send tanks into Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan tomorrow in order to be consistent with his speech. But, the more I think about it the more I believe that his speech was intended for a global and transgenerational audience. He was picking sides, throwing down the gauntlet, laying out first principles etc. I really would be surprised if that address isn't being cursed by mullahs and murderers around the world… Yes, he wrote a check yesterday we can never literally cash, but I like the dogma he laid out. And if we have to make practical concessions to reality every now and then — and be called hypocritical for it — that's fine by me.
Peter Robinson didn't:
Bush has just announced that we must remake the entire third world in order to feel safe in our own homes, and he has done so without sounding a single note of reluctance or hesitation. This overturns the nation’s fundamental stance toward foreign policy since its inception. Washington warned of "foreign entanglements." The second President Adams asserted that "we go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." During the Cold War, even Republican presidents made it clear that we played our large role upon the world stage only to defend ourselves and our allies, seeking to changed the world by our example rather than by force. Maybe I'm misreading Bush — I'm writing this based on my notes, and without having had time to study the text — but sheesh.
Charles Krauthammer was optimistic:
The great project of the Bush administration — the strengthening and spread of democracy — is enjoying considerable success. Most recently we witnessed the triumph of the "orange revolution" in Ukraine, which followed the "rose revolution" in Georgia, bringing historic breaks from authoritarianism in two key former Soviet republics. Less publicized were elections in two critical Muslim states — Indonesia and Malaysia — in which Islamic parties were decisively defeated.
Elsewhere in the Islamic world, we saw (though many played down) the Afghan miracle: free and successful elections on perhaps the world's least hospitable soil for democracy. That was followed by Palestinian elections and the beginning of political reform. Even more encouraging was a public statement issued just weeks earlier by more than 500 Palestinian intellectuals demanding democracy, the rule of law, transparency and an end to Arafat-style dictatorial rule. And now, elections in Iraq, which are obviously problematic but also very promising.
Ed Morrisey gushed:
For too long, we have allowed those who trade stability for freedom in other nations to achieve the peace of the moment. On 9/11, we found out that this has its own price, and that we received no bargain for our efforts. Excusing dictators and kleptocrats in the long run creates fury, rage, and hopelessness that these same autocrats find useful in directing against us for their own purposes. That cycle has to end, for our own security.
In fact, in its own way, this might be one of the most radically classical-liberal American speeches in a generation.
Here's Victor Davis Hanson:
This is the first time that an American president has committed the United States to side with democratic reformers worldwide. The end of the cold war has allowed us such parameters, but the American people also should be aware of the hard and necessary decisions entailed in such idealism that go way beyond the easy rhetoric of calling for change in Cuba, Syria, or Iran – distancing ourselves from the Saudi Royal Family, pressuring the Mubarak dynasty to hold real elections, hoping that a Pakistan can liberalize without becoming a theocracy, and navigating with Putin in matters of the former Soviet republics, all the while pressuring nuclear China, swaggering with cash and confidence, to allow its citizens real liberty.
I wholeheartedly endorse the president's historic stance, but also accept that we live in an Orwellian world, where, for example, the liberal-talking Europeans are reactionary-doing realists who trade with anyone who pays and appease anyone who has arms-confident in their culture's ability always to package that abject realpolitik in the highest utopian rhetoric. But nonetheless the president has formally declared that we at least will be on the right side of history and thus we have to let his critics sort of their own moral calculus.
And finally, Peggy Noonan:
A short and self-conscious preamble led quickly to the meat of the speech: the president's evolving thoughts on freedom in the world. Those thoughts seemed marked by deep moral seriousness and no moral modesty. No one will remember what the president said about domestic policy, which was the subject of the last third of the text. This may prove to have been a miscalculation.
It was a foreign-policy speech. To the extent our foreign policy is marked by a division that has been (crudely but serviceably) defined as a division between moralists and realists-the moralists taken with a romantic longing to carry democracy and justice to foreign fields, the realists motivated by what might be called cynicism and an acknowledgment of the limits of governmental power-President Bush sided strongly with the moralists, which was not a surprise. But he did it in a way that left this Bush supporter yearning for something she does not normally yearn for, and that is: nuance. The administration's approach to history is at odds with what has been described by a communications adviser to the president as the "reality-based community."
(Photo: Paul J Richards/AFP/Getty)
