…The Rest Of The Story

February 28, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under In Memoriam, Media | 1 Comment 

Word tonight from Arizona of the death at age 90 of Paul Harvey, whose inimitable staccato delivery was heard on American airwaves from 1933, when he made his debut as a teenager on a Tulsa station, right up to the Obama presidency. He was also a friend and admirer of RN’s; in 1979 he didn’t hesitate to tell a reporter from People that “five years ago the news media overthrew the government.”

Watchmen, What Of The Opening Weekend?

February 28, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Entertainment, Frost/Nixon, Movies, Presidents, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

Somehow, I should have known that a movie with a nuanced and more or less sensitive portrayal of the 37th President, Frost/Nixon, would soon be counterbalanced by one trading on the Evil Nixon archetype favored by so many of popular culture’s tastemakers.

Such a film will be in the multiplexes next weekend when Zack Snyder’s Watchmen, the cinematic adaptation of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’s groundbreaking 1985 comic book series, has its opening.

Until now, the best-known science-fiction portrayal of RN has been Matt Groening’s animated series Futurama, in which the man from Whittier’s disembodied head is Earth President a thousand years hence, battling both alien invaders and the never-ending hippie menace. But by this time next week Watchmen will be competing with its vision of a 1985 in which President Nixon still governs the nation and grapples with an ever-escalating Cold War.

Moore and Gibbons’s comics portrayed a 1980s Nixon presidency as one of continuing paranoia and corruption, which functions in their work as a parallel, or a background leitmotif,  to the paranoia and corruption with which the superheroes of Watchmen and their human acolytes become involved.  But Snyder, as director of the movie, has chosen to play up the Nixon theme considerably, adding touches like actors playing Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift, and John McLaughlin on a fictional McLaughlin Group. (An Eleanor Clift fact you perhaps didn’t know:  her first husband was the older brother of legendary actor Montgomery Clift, which means her great-grandfather-in-law was Lincoln’s Postmaster General Montgomery Blair who once owned the property where sits the house where I write these words.)

So far the reviews of the film haven’t discussed the Nixon angle much. (Newsweek and CNN have weighed in.) But this interview with Snyder indicates the degree to which the president figures in the film. (Nixon, incidentally, is portrayed by Robert Wisden, a British actor given what Variety describes as “a comically elongated” putty nose for the role. The showbiz bible’s review further notes that the actor “doesn’t quite give Frank Langella a run for his money.”)

One unfortunate side effect: it seems a sure bet that many a middle-school student who sees the picture will be giving the wrong answer on any history exam that asks “Who was the President of the United States in 1985?”

Nixon The Communicator

February 28, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Election 2008, Featured Articles, George W. Bush, History, International Affairs, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, Watergate | 1 Comment 

The recently released C-SPAN 2009 Historians Presidential Leadership Survey is an interesting, if predictable, snapshot of scholarly opinion about past chief executives. Honest Abe towers over the list, his position secured by history and his frequent postmortem appearances during the 2008 campaign and beyond. The rail-splitter has never been hotter. Look soon for some imagery morphing Lincoln and Che Guevera on a t-shirt near you.

Surprisingly – at least a bit – is that George Washington knocked Franklin Roosevelt out of the number two spot. Apparently the father of our country still trumps the father of modern big government.

Go figure.

Of course, recent retiree George W. Bush ranks in the lower tier – just above my ancestor (really) Millard Fillmore. But in fairness, a lot of modern historians have to actually die off before Mr. 43 will get much of a real without-the-venom look.

Richard M. Nixon ranks 27th on the list. Jimmy Carter ranks 25th. WhatEVER.

Clearly without Watergate, as well as every actual day of the Carter administration, Nixon would rank much higher. However, that’s asking a lot – even of historians. To so many, Nixon without Watergate would be like Kennedy without the Cuban Missile Crisis. In other words, the particular presidency defined by the crucial episode. However, it may just be that Nixon without Watergate would be more like JFK without the Bay of Pigs, or drugs and bimbos, but I am not going to win that one in most arenas, I know.

Jack Kennedy, by the way, moved from number eight to six in the recent survey. But again in all fairness – as with Lincoln, he did rise from the dead to campaign for candidate Obama.

These surveys analyze a president’s leadership in matters foreign and domestic. But I wonder what a ranking would look like if we tried to find out who the best communicators in the White House were?

It is quite clear that the public at large is enamored of our new president’s communication skills and, in fact, they are quite impressive. He is a gifted speaker and he knows how to use this ability very well. His predecessor was, by all accounts, not as accomplished as a speaker. It is like JFK following Ike. Both the great general and George W. had more than a few syntax challenges.

The list of presidents known as highly effective communicators usually includes Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan. Clearly that’s a solid list. Most would not instinctively put Richard Nixon on such a list, but he was in many ways one of the most effective communicators ever to rise to the presidency.

Nixon cadence may not now be recalled as Rooseveltian, nor do many remember his eloquence as matching that of JFK/Sorenson, but he was an absolute master of the spoken word in a particular method that is often overlooked – the extemporaneous speech.

By this I mean he spoke very often without notes – or just a few notes – though with extraordinarily thorough preparation. He used a written text for major remarks and addresses (acceptance speeches, inaugurals, Oval Office remarks, etc.). However, he never used a teleprompter – often to the chagrin of younger staffers and others (such as Billy Graham) who constantly encouraged its use.

It would be hard to imagine a leader today saying no to the teleprompter. It has become the well-traveled rhetorical road. Nixon stuck with the road less traveled.

Richard Nixon preferred to make a thoroughly detailed outline and then deliver the remarks sans notes. His famous “Checkers Speech,” which I have written about before, is a classic example of this. And throughout his career he used the same method – working out his thoughts on yellow legal pads and much of the time delivering them in a conversational manner. The concepts were fixed in his mind, but the language was that of the moment.

Some confuse extemporaneous with impromptu – but they are not the same. The former describes a method of delivering something very well prepared. The latter is “off the top” of the head, and Mr. Nixon despised this. In fact, history tells us that he really only did this once – when he gave his concession remarks after losing the California governor’s race in 1962. And we all know that didn’t turn out very well.

The key to Mr. Nixon’s ability to speak so effectively without notes was, I believe, his love for reading. He lived out what Francis Bacon famously said roughly 400 years ago: “Reading maketh a full man, conference a ready man, and writing an exact man.”

In his book In the Arena: A Memoir of Victory, Defeat, and Renewal, Nixon wrote about reading and the presidency:

A president must spend many hours a day reading for work. He should not forget to read for pleasure. Theodore Roosevelt, the most prolific reader of all American presidents, once said he would never go anywhere ‘not even to the jungles of Africa,’ without books to read. On safari he always had a book or two packed in his saddlebag or pocket so that no opportunity for reading would be lost. I did the same thing in the jungles of Washington.

It is considered clichéd these days to say, “leaders are readers” – but it’s still true. And great leaders tend to be effective speakers – the kind of people who read before they speak, not just while the teleprompter is on.

TNN Weekly Weekend Reward

February 28, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Weekly Weekend Reward | Leave a Comment 

As the economic news goes from worse to worse still, this week’s Reward is bound to cheer up —and maybe even fire up— all but the most determinedly gloomy souls.

It’s Liam Clancy’s version of Stan Rogers’ “The Mary Ellen Carter.”

She went down last October in a pouring driving rain.
The skipper, he’d been drinking and the mate, he felt no pain.
Too close to Three Mile Rock, and she was dealt her mortal blow,
And the Mary Ellen Carter settled low.
There was just us five aboard her when she finally was awash.
We’d worked like hell to save her, all heedless of the cost.
And the groan she gave as she went down, it caused us to proclaim
That the Mary Ellen Carter would rise again.

Well, the owners wrote her off; not a nickel would they spend.
She gave twenty years of service, boys, and met her sorry end.
But insurance paid the loss to them, they let her rest below.
Then they laughed at us and said we had to go.
But we talked of her all winter, some days around the clock,
For she’s worth a quarter million, afloat and at the dock.
And with every jar that hit the bar, we swore we would remain
And make the Mary Ellen Carter rise again.

Rise again, rise again, that her name not be lost
To the knowledge of men.
Those who loved her best and were with her till the end
Will make the Mary Ellen Carter rise again.

All spring now we’ve been with her on a barge lent by a friend.
Three dives a day in hard hat suit and twice I’ve had the bends.
Thank God it’s only sixty feet and the currents here are slow
Or I’d never have the strength to go below.
But we’ve patched her rents, stopped her vents, dog hatch and
porthole down.
Put cables to her, ‘fore and aft, and girded her around.
Tomorrow noon we hit the air and then take up the strain.
And watch the Mary Ellen Carter rise again.

For we couldn’t leave her there, you see, to crumble into scale.
She’d saved our lives so many times, living through the gales.
And the laughing, drunken rats who left her to her sorry grave —
They won’t be laughing in another day.
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling bastards lying to you everywhere you go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And, like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

Rise again, rise again – though your heart it be broken
And life about to end.
No matter what you’ve lost —be it a home, a love, a friend—
Like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

This song is directly credited with saving the life of the Chief Mate of the coal-laden Marine Electric that went down off the coast of Virginia in 1983 (following Chief Cusick’s story is a spirited performance of the song by the composer).

On 2 June 1983, Stan Rogers was a passenger aboard Air Canada’s Flight 797 from DFW to Montreal via Toronto. A smoky fire apparently developed from faulty wiring in the lavatory wall, and the plane crash landed at Cincinnati.  Of the forty-one passengers, eighteen survived; Stan Rogers, aged thirty-three, wasn’t among them. He didn’t live to carry out the promise, or the promises, of his song Forty-Five Years.

It was as a result of Flight 797 that many of the safety measures so familiar today —including floor striplights indicating exits, extinguishers in cabins, and smoke detectors in lavatories— were implemented.

Stan Rogers was born in 1949 in Ontario. He spent many childhood summers in Nova Scotia, and his songs are steeped in Canadian history and the rugged windswept life of the Maritime Provinces.  His many chanteys celebrated the lore and lure of the mostly unforgiving sea.

His rousing “Northwest Passage,” which has been referred to as Canada’s unofficial national anthem.  A simple Googling of the lyrics is a Cliff Notes of Canadian history.  Tenor Ken Lavigne stirringly demonstrates the  song’s anthemic qualities while mining the warmth of that “one warm line through a land so wild and savage.”

Here is Stan Rogers singing his chantey “Barrett’s Privateers.”  Although the historical and nautical details are accurate —many Canadian privateers were active during 1778 at the height of the American Revolution— the story of The Antelope and the sorry fate of its crew are purely products of Stan Rogers’ imagination.

Featured Articles — February 28, 2009

February 28, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting Takes From Home And Abroad:

‘Great Society’ Plan for the Middle Class By David Sanger, The New York Times
Opponents of President Obama’s proposal for a sweeping new government activism in the economy call it a return to a traditional tax-and-spend philosophy, a step back to the era of Lyndon B. Johnson.

The Democratic Party Could Face an Internal Civil War By Joel Kotikin, The Wall Street Journal
This is the Democratic Party’s moment, its power now greater than any time since the mid-1960s. But do not expect smooth sailing. The party is a fractious group divided by competing interests, factions and constituencies that could explode into a civil war, especially when it comes to energy and the environment.

The war we gave Mexico By Tim Rutten, The Los Angeles Times
Early in the last century, near the end of his 34 bloody years in power, the aging Mexican strongman Porfirio Diaz mused that his country’s great misfortune was to be located “so far from God and so near the United States.” The shrewd old thief’s observation came to mind this week when U.S. officials announced they’d joined with Mexican authorities in arresting more than 730 people allegedly linked to the Sinaloa drug cartel.

Obama’s Bush Vindication By Editors, The Wall Street Journal
It was never very likely that President Obama would come out and praise George W. Bush for the latter’s handling of the Iraq war, and in his speech yesterday to the Marines at Camp Lejeune, N.C., he didn’t. Then again, we didn’t quite expect to find ourselves praising President Obama for his handling of Iraq.

Welcome to the Toughest Job in Town By David Ignatius, The Washington Post
National security advisers come in different flavors, and for the past few weeks Washington has been trying to get a taste of James L. Jones, President Obama’s pick for the job. Will he be the low-key Brent Scowcroft type, or the flamboyant and controlling Henry Kissinger type, or maybe the in-between Sandy Berger type?

China’s Team of Rivals By Cheng Li, Foreign Policy Magazine
A financial meltdown in China promises to test the Communist Party’s power in ways not seen since Tiananmen. But theirs is a house divided, as princelings take on populists and Pekinologists try to make sense of it all. Will this team built for economic success implode once the money dries up? An insider’s guide to the leaders at China’s controls.

CIC to USMC: “Semper Fi. Hoorah.”

February 27, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Barack Obama, Iraq War, Military, Obama administration | 2 Comments 

(President Obama today with Marines at Camp Lejeune: “We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government – and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life – that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.”)

President Obama made his first speech as Commander-in-Chief at a military installation earlier today when he visited Camp Lejeune.  (The whole speech may be seen here.)

The press has focused on his announcement that American combat troops will be out of Iraq by August 2010; and the war opponents have focused on the fact that as many as 50,000 troops will be left for training and counter-terror purposes.

But the speech also included some truly important, noble, and stirring words that have, sadly, gone largely unnoticed and unappreciated.   They are worth quoting at length and deserve attention — and respect:

As a nation, we have had our share of debates about the war in Iraq. It has, at times, divided us as a people. To this very day, there are some Americans who want to stay in Iraq longer, and some who want to leave faster. But there should be no disagreement on what the men and women of our military have achieved.

And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government – and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life – that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.

There are many lessons to be learned from what we’ve experienced. We have learned that America must go to war with clearly defined goals, which is why I’ve ordered a review of our policy in Afghanistan. We have learned that we must always weigh the costs of action, and communicate those costs candidly to the American people, which is why I’ve put Iraq and Afghanistan into my budget. We have learned that in the 21st century, we must use all elements of American power to achieve our objectives, which is why I am committed to building our civilian national security capacity so that the burden is not continually pushed on to our military. We have learned that our political leaders must pursue the broad and bipartisan support that our national security policies depend upon, which is why I will consult with Congress and in carrying out my plans. And we have learned the importance of working closely with friends and allies, which is why we are launching a new era of engagement in the world.

The starting point for our policies must always be the safety of the American people. I know that you – the men and women of the finest fighting force in the history of the world – can meet any challenge, and defeat any foe. And as long as I am your Commander-in-Chief, I promise you that I will only send you into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary, and provide you with the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That is the most important lesson of all – for the consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable.

You know because you have seen those sacrifices. You have lived them. And we all honor them.

“Semper Fidelis” – it means always being faithful to Corps, and to country, and to the memory of fallen comrades like Corporal Jonathan Yale and Lance Corporal Jordan Haerter. These young men enlisted in a time of war, knowing they would face great danger. They came here, to Camp Lejeune, as they trained for their mission. And last April, they were standing guard in Anbar. In an age when suicide is a weapon, they were suddenly faced with an oncoming truck filled with explosives. These two Marines stood their ground. These two Marines opened fire. And these two Marines stopped that truck. When the thousands of pounds of explosives detonated, they had saved fifty Marines and Iraqi police who would have been in the truck’s path, but Corporal Yale and Lance Corporal Haerter lost their own lives. Jonathan was 21. Jordan was 19.

In the town where Jordan Haerter was from, a bridge was dedicated in his name. One Marine who traveled to the ceremony said: “We flew here from all over the country to pay tribute to our friend Jordan, who risked his life to save us. We wouldn’t be here without him.”

America’s time in Iraq is filled with stories of men and women like this. Their names are written into bridges and town squares. They are etched into stones at Arlington, and in quiet places of rest across our land. They are spoken in schools and on city blocks. They live on in the memories of those who wear your uniform, in the hearts of those they loved, and in the freedom of the nation they served.

Each American who has served in Iraq has their own story. Each of you has your own story. And that story is now a part of the history of the United States of America – a nation that exists only because free men and women have bled for it from the beaches of Normandy to the deserts of Anbar; from the mountains of Korea to the streets of Kandahar. You teach us that the price of freedom is great. Your sacrifice should challenge all of us – every single American – to ask what we can do to be better citizens.

There will be more danger in the months ahead. We will face new tests and unforeseen trials. But thanks to the sacrifices of those who have served, we have forged hard-earned progress, we are leaving Iraq to its people, and we have begun the work of ending this war.

Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America. Semper Fi. Hoorah.

Federalist 51

February 27, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under American Politics, Barack Obama, Congress | Leave a Comment 

TNN’s very own Jack Pitney gives some philosophical (and Madisonian) context to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s difficulties with Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and President Barack Obama:

As he explained in Federalist 51, the Framers intended the separation of powers to create political friction: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.” Bicameralism serves the same purpose: to render the two houses “as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.” Accordingly, presidents have often butted heads with House speakers of their own party, who in turn have clashed with their Senate counterparts.

As William F. Connelly Jr. explains in a forthcoming book on Madison’s enduring influence, the Framers did not create friction simply for its own sake. Friction creates light as well as heat: That is, disagreement gives rise to debate and deliberation. If the Obama-Pelosi-Reid conflict slows things down a bit, that’s all to the good. Lawmakers may actually get a chance to deliberate on the merits of the president’s program. A few of them may even read the bills.

Something Practical Might Not Be Practical

February 27, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Afghanistan, Military, National Security, Obama administration | Leave a Comment 

Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak is angry that U.S. officials are lowering expectations in the fledgling country to set more obtainable goals:

“Changing course, adopting a new strategy of containment or dropping the idea of a strong central government will be falling into the trap the enemy has laid, helping them to achieve their evil objectives,” Wardak said in a speech at a Washington think tank before meetings with U.S. diplomatic and military officials.

Wardak’s comments were among the strongest from an Afghan leader since President Obama announced that he was ordering a revamp of the U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan. They appeared to be aimed at Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who in recent weeks has said U.S. strategy would be to scale back objectives there.

In congressional testimony and news conferences, Gates has said the U.S. should focus on helping the provincial governments, rather than the central government, and narrow its mission to blocking terrorist havens from redeveloping in the nation.

“My own personal view is that our primary goal is to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for terrorists and extremists to attack the U.S. and our allies,” Gates told the Senate last month. “Whatever else we need to do flows from that objective.”

Gates is not alone, however. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have indicated frustration with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has been accused of failing to stamp out corruption and extend public services.

The growing tensions came amid a weeklong visit to Washington by senior Afghan and Pakistani officials for meetings on regional strategy with the new administration.

After a session with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta struck a more conciliatory tone, thanking Obama for making a “personal commitment” to Afghanistan.

But Wardak, a former mujahedin commander who is widely respected in Western military circles, appeared frustrated with signals from the administration and implied that U.S. efforts had contributed to Afghanistan’s problems by devoting more resources to Iraq.

“Any comparison with other successful campaigns in other nations should be judged on the basis of the resources dedicated,” Wardak said. “The Taliban lacks strong leadership. They do not have an ideology that the Afghans can embrace. The threat is not yet strong, but it’s growing because our joint efforts have been weak.”

The Obama Doctrine?

February 27, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Barack Obama, International Affairs | Leave a Comment 

James Robbins lists what he views as Pres. Obama’s foreign policy and believes it to be built on knocking down the left’s strawmen.

Barack, Not Burke

February 27, 2009 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Barack Obama, Republican Party, economy | Leave a Comment 

American Tory Andrew Sullivan, who helped fuel the Obama phenomenon with a seminal 2007 article in the “Atlantic,” now concedes, on release of the new federal budget, that those who said the President was a social democrat, not a moderate, were right:

He won the stimulus debate long before the Republicans realized it (they were busy doing tap-dances of victory on talk radio, while he was building a new coalition without them). And now, after presenting such a centrist, bi-partisan, moderate and personally trustworthy front, he gets to unveil a radical long-term agenda that really will soak the very rich and invest in the poor. Given the crisis, he has seized this moment for more radicalism than might have seemed possible only a couple of months ago.

As for whether these are the right policies — whether the American people, no matter how economically anxious they are right now, really want the federal government to equalize wealth in addition to opportunity — well, Sullivan’s just not sure:

The risk is, at least, a transparent risk. If none of this works, he will have taken a massive gamble and failed. The country will be bankrupt and he will have one term. His gamble with the economy may come to seem like Bush’s gamble in Iraq. But if any of it works, if the economy recovers, and if the GOP continues to be utterly deaf and blind to the new landscape we live in, then we’re talking less Reagan than FDR in long-term impact.

It’s going to be a riveting first year, isn’t it?

Yes, certainly, if you’re in it for the sheer theater, which many in Sullivan’s business are, especially the so-called old media, which often seem to want to turn politics and policy into sports. I hadn’t thought it of Sullivan until now. As much as he admires Edmund Burke and Ronald Reagan, how can he be so blase? If I may state the bleeding obvious, people’s lives, careers, businesses, and fortunes are at stake, not to mention the mighty engine of wealth on which so much of the world still stakes its hopes and dreams. As most conservatives know, or at least believe, a national government can grow and consume to a point where initiative and enterprise begin to die as systems fundamentally though not exclusively based on risk and reward are replaced by ones based on safety and equality.

Perhaps Sullivan is one of those who believe that the pendulum always swings between progressivism and conservatism. You can’t get back to one without a corrective rooted in the other. The difficulty is that the point over which the pendulum swings seems only to move leftward. Under Reagan, for instance, the rich may have gotten richer, but the government didn’t get smaller. As anyone who’s worked with big government will tell you, its denizens have infinite means at their disposal of protecting their interests. Big government doesn’t shrink. Ever.

As one who argued that Obama would move to the center, I find his profoundly ideological budget, which seems to seek to exploit class anger for the sake of arrogating more power to the federal government, to be deeply disappointing. Knowing (or reading) Sullivan, he may think that the GOP will now have to grow up and talk about its own mature vision (if it has one) of the state vs. individual freedom. Let’s hope so.

Way Too Much Time On Their Hands

February 27, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Technology | 1 Comment 

A robot designed by Texas-based Hanson Robotics presents a realistic simulacrum of Albert Einstein — right down to the pores:

The ground-breaking model, which recognises and responds to human emotions, uses 31 motors and a patented flesh-like material called Frubber to make lifelike facial expressions.

Scientists hope it will defy the perception that human-like robots are “creepy” and could be the first step to making robots emotionally sensitive, preventing a “Matrix”-style war between man and machine.

Einstein, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist noted for his theory of relativity, was chosen for the model because he appears “lovable and emotionally accessible”, as well as being a universally esteemed scientist.

David Hanson, the robot’s designer explains: ”Some scientists believe strongly that very human-like robots are so inherently creepy that people can never get over it and interact with them normally.  But these are some of the questions we’re trying to address with the Einstein robot. Does software engage people more when you have a robot that’s more aware of you?”  It’s a good thing that there’s nothing creepy about this robot.

As for Professor Einstein, presumably looking down from heaven where his favorite recreation is playing dice with God, he probably thinks back fondly to the time when that dude drove around with his brain in a cooler in the back seat.

Featured Articles — February 27, 2009

February 27, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting Takes From Home And Abroad:

The Obamaist Manifesto By Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post
Not a great speech, but extremely consequential. If Barack Obama succeeds, his joint address to Congress will be seen as historic — indeed as the foundational document of Obamaism. As it stands, it constitutes the boldest social democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president.

Center Stage for the Twenty-first Century By Robert D. Kaplan, Foreign Affairs
Already the world’s preeminent energy and trade interstate seaway, the Indian Ocean will matter even more as India and China enter into a dynamic great-power rivalry in these waters.

The era of big government arrives By Chuck Raasch, USA Today
In the middle of his presidency, Bill Clinton boldly pronounced the era of big government over. Many Americans didn’t believe him, and events over the last decade have verified the doubts.

Let The Honest Talk About Race Begin By Stuart Taylor Jr., National Journal
Dear Mr. Attorney General: Your speech commemorating Black History Month by calling America “a nation of cowards” because we “do not talk enough with each other about race” — a topic about which we talk incessantly — was unworthy of the admirable public servant I believe you to be.

A Bold Plan Sweeps Away Reagan Ideas By David Leonhardt, The New York Times
The budget that President Obama proposed on Thursday is nothing less than an attempt to end a three-decade era of economic policy dominated by the ideas of Ronald Reagan and his supporters.

Taxes Test Obama’s Support Among Higher-Income Voters By Gerald Seib, The Wall Street Journal
One of the intriguing surprises of the 2008 election was that a majority of the wealthiest Americans went against type to support the Democrat, Barack Obama, even though he told them, clearly and explicitly, that he would raise their taxes. It will be interesting to see how that support holds up now that theoretical tax pain is creeping closer to reality.

Eastern Europe Needs Our Help By John Kerry, The Wall Street Journal
Twenty years ago, the Berlin Wall and the repressive Communist regimes of Eastern Europe came crashing down to usher in a new era of political and economic freedom. Today, it is Eastern Europe’s banks and economies that are threatening to crash.

Arms control’s dangerous allure By John R. Bolton, The Washington Times
The Ringwraiths of arms control are again with us, returned from well-deserved obscurity, and back in the saddle in Washington. Through public statements and private preparations the Obama administration is signaling clearly that its approach to Russia will center on Cold War-era arms control precepts and objectives.

TNN On HNN

February 26, 2009 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Richard Nixon, The New Nixon | Leave a Comment 

The recent post by TNN’s Jack Pitney on the Nixonian resonances in President Obama’s SOTU address was picked up by the History News Network.

His Favorite Guest

February 26, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Presidents, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Edwin Trinka, the doorman at New York’s fabled Plaza Hotel 46 years, is about to retire. In his decades there he’s met countless folks who were rich, famous, or just looking for a good room for the night. His favorite guest of them all?

“Richard Nixon was my favorite – a real gentleman,” [Trinka] says. “He would always come to say hello, whenever he was in the city.”

Roger Morris On Obama In Wartime

February 26, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Afghanistan, American Politics, Asia, Barack Obama, China, International Affairs, Iran, Iraq War, Middle East, Nixon Administration, Nixon Administration figures, Nixon in the News, Obama administration, Presidents, Richard Nixon, Russia, Terrorism, U.S. History, Vietnam | Leave a Comment 

Since January 16, the New York Times has had on its site a group blog, “100 Days,” in which five presidential biographers take turns comparing the initial stages of the Obama Administration to five presidencies.  Jean Edward Smith does the comparing to the first hundred days of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Reeves to John F. Kennedy, Robert Dallek to Lyndon B. Johnson, Lou Cannon to Ronald Reagan….and it falls to former National Security Council staffer Roger Morris, author of a massive book about Richard Nixon’s life and career up to 1952 (which appeared in 1991, seemingly the first of a series of volumes, but never continued), to draw parallels between the forty-fourth President and the thirty-seventh.

In his first post on February 4, “The President Behind The Mask,” Morris offered not much more than the usual liberal boilerplate about the contrast between the “bring us together” rhetoric of the 1968 campaign and what he views as RN’s divisive style of governance.  But in the post which went up a few minutes ago, “How Not To End Another President’s War,” Morris draws on his own experience in the NSC in 1969 and 1970. (He quit in April of the latter year because of his objections to the incursion of American forces into Cambodia.)

The overwhelming majority of media coverage of the Obama White House has focused on the stimulus bill, the new budget, and other economic and domestic initiatives, but Morris is among those who keep in mind that Obama has inherited two wars, and that the verdict of history on his presidency will, in large measure, take into account how he handles them.  So far there has been a lot of vague discussion about concentrating on the Afghan war, and today CNN reported that the President has told Congressional leaders that all combat troops will be pulled from Iraq by August 2010, with support troops to stay until the end of 2011 under the agreement the Bush Administration reached with the Iraqi government.

But Morris is aware that saying there will be a withdrawal is one thing, and being able to do it within the timetable outlined is another, especially given the unpredictable nature of Persian Gulf realpolitik.  He refers to the days of the winter of 1969-1970, when Dr. Henry Kissinger met with North Vietnamese representatives in Paris for the initial series of top-secret talks apart from the official peace negotiations in that city, and says that Kissinger’s conversations “got far nearer a settlement than any account has ever indicated.”  Morris states that the promise of these negotiations was shattered by the coup that overthrew Prince Sihanouk in Cambodia and the events that ensued.  (I have to admit that I wish Morris would explain just how such a settlement could have been reached in the days before the improvement of American relations with China and the USSR gradually pushed North Vietnam into a situation where it had to become less recalcitrant about a negotiated peace.)

Morris’s post concludes:

Exorcised or not, ghosts of Vietnam hover over the Obama foreign policy, not least in key officials like former National Security Adviser James L. Jones Jr. and the special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke — men whose formative career experiences were in Vietnam, and who have not yet told us what they think of the chilling relevance of that history to what they now face.

One comparison that is relevant here is that when America sought to extricate itself from Vietnam, it had to deal with just one opponent at the negotiating table, the Hanoi government – and that was an opponent that, for all its intransigence, was generally willing to talk.   In Iraq, the struggle for the last six years has been to not only subdue the savagery of al-Qaida, but to combat the baleful influences of Iran and Syria, which will pose a problem throughout the Obama presidency.

It’s worth mentioning that at one point Morris remarks that the Cambodian invasion of 1970 was “what a later era might call a ’surge.’”  That may be more telling than he knows. The “surge,” widely denounced by Democrats (and some Republicans) at the time, was the key to gaining the degree of peace Iraq enjoys now. The Cambodian incursion, hated though it was by antiwar activists, did neutralize the supply lines and gave a breathing space to American and South Vietnamese forces at a time when it was needed.

Remembering Odetta

February 26, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under In Memoriam, Music, U.S. History | Leave a Comment 

(Above: Odetta in the late 1950s. “’We were young and black and female and crazy as road lizards,’ said the frail-looking, cane-using Dr. Angelou, recalling her early friendship with the Alabama-born Odetta Holmes in the cabarets and coffee houses of mid-century San Francisco.”)

Odetta died last December. She was the subject of The Soundtrack of Our Lives in August. Although confined to a wheel chair she performed, with her accompanist Seth Farber, until shortly before her death.

Last night, at the Riverside Church in New York, a memorial service celebrated her life.

Reverend James Forbes, the church’s senior minister emeritus, said that “Odetta was a stimulus package all by herself.”  Maya Angelou reminisced; Harry Belafonte read a letter from Hillary and Bill Clinton (who had awarded Odetta the NEA’s Medal for the Arts in 1999); and Wavy Gravy….was Wavy Gravy, still crazy after all these years.

The New York Times ‘ “Urban Eye” online did an excellent —and well produced— piece on the event:

The Village Voice described the dramatic end of the long service:

The mood was primarily joyous, the reminisces cheery and defiant (Maya Angelou: “We were young, tall, black ladies, and people were afraid of us”), though multiple speakers echoed the sentiment “she was trying to hold on for the Inauguration.” And at just the point you realized you’d been sitting in a church pew for four hours, up popped a clip of Odetta herself singing “House of the Rising Sun,” accompanied by forlorn piano with a chilling a capella verse at its center, tonight’s honoree moaning “16 pretty maidens to carry my coffin/16 pretty maidens to sing me a song.” It took closer to 100.

Using What You Hate, To Get What You Like

February 26, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Barack Obama, Military, National Security, Obama administration | Leave a Comment 

While the current emphasis of counter-insurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has pushed the military into unconventional warfare, President Obama is apparently using the opportunity of the two-wars he wants to permanently clear the table of, to pursue an ambitious domestic agenda. This includes cutting key conventional (“Cold War-era”) weapons systems that would be useful for more conventional and potentially nuclear standoffs in Iran and North Korea:

Hi-tech fighter aircraft, new warships and missile defense projects are all potential targets for big cuts in the US defense budget, as the American military faces a new era of limits under President Barack Obama.

With a mushrooming budget deficit of more than a trillion dollars, the new administration has signaled it hopes to scale back military spending partly through a planned reduction of troops in Iraq and by taking the axe to big ticket weapons programs.

“It’s easier to cut weapons than personnel,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute.

“There are clear signs that US defense spending peaked in 2008 and that it will be gradually declining over the next four years as the United States reduces its presence in Iraq,” Thompson told AFP.

Obama’s predecessor signed a 612 billion dollar defense authorization bill in September, the largest in real terms since World War II. But the economic crisis means defense spending will come under more pressure and restrictions.

In his speech to Congress on Tuesday, Obama promised his upcoming budget would bolster the pay and benefits of soldiers and increase the total number of troops but that unnecessary, “Cold War-era” weapons would be dumped.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, placing a top priority on fighting insurgents rather than conventional warfare, has warned that big weapons projects plagued by delays and cost overruns will come in for tougher scrutiny.

A list of candidates for possible cutbacks drawn up by the Pentagon includes more Navy destroyers built by General Dynamics, fighter jets including Lockheed Martin and Boeing’s F-22 Raptors and carrier-based Super Hornets, a digital radio system for all the armed services and missile defense weaponry for Poland and the Czech Republic.

Gates has already singled out the F-22 Raptor fighters, which cost about 350 million dollars each, for potential cutbacks.

Military analysts have also questioned the need for more Navy aircraft carriers and a computer-linked network of Army vehicles, known as Future Combat Systems, which has faced criticism.

Something Practical?

February 26, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Afghanistan, Obama administration | Leave a Comment 

The Obama administration wants to downgrade expectations in Afghanistan:

Air Chief Marshal Houston told a Senate committee yesterday that the Obama administration was “taking a clean-sheet-of-paper approach” to future strategy in Afghanistan with four policy reviews under way. The key objective now was to ensure Afghanistan did not again become a safe haven for al-Qa’ida or other groups that could use the country as a base for terrorist operations around the world.

“What we want to see is an Afghanistan that can exist in a secure way. It might not be a full-blown democracy. It might be something more practical … something which reflects the tribal culture from whence it came,” Air Chief Marshal Houston said. “Obviously we want to create a viable state that can exist in that part of the world. Fundamentally what we don’t want to see is groups like al-Qa’ida able to operate with impunity in a place like Afghanistan.

“Instead of going for a Western-style democracy … we are not going there any more. What we are looking at are more achievable objectives.”

He said the creation of a “European-style democracy” was probably an unrealistic expectation. “I don’t think it’s achievable,” he said.

Here’s Looking At You

February 26, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Science | Leave a Comment 

Today’s Telegraph publishes a photograph taken by European astronomers of a celestial phenomenon —a shell of gas and dust— that resembles (on, literally, a cosmic scale) a human eye.  Not unreasonably, they are calling this one the Eye of God.

The bright blue pupil and the white of the eye are fringed by flesh-coloured eyelids – but this eye is so big that it light takes two and a half years to cross from one side to the other. The object is actually a shell of gas and dust that has been blown off by a faint central star. Our own solar system will meet a similar fate five billion years in the future. It lies around 700 light-years away in the constellation of Aquarius, and can be dimly seen in small backyard telescopes by amateur astronomers who call it the Helix nebula. It covers an area of sky around a quarter the size of the full moon. The photo was taken with a giant telescope at the European Southern Observatory, high on a mountaintop at La Silla in Chile. It is so detailed that a close-up reveals distant galaxies within the central eyeball.

Don’t Let The Door Slam Behind You On Your Way Out

February 26, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under American Politics | Leave a Comment 

For those who have been wondering how long this agonizing and demeaning business can go on, the headline in today’s Chicago Sun-Times may provide an answer:

BURRIS’ SON GOT STATE JOB FROM BLAGO

And, lest the story not be bad enough, the details manage to add insult to injury:

The son of embattled Sen. Roland Burris is a federal tax deadbeat who landed a $75,000-a-year state job under former Gov. Rod Blagojevich five months ago, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.

Blagojevich’s administration hired Roland W. Burris II as a senior counsel for the state’s housing authority Sept. 10 — about six weeks after the Internal Revenue Service slapped a $34,163 tax lien on Burris II and three weeks after a mortgage company filed a foreclosure suit on his South Side house.

Next Page »