Kevin Sullivan

Seizing the Human Soul

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Forgoing all semantical arguments, I’m hoping everyone can agree that this is bad.  If you don’t see lifestyle and dress repression by the state as totalitarian, well than maybe we’re not working with the same lexicon.

Andrew is all over this:

Over a hundred have been arrested for "sex crimes" in the city where they hanged two gay teens. This has happened before, but it’s a useful sign that the regime does not control the minds of the people. 

Sullivan has also posted a very troubling video showing the public hanging of a woman in Tabriz.  I have made my own case against this Iranian regime as of late, and we need to understand what philosophical principles guide this regime.  We aren’t negotiating with a reasonable actor here.  This is why every discussion with this regime must involve at least the perceived threat of a potential military strike. 

Observe the way they deal with their own citizens.  Observe the way they extend their own influence over Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.  Observe the way their own president expatiates on the pending fate of Israel. 

Violence, sadly, is all this kind of an enemy knows.  Compulsion is the role of the state in Iran, and compulsion is all they understand.  UN sanctions and "multi-lateral" talks are all well and good, but it will all be for naught if the Big Stick isn’t resting in the corner.         

Roundup, Hiatus Edition 7/24/07

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Once again, my apologies for the anemic showing around here lately.  I hope to make a better routine of things in a week or so.

So, anyway, here are some things that caught my eye while perusing the blogosphere today:

• A couple of weeks ago I mentioned this excellent piece by Ezra Klein on the limitations of state-level health care.  Ezra makes a compelling argument, however Pete Abel raises some interesting red flags today over at Central Sanity;
• AJ has a great post up on the desperation tactics being employed by AQM, and the silver lining therein;
• Jay writes on the "irrationality" of the presidential debates;
• And finally, Jason asks the "reality-based community" to calm down, and stop exaggerating the capabilities of the Bush administration.  Please, you’re scaring the normal people!

Coffee & TV

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Assertions and Shackles

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Ezra Klein seems to be confusing totalitarianism with actualized repression.  He doesn’t think Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a totalitarian because 1.  Iran allows public protests denouncing him, and 2. Ahmadinejad isn’t even the most powerful person in Iran.

I don’t believe Iran is a completely repressed nation.  This doesn’t mean Ahmadinejad isn’t a totalitarian.  It’s odd that Ezra keeps returning to the protests in Iran, since organizers and dissidents involved in those protests have been subject to arbitrary arrest and crackdowns as a result. 

A totalitarian, with all of the tools of the state at his disposal, doesn’t need to publicly beat or belittle the discontents (although he certainly has done this).  They’re not called secret police for nothing.  To argue that a state tied to Islamic law and an Islamic code of conduct is not totalitarian seems rather strange to me. 

Also, I believe Ezra’s merely splitting hairs on the second point.  Whether or not Ahmadinejad, or the regional Mullahs or the Islamic courts are calling the shots is rather moot.  ALL of these men share a totalitarian vision for Iran, and often make a "Principlist" argument for an Islamic Iran consistent with the Revolution. 

I don’t think the Iranian people want to go all Thomas Friedman on us, but I likewise reject the notion that a very young, and increasingly Westernized Iranian people share the same view as Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs.  This is in fact a clash between totalitarians and reformists.            

Christian Terror, Islamic Terror and the Role of the State

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Andrew Sullivan is diligently attempting to draw comparisons between this example of Christian-motivated homicide, and our overall focus on "Islamic barbarism."  While I understand his argument, and appreciate his commentary on "balking" at the human propensity to do wrong, I do believe he has missed the point here by just a tad:

The danger for all of us is believing that just because we are who we are, we cannot be vulnerable to the same temptations and the same evil as those of another faith or culture. We can be. Christianism is nowhere near as dangerous a force in the world as Islamism – nowhere near. But Christianity, history teaches us, is not immune to the totalist logic, political extremism, murderous violence and fundamentalist certainty that fuels the Islamist enemy. Vigilance is the key. There is no inherent virtue in either being a Christian or an American. We are all human and subject to the same pathologies. When we see them emerge here, we should not balk at pointing them out, and highlighting the dangers of complacency.

Well, sure.  But I think Andrew is missing an important point here, one that distinguishes Islamic extremism from this example he cites.  While Christianity certainly isn’t immune from totalitarian logic, history has shown a Christian propensity to distinguish the responsibility of the state and the role of the Christian citizen.  Separation of Church and State, as Middle Eastern historians like Bernard Lewis have argued, is an inherently Christian concept. 

This distinction doesn’t truly exist in Islam.  Whether it be the social services of Hamas (which are consistent with the Waqf of older Islamic societies), or the Mullah-monitored democracy in Iran, the lines between state and faith are actually rather gray. 

So while we should take note of this blatant act of lunacy, we should be careful not to compare it to the state sponsorship of such lunacy (a distinction even Andrew acknowledges in his post).  Radical Muslims will always hate Western culture and Liberal society.  We can’t necessarily change that.  But we can focus on their enablers and financiers, which makes this tragic example of Christian terror less relevant. 

Keith Ellison – Idiot

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

I was honestly excited when Keith Ellison became the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress.  He ran a solid campaign (albeit a safe seat), and I thought it was clever of him to take his oath using Thomas Jefferson’s copy of the Koran.  I viewed it as a success story for American Muslims, American Liberalism, pluralism and all that other gushy stuff.

But Ellison’s latest comments, carefully crafted so not to sound entirely unhinged, have sort of ruined the honeymoon for me.  Comparing the attacks on 9/11 to the 1933 burning of the German Reichstag not only implies nefarious coercion behind the terrible attacks on that day, but it also plays up the same old Bush=Hitler nonsense that even the worst equivocator would hesitate to conjure.

Ellison was of course careful enough to qualify his statement, not by recanting such a silly argument, but instead seemingly lamenting the strategic folly in it.  According to Keith, you can’t draw these parallels, because "you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box – dismiss you".

That’s right, rather than marginalizing yourself via stupidity, blame the people who would rightly call you out on it.  This is a daffy argument, and it’s terribly disappointing.  The other irony is the audience–a gathering of 300 Minnesota atheists.  Ellison sanctimoniously declared that the audience would "always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists all you want."  As if the lone Muslim in Congress, serving a very Liberal district, had any other choice. 

AJ is all over this, and wonders whether or not Ellison will get the David Dukes treatment from the Democratic Party.  While I don’t think Ellison deserves that kind of ostracizing just yet, I think it’s up to Democrats to call a moratorium on stupid analogies.  Can we get a House Whip to reign in on this guy, please?

Roundup, 7/16/07

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

It’ll be another week or so before I can stop being an absentee blogger here, but I will try my best.  Here is a quick roundup of stuff that caught my eye:

• Ever the fan of historical parallels, there were a couple of good posts at Pandagon and Open Left over the weekend that compared two modern circumstances to 1992 and 1912, respectively;
• Drezner posts on the untenable hold of the so-called Libertarian Center;
• Shaun has an amusing post on the "serial bloviations" of Glenn Greenwald;
• Joe at TMV breaks down the Rice/Cheney rift in the White House, and how that may effect our policy towards Iran;
• And finally, The Onion has a hilarious article today, spoofing John Edwards’ poverty tour: John Edwards Vows To End All Bad Things By 2011.

Added Giuliani: "On a personal note, I rather like cloudy days, and I don’t want to live in a world where they don’t exist."

Reality Checks

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Michael van der Galien has a great post up today, providing a solid argument (from a Dutch/European perspective) for why we shouldn’t be so quick to succumb to populist urges here in the States.  Michael points out that we would probably be disdained globally were we to leave Iraq prematurely, with the increased potential for genocide and sectarian strife. 

It’s our problem, and we need to fix it.  Michael makes the case:

Now, many Americans argue “we have to bring our troops home: they should not die in a far away country, if we cannot win / bring stability any time soon.” To Americans, this sounds logical. To 5.5 billion other people, this sounds extremely egotistical. The other citizens of the world say “3500?? are you kidding me? Tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, and if you withdraw prematurely, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions more will die, and you complain about 3500??? You started this war in the first place.”

I realize that the way I choose to word this might anger quite some Americans and I thought about bringing it across less bluntly, but I am not a politician: I am a blogger. And I am simply trying to explain something important to you all (the majority of whom are Americans). To those living in the other countries I ask this: don’t you agree with this post? If you look around and ask other people, isn’t what I wrote the answer the far majority gives? Yes it is harsh, but 300,000 Iraqis killed (quite a random ‘in between’ number) is quite harsh as well.

Another commenter asked (paraphrasing): how long would you want us to stay? 10 years, 20 years?

The answer of the world: as long as it takes. Again: you are responsible.

He also said why don’t you all send more troops? Two things:
- America did not want international organizations involved when the war started. Now, still, they do not want many countries involved, and if they do, they only want it because Americans are dying and it’s better for domestic purposes that foreign soldiers die (again, I’m not a politician)
- You started this war. What gives you the right to tell the world that it should send soldiers just because your refused to send enough / stay as long as it takes / work with other countries?

Please understand, I am not trying to anger all of you as much as I possibly can – I am trying to make you understand how the world perceives this debate in America.

When you talk about what the US should do, you have to take this post into account. Another commenter argued that the blowback would be only temporary. It would ‘fade away’ within a couple of years time. Right. Reality check: as one of the Dutch people I asked about that comment said, “That’s ridiculous. It will increase hatred for America for generations to come.” Again, this is basically what I am saying about this as well: it will not ‘fade away.’ The world – especially Arab peoples – will make it part of its collective memory and it will be used against the US for decades, possibly even longer. When talking about the Mideast, do not forget that they have quite a different culture than we in the West have. Holding grudges is something Arab peoples are quite good at. And this time, for quite a good reason.

My American friends, you must look at how the world will perceive an early withdrawal and a possible genocide. Take it into account. And then ask yourself: is it worth the risk? I am not saying that everyone should conclude “no, it is not worth the risk. We should stay with, say, 75,000 troops.” I am saying, however, that you should be able to deal with this, that you should take this into account. Too many Americans seem to live in some kind of bubble, shielded from the world. Too many Americans seem to have no idea how the world operates, how the world thinks. Take it into account and then come up with a plan.

But one thing should be very clear: total withdrawal will not ‘restore america’s image’ or show that America is quite moral etc. No, it will cause great, great damage.

This commentary has apparently stirred the pot quite a bit, so Michael has posted a follow-up to his initial post.  Check them both out.

UPDATE:

Jason Steck has responded at Militant Moderates. 

And there’s a final reality check up on MvdG’s home blog!  A good (and important) debate going on, so check them all out.   

Danny Pat’s Skeletons

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Blog posts

Oh, no…

Riehl and Ace are reporting that the office line to the late, great Daniel Patrick Moynihan is the second number confirmed from the DC Madam’s client list.  It sounds as if David Corn was mining for Republicans and Haliburton Execs, but instead came across Moynihan’s old office number.

As Ace points out, it may have been a staffer.  It also doesn’t help that the Madam herself is warning people not to trust the data anymore.  She apparently has reason to believe the data has been messed with.    

Lady Bird Johnson (1912-2007)

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Blog posts

Lady Bird Johnson, our former first lady, has passed away. 

She supported and stood by one of our most complex presidents, and a very difficult husband.  In later years, she would work as a conservationist, founding the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center.  She was involved in the Town Lake Beautification Project in Austin, TX, and used her pedestal from the nation’s capital to improve the appearance of our highways and urban centers.  Believing that positive surroundings resulted in positive actions, she worked to limit billboards on highways and in our cities, so that they might be replaced by more park space, flowers and vegetation.   

She once said, "the first lady is, and always has been, an unpaid public servant elected by one person, her husband.”  Lady Bird was 94.

AP has the rest:   

The daughter of a Texas rancher, she spent 34 years in Washington, as the wife of a congressional secretary, U.S. representative, senator, vice president and president. The couple had two daughters, Lynda Bird, born in 1944, and Luci Baines, born in 1947. The couple returned to Texas after the presidency, and Lady Bird Johnson lived for more than 30 years in and near Austin.

"I think we all love seeing those we love loved well, and Austin has loved my mother very well. This community has been so caring," Luci Baines Johnson said in an interview with The Associated Press in December 2001.

"People often ask me about walking in her shadow, following in the footsteps of somebody like Lady Bird Johnson," she said. "My mother made her own unique imprint on this land."

Former President George Bush once recalled that when he was a freshman Republican congressman from Texas in the 1960s, Lady Bird Johnson and the president welcomed him to Washington with kindness, despite their political differences.

He said she exemplified "the grace and the elegance and the decency and sincerity that you would hope for in the White House."

As first lady, she was perhaps best known as the determined environmentalist who wanted roadside billboards and junkyards replaced with trees and wildflowers. She raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to beautify Washington. The $320 million Highway Beautification Bill, passed in 1965, was known as "The Lady Bird Bill," and she made speeches and lobbied Congress to win its passage.

"Had it not been for her, I think that the whole subject of the environment might not have been introduced to the public stage in just the way it was and just the time it was. So she figures mightily, I think, in the history of the country if for no other reason than that alone," Harry Middleton, retired director of the LBJ Library and Museum, once said.

Lady Bird Johnson once turned down a class valedictorian’s medal because of her fear of public speaking, but she joined in every one of her husband’s campaigns. She was soft-spoken but rarely lost her composure, despite heckling and grueling campaign schedules. She once appeared for 47 speeches in four days.

"How Lady Bird can do all the things she does without ever stubbing her toe, I’ll just never know, because I sure stub mine sometimes," her husband once said.

Lady Bird Johnson said her husband "bullied, shoved, pushed and loved me into being more outgoing, more of an achiever. I gave him comfort, tenderness and some judgment — at least I think I did."

She had a cool head for business, turning a modest sum of money into a multimillion-dollar radio corporation in Austin that flourished under family ownership for more than a half-century. With a $17,500 inheritance from her mother, she purchased a small, faltering radio station in 1942 in Austin. The family business later expanded into television and banking.

"She was very hands on. She literally mopped the floor, and she sold radio time," daughter Luci Baines Johnson said of her mother’s early days in business.

Read the rest HERE.