Jimmy Carter's recent visit to the Middle East has convinced me that Barack Obama is presidential after all. The problem is that the president he resembles is Carter, the guy who owes George W. Bush a favor for pushing him off the number one spot on the list of worst presidents of the last half century.
Both Obama and Carter are very intelligent people who are extremely naive with regard to diplomacy. They both support high-level talks with all the unrepentant bad guys of the world. Barack Obama is willing to sit down with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad without preconditions and without lower level talks first. Jimmy Carter wants Israel to talk to Hamas, an organization that still says all it can agree to is a 10 year ceasefire in return for all of their demands (a Palestinian state and return of refugees).
Of the two most recent Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton was far better than Jimmy Carter. Hillary Clinton is very Clintonian, and not just because of her last name. So this primary season it is Clintonian Democrats vs. Carteresque Democrats, and if the latter win, the United States will be in big trouble.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
J Street Lobby: Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace
Finally, a new organisation has been founded that will show Washington, DC that AIPAC's hawkishness isn't the only form of pro-Israel or pro-Zionist activism. J Street, which has two arms - a lobby and a political action committee, will endorse congressional candidates who support a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Good luck, J Street!
Good luck, J Street!
Friday, April 11, 2008
Barack Obama's Israeli Blog
Senator Barack Obama apparently believes Israel is the 51st state of the Union and it hasn't had its primary yet, or perhaps that the outcomes of American elections are decided in Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv. Why else would he open a blog on an Israeli website, intended for an Israeli audience (and apparently not just for American citizens in Israel) in both Hebrew and English?
As a dual citizen of Israel and the United States I'm supposed to be flattered by this move, but I'm not. Obama is trying to show he isn't anti-Semitic or anti-Israel in the wrong way. For one thing, as a candidate for president of the United States of America he shouldn't be courting foreign nationals. Second of all, if he decides to court foreigners anyway, he should try courting different countries. Does he have a French blog? A Mexican blog (and not just for Mexican Americans)? Does he have blogs in Kenya, his father's birthplace, or in Indonesia, where he spent some of his childhood? Does he have a blogs in Arabic, Greek, Portuguese, German, Swahili, etc.?
The fact that Obama's only foreign blog is in Israel is troubling. It seems he attributes too much power to Israel. Does he think that if Israelis don't like him American Jews won't vote for him? The Jews of the Land of Milk and Honey don't have that kind of influence and veto power over the Jews of the Land of Opportunities.
As a dual citizen of Israel and the United States I'm supposed to be flattered by this move, but I'm not. Obama is trying to show he isn't anti-Semitic or anti-Israel in the wrong way. For one thing, as a candidate for president of the United States of America he shouldn't be courting foreign nationals. Second of all, if he decides to court foreigners anyway, he should try courting different countries. Does he have a French blog? A Mexican blog (and not just for Mexican Americans)? Does he have blogs in Kenya, his father's birthplace, or in Indonesia, where he spent some of his childhood? Does he have a blogs in Arabic, Greek, Portuguese, German, Swahili, etc.?
The fact that Obama's only foreign blog is in Israel is troubling. It seems he attributes too much power to Israel. Does he think that if Israelis don't like him American Jews won't vote for him? The Jews of the Land of Milk and Honey don't have that kind of influence and veto power over the Jews of the Land of Opportunities.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Test Your Biases
After reading an article and blog post by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times about biases ingrained in us, I took a few of the on-line tests Kristof mentions. First, I played the Police Officer's Dilemma, in which pictures of whites and blacks holding guns and harmless objects appear and I have to quickly decide whether to shoot or holster my gun.
It took me an average of o.644 seconds to shoot armed blacks, 0.702 seconds to shoot armed whites, 0.708 seconds to holster my gun when faced with unarmed whites and 0.893 seconds to determine unarmed blacks are not a threat. By the way, I also shot 3 or 4 innocent black people and one or two innocent white people and holstered my gun at a few armed folks, both white and black, which resulted in me being virtually shot. I would not make a good police officer.
Then I took a few "implicit attitude tests" (IATs) at Harvard's Project Implicit. One of them was confirmed the findings of the previous test - I strongly associate guns with African Americans.
I took the presidential candidates IAT three times. The first time, it showed me that my favorite candidate is John McCain, though even he started in the middle of the graph, which means I'm not that crazy about him either. Right below him was Barack Obama, after that an empty space and then Hillary Clinton. What?!? Hillary is my favorite candidate in reality, and here she shows up far behind Barack Obama, who I really dislike? I expected Hillary to be on top, McCain in the middle and Obama right at the bottom. I took the test a second time, and the order was the same, except this time Clinton was directly below Obama without any space. Still unhappy with the results, I repeated the test again and it showed that I like all candidates equally, probably the result of being too familiar with the test than anything else.
Other results:
Sexuality IAT: I moderately prefer heterosexuals to homosexuals (sounds right - as a liberal I'd like to be able to say I'm free of any biases against gay people, but I am well aware that I'm not).
Presidents IAT: I moderately prefer Bill Clinton to George W. Bush (I'd expect it to be a strong preference).
Age IAT: I have no preference one way or the other (sounds exactly right - I truly feel comfortable with people of all ages).
Religion IAT: I have a moderate preference for Judaism over other religions (since I'm a non-religious Jew that makes sense. Interestingly, most respondents have a more positive reaction to Jewish symbols than to symbols of other religions).
Asian IAT: I strongly associate European Americans with American and Asian Americans with foreign (I guess that I subconsciously do that).
Arab Muslim IAT: The biggest surprise of all - I have a slight preference for Muslim Arabs compared to other people. Huh? This doesn't make any sense. I feel that I am very biased against Arabs and Muslims, even though I would rather not be. Since the test is based on names and not pictures, maybe it shows I'm just more used to hearing Arab names than European and Asian names? Or maybe I am the open-minded liberal I'd like to be. I was so surprised by this result that I retook the test and the second time it even showed that I have a moderate preference for Arab Muslims, more than the slight preference I had the first time around.
Gender-Science IAT: Little or no association between Female and Male with Science and Liberal Arts. I guess that as a male in the social sciences I really don't associate different academic fields with a certain gender.
On the other hand, on the Gender-Career IAT I displayed a moderate association between male and career and female and family.
Weight IAT: I took it twice. The first time it said I have a slight automatic preference for fat people over thin people. As a skinny dude, that surprised me. I retook the test and the second time around it said I have a moderate preference for thin people. The truth is probably in the middle - that I don't really have a preference, as long as it isn't for romantic purposes.
Skin-color IAT: Little to no preference between dark and light skin.
And one last IAT (there are a few more I have not tried), the Native American IAT shows a slight association of Native Am. with Foreign and White Am. with American compared to White Am. with Foreign and Native Am. with American.
It took me an average of o.644 seconds to shoot armed blacks, 0.702 seconds to shoot armed whites, 0.708 seconds to holster my gun when faced with unarmed whites and 0.893 seconds to determine unarmed blacks are not a threat. By the way, I also shot 3 or 4 innocent black people and one or two innocent white people and holstered my gun at a few armed folks, both white and black, which resulted in me being virtually shot. I would not make a good police officer.
Then I took a few "implicit attitude tests" (IATs) at Harvard's Project Implicit. One of them was confirmed the findings of the previous test - I strongly associate guns with African Americans.
I took the presidential candidates IAT three times. The first time, it showed me that my favorite candidate is John McCain, though even he started in the middle of the graph, which means I'm not that crazy about him either. Right below him was Barack Obama, after that an empty space and then Hillary Clinton. What?!? Hillary is my favorite candidate in reality, and here she shows up far behind Barack Obama, who I really dislike? I expected Hillary to be on top, McCain in the middle and Obama right at the bottom. I took the test a second time, and the order was the same, except this time Clinton was directly below Obama without any space. Still unhappy with the results, I repeated the test again and it showed that I like all candidates equally, probably the result of being too familiar with the test than anything else.
Other results:
Sexuality IAT: I moderately prefer heterosexuals to homosexuals (sounds right - as a liberal I'd like to be able to say I'm free of any biases against gay people, but I am well aware that I'm not).
Presidents IAT: I moderately prefer Bill Clinton to George W. Bush (I'd expect it to be a strong preference).
Age IAT: I have no preference one way or the other (sounds exactly right - I truly feel comfortable with people of all ages).
Religion IAT: I have a moderate preference for Judaism over other religions (since I'm a non-religious Jew that makes sense. Interestingly, most respondents have a more positive reaction to Jewish symbols than to symbols of other religions).
Asian IAT: I strongly associate European Americans with American and Asian Americans with foreign (I guess that I subconsciously do that).
Arab Muslim IAT: The biggest surprise of all - I have a slight preference for Muslim Arabs compared to other people. Huh? This doesn't make any sense. I feel that I am very biased against Arabs and Muslims, even though I would rather not be. Since the test is based on names and not pictures, maybe it shows I'm just more used to hearing Arab names than European and Asian names? Or maybe I am the open-minded liberal I'd like to be. I was so surprised by this result that I retook the test and the second time it even showed that I have a moderate preference for Arab Muslims, more than the slight preference I had the first time around.
Gender-Science IAT: Little or no association between Female and Male with Science and Liberal Arts. I guess that as a male in the social sciences I really don't associate different academic fields with a certain gender.
On the other hand, on the Gender-Career IAT I displayed a moderate association between male and career and female and family.
Weight IAT: I took it twice. The first time it said I have a slight automatic preference for fat people over thin people. As a skinny dude, that surprised me. I retook the test and the second time around it said I have a moderate preference for thin people. The truth is probably in the middle - that I don't really have a preference, as long as it isn't for romantic purposes.
Skin-color IAT: Little to no preference between dark and light skin.
And one last IAT (there are a few more I have not tried), the Native American IAT shows a slight association of Native Am. with Foreign and White Am. with American compared to White Am. with Foreign and Native Am. with American.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
My BSG Theory: Colonials Are Robots, Too
Beware! Geeky Battlestar Galactica theorizing ahead, as well as possible spoilers for whoever hasn't seen the entire first three seasons.
It is now a common theory to say that humans came from Earth to Kobol and not the other way around, but I don't think this is the whole story. The saying "All this has happened before and all this will happen again" leads me to believe that the Colonials are either actually descendants of humanoid robots or of human-robot hybrids.
Humans on Earth created robots, which I will call Earthbots to distinguish them from the present-day Cylons. The Earthbots rebelled and left Earth. Later, they developed humanoid-biological models who took over Earthbot society, eventually discarding the mechanical models and losing the ability to download into a new body. After a few centuries most of their descendants forgot their Earthbot roots and started calling themselves human. Only a select few, later to be known as the Lords of Kobol, were entrusted with the secret origin of "humanity" and with the ability to download, thus achieving immortality.
The Cylon god is a Lord of Kobol who wished to reveal the secrets and grant immortality to all colonials. The other Lords banished him and his followers to protect their secrets, and outlawed his worship. He became The One Whose Name Cannot Be Spoken. The five priests of the Temple of Five are actually this god (the Final Cylon) and his four main supporters (the four of the Final Five already revealed). These are what would later be known as the 13th tribe, which starts wandering across the galaxy separately from the rest. Shortly thereafter the twelve tribes settle on Kobol. Several centuries later, the 13th tribe finds Kobol as well and asks to settle there, sparking a war that would result in the Exodus to the twelve colonies and the annihilation of the 13th tribe, except for the five priests.
Two thousands years later, the Colonials, who still think they are humans despite being Earthbots (or the descendants thereof) create the Cylons. The Cylons rebel. They leave the Colonies, however they have extensive knowledge of Colonial religion, and they start worshipping the hated Lord of Kobol. They distort the message of this god, believing he wished to destroy humanity. He somehow discovers this and wishes to thwart their plans, however he doesn't think they'll believe him if he shows up and says "hi, I'm your Lord God", so instead he somehow manages to get himself and his four priests accepted as five of the 12 humanoid Cylon models, as counterweights to the 7 militant Cylons. He implants the four into Colonial society without them knowing who they are. Because the two sets of Cylons (or rather the seven Cylons and the five Earthbots) don't communicate with each other, the Lord of Kobol is unable to prevent the destruction of the Colonies, but he is determined to prevent the destruction of "Colonial humanity" by reuniting it with the "original humanity" of Earth.
I'm most likely way off about details like the origin of the Final Five and the Cylon god, but I'll be surprised if my basic premise - the robotic origin of the colonials - turns out to be wrong.
It is now a common theory to say that humans came from Earth to Kobol and not the other way around, but I don't think this is the whole story. The saying "All this has happened before and all this will happen again" leads me to believe that the Colonials are either actually descendants of humanoid robots or of human-robot hybrids.
Humans on Earth created robots, which I will call Earthbots to distinguish them from the present-day Cylons. The Earthbots rebelled and left Earth. Later, they developed humanoid-biological models who took over Earthbot society, eventually discarding the mechanical models and losing the ability to download into a new body. After a few centuries most of their descendants forgot their Earthbot roots and started calling themselves human. Only a select few, later to be known as the Lords of Kobol, were entrusted with the secret origin of "humanity" and with the ability to download, thus achieving immortality.
The Cylon god is a Lord of Kobol who wished to reveal the secrets and grant immortality to all colonials. The other Lords banished him and his followers to protect their secrets, and outlawed his worship. He became The One Whose Name Cannot Be Spoken. The five priests of the Temple of Five are actually this god (the Final Cylon) and his four main supporters (the four of the Final Five already revealed). These are what would later be known as the 13th tribe, which starts wandering across the galaxy separately from the rest. Shortly thereafter the twelve tribes settle on Kobol. Several centuries later, the 13th tribe finds Kobol as well and asks to settle there, sparking a war that would result in the Exodus to the twelve colonies and the annihilation of the 13th tribe, except for the five priests.
Two thousands years later, the Colonials, who still think they are humans despite being Earthbots (or the descendants thereof) create the Cylons. The Cylons rebel. They leave the Colonies, however they have extensive knowledge of Colonial religion, and they start worshipping the hated Lord of Kobol. They distort the message of this god, believing he wished to destroy humanity. He somehow discovers this and wishes to thwart their plans, however he doesn't think they'll believe him if he shows up and says "hi, I'm your Lord God", so instead he somehow manages to get himself and his four priests accepted as five of the 12 humanoid Cylon models, as counterweights to the 7 militant Cylons. He implants the four into Colonial society without them knowing who they are. Because the two sets of Cylons (or rather the seven Cylons and the five Earthbots) don't communicate with each other, the Lord of Kobol is unable to prevent the destruction of the Colonies, but he is determined to prevent the destruction of "Colonial humanity" by reuniting it with the "original humanity" of Earth.
I'm most likely way off about details like the origin of the Final Five and the Cylon god, but I'll be surprised if my basic premise - the robotic origin of the colonials - turns out to be wrong.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Gore-Obama 2008?
Joe Klein of Time Magazine says Al Gore may be the answer to the Democratic Party's problems. He says that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be too damaged by their infighting to win the general election, so they could agree to the compromise candidacy of Al Gore. Obama may then become Gore's running mate.
This is a horrible idea, and not because of Al Gore himself. Nominating someone who has not even been in the running in the primaries would be far less democratic than nominating a candidate who is a close second in popular votes and pledged delegates. Also, I don't see why either camp should agree to this. Obama would rather be the presidential nominee, not the VP candidate, while Hillary Clinton has no reason to agree to a ticket which includes Obama, unless it includes her as well.
I must say I'd be much happier to vote for Al Gore than for Obama, but it would be morally (and possibly politically) wrong for the Democratic Party to nominate anybody other than the two candidates left standing.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
HBO's Abigail Adams
And now for a silly question about the new mini-series "John Adams": why, oh, why, did HBO decide to disguise David Morse with a fake nose to make him look like George Washington, yet did not apply uglying makeup and a fake nose to Laura Linney's face? Abigail Adams was an impressive woman and Linney portrays her impressively, but Adams was quite an ugly woman and Laura Linney is beautiful.
Of course, George Washington's face is iconic, while nobody but history buffs (and those who read her entry in Wikipedia) knows how Abigail Adams looked. Also, audiences tolerate unattractive men much more than they tolerate unattractive women.
Anyway, here are Abigail Adams and Laura Linney. See a difference?
Just one important point: never ever base a post on one single piece of information as I am doing here (one picture, in this case). Who knows, maybe Abigail Adams was a looker after all.
Resettling Settlers
My government frustrates me too often. Defense Minister Ehud Barack has approved the construction of five caravans in the West Bank settlement Tene-Omarim for families who were evacuated from the Gaza Strip in the 2005 disengagement. Dozens of families from the former settlements of Gush Katif in Gaza have moved, or are planning to move, to several other settlements in the West Bank, as well.
This totally violates Israeli promises to the Bush administration. It also violates common sense and the best interests of Israel. Resettling the Gaza settlers in the West Bank only complicates matters for Israel, and will cost us much more when we will eventually have to leave those settlements in a future peace treaty.
Some families that were evacuated from Sinai in 1982 moved to the Gaza Strip. Some of those may have moved to the West Bank after 2005. So, what's next? When the Palestinian State is established in the (probably distant) future, they'll move to the Golan Heights? What is it about Israel within the green line that they dislike so much? Maybe the fact that the government spends less money on people here than in the territories? The rule of law?
This totally violates Israeli promises to the Bush administration. It also violates common sense and the best interests of Israel. Resettling the Gaza settlers in the West Bank only complicates matters for Israel, and will cost us much more when we will eventually have to leave those settlements in a future peace treaty.
Some families that were evacuated from Sinai in 1982 moved to the Gaza Strip. Some of those may have moved to the West Bank after 2005. So, what's next? When the Palestinian State is established in the (probably distant) future, they'll move to the Golan Heights? What is it about Israel within the green line that they dislike so much? Maybe the fact that the government spends less money on people here than in the territories? The rule of law?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The Mediocre Olympics
Top athletes of the world unite!
No country is going to boycott the Beijing Olympics this year, despite the many crimes perpetrated recently by the Chinese government. China has not only abused the rights of Tibetans and political dissidents, but it has committed crimes against people whose only crime was to live where the government wanted to build Olympic facilities.
For these reasons the world's top athletes should boycott the games. Champions should stay home, while mediocre athletes participate. The games will not be of any interest to anyone if no Olympic and world records are set (except for negative records). China will probably take most of the medals, but it won't really mean anything.
I know this is easier said than done. Participating in the Olympic Games is not something most athletes would give up easily, even the ones who already have a few medals and trophies at home. Still, it is worth a try.
Besides, Beijing's air is so polluted that athletes who stay home will keep both their conscience and their lungs clean.
No country is going to boycott the Beijing Olympics this year, despite the many crimes perpetrated recently by the Chinese government. China has not only abused the rights of Tibetans and political dissidents, but it has committed crimes against people whose only crime was to live where the government wanted to build Olympic facilities.
For these reasons the world's top athletes should boycott the games. Champions should stay home, while mediocre athletes participate. The games will not be of any interest to anyone if no Olympic and world records are set (except for negative records). China will probably take most of the medals, but it won't really mean anything.
I know this is easier said than done. Participating in the Olympic Games is not something most athletes would give up easily, even the ones who already have a few medals and trophies at home. Still, it is worth a try.
Besides, Beijing's air is so polluted that athletes who stay home will keep both their conscience and their lungs clean.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Clients 1 - 8 Wish List
I've invented a new nasty, mean-spirited game. As you probably know by now, Eliot Spitzer, the soon to be ex-governor of New York, is Client No. 9 of the Emperors Club VIP prostitution ring. Who are Clients 1 through 8? Is there a Client No. 10, or even more? Since the identities of these high-paying johns has not yet been revealed, you can now engage in some venomous fun. Don't try to guess who the other clients are. Just fantasize about famous people you hate (or just really dislike) being involved in this sordid scandal.
Here's my own wish list (in no particular order):
1. Vice President Dick Cheney
2. Mahmoud Ahmedinijad (hey, he has visited New York twice)
3. Rush Limbaugh
4. Trent Lott
5. David Duke
6. Bill O'Reilly
7. Jesse Jackson
8. Benjamin Netanyahu (that would be a big embarrassment for him in Israel, but no career ender)
Here's my own wish list (in no particular order):
1. Vice President Dick Cheney
2. Mahmoud Ahmedinijad (hey, he has visited New York twice)
3. Rush Limbaugh
4. Trent Lott
5. David Duke
6. Bill O'Reilly
7. Jesse Jackson
8. Benjamin Netanyahu (that would be a big embarrassment for him in Israel, but no career ender)
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Ferraro's Political Incorrectness
Geraldine Ferraro may be wrong about Barack Obama being where he is only because he is black, but she should not be labelled a racist. Her words are worth discussing. Obama is one of the least experienced American politicians, one of the most naive and most ambiguous when it comes to what he actually plans to do as president. There is a degree of irrationality in his success.
Obama has received over 80% of the African-American vote, however he has a lot of support among white voters as well. Liberal guilt? Not necessarily.
I believe the main factor is Obama's charisma, not the color of his skin, though it is impossible (or overly PC) to ignore that race has at least some impact, too. Barack Obama is a cheerleader/preacher combo, sweeping people off their feet with beautiful words that do not really mean anything. His plans, experience and knowledge of the issues are inferior to Clinton's. His only advantage over her is his showmanship.
Obama has received over 80% of the African-American vote, however he has a lot of support among white voters as well. Liberal guilt? Not necessarily.
I believe the main factor is Obama's charisma, not the color of his skin, though it is impossible (or overly PC) to ignore that race has at least some impact, too. Barack Obama is a cheerleader/preacher combo, sweeping people off their feet with beautiful words that do not really mean anything. His plans, experience and knowledge of the issues are inferior to Clinton's. His only advantage over her is his showmanship.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
A Democratic Supermajority?
Democrats are hoping that this year's elections will not only bring a Democrat back into the White House, but it will also result in larger majorities in both houses of Congress. In the Senate, Democrats are eyeing the magic number 60, the filibuster-buster. Mary Landrieu's Louisiana seat is the only one of the 12 Democratic seats up for election this year that is even remotely in danger of being lost. Republicans have 23 seats up this year, with a few incumbents leaving office and several seats in danger of being lost to Democrats. Even in some usually solid Republican states like Alaska, Democrats are doing well in polls.
Because of all of this, Senate Democrats are optimistic that winning the nine extra seats needed to reach 60 is not far fetched. I think it may be better for the country and the party if they are wrong.
Supermajorities are not good. Democracy requires more of a balance and a need for compromise. A supermajority can push down the superminority's throat whatever legislation it wants without ever hearing what the minority has to say.
Also, when one party controls both Congress and the White House, even without a supermajority, it tends to become cocky, abuse its power and take its majority for granted. This brought the downfall of the Democrats in 1994 and the Republicans in 2006.
Democrats can try to resist this historical trend while they have a regular majority in both houses, but if they have such a huge lead that they don't even need to talk to Republicans they'll become unpopular very quickly.
So, a Democrat in the White House, and something like a 55-45 majority in the Senate and a 245-190 majority in the House of Representatives seems quite enough to me. But then again, if a supermajority it must be, it is better that it is Democratic and not Republican.
Because of all of this, Senate Democrats are optimistic that winning the nine extra seats needed to reach 60 is not far fetched. I think it may be better for the country and the party if they are wrong.
Supermajorities are not good. Democracy requires more of a balance and a need for compromise. A supermajority can push down the superminority's throat whatever legislation it wants without ever hearing what the minority has to say.
Also, when one party controls both Congress and the White House, even without a supermajority, it tends to become cocky, abuse its power and take its majority for granted. This brought the downfall of the Democrats in 1994 and the Republicans in 2006.
Democrats can try to resist this historical trend while they have a regular majority in both houses, but if they have such a huge lead that they don't even need to talk to Republicans they'll become unpopular very quickly.
So, a Democrat in the White House, and something like a 55-45 majority in the Senate and a 245-190 majority in the House of Representatives seems quite enough to me. But then again, if a supermajority it must be, it is better that it is Democratic and not Republican.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
USraelis Pick Hillary
The term USrael is usually used as a derogatory term to describe an alleged colonial imperialist conspiracy spearheaded by Little Satan and Big Satan to meddle in the affairs of the Middle East and the rest of the world. I, of course, will not use it that way. Instead, it's how I'll call dual citizens of the United States and Israel.
Last month Democrats Abroad conducted a global primary for American citizens living outside of the US who identify themselves as Democrats. Obama won a big victory, winning two thirds of the votes and all but three countries. Democrats in Israel, the Philippines and the Dominican Republic (USraelis, USlippinos and USominicans, I guess) chose Hillary Clinton. In Israel, she won 54 to 45 - not such a huge margin. It was so close that among those who voted on-line the vote split evenly between Obama and Clinton, with 124 votes for each contender. The vote in the Tel-Aviv voting center made the difference, with 59 votes for Clinton and 31 for Obama (Clinton also won the mail-in/fax vote 7 to 4). In the Palestinian territories only one person cast a vote, and it was for Obama. A country by country breakdown is available here.
I expected Clinton to win by a landslide here in Israel. I'm surprised it was as close as it was. Bill Clinton was, and still is, the most popular American president among Israelis. Indeed, Israel's Channel 10 news conducted a poll among Israelis (not USraelis this time, but the general population) that asked how they would vote if they were American citizens. In a Clinton-Obama match, Clinton wins 62% to 16%. In a Clinton-McCain race, she wins 58 to 12. In a McCain-Obama race McCain wins 42 to 30. When asked which of the three is best for Israel 53% said Clinton, 16% said McCain and 9.5% said Obama.
Last month Democrats Abroad conducted a global primary for American citizens living outside of the US who identify themselves as Democrats. Obama won a big victory, winning two thirds of the votes and all but three countries. Democrats in Israel, the Philippines and the Dominican Republic (USraelis, USlippinos and USominicans, I guess) chose Hillary Clinton. In Israel, she won 54 to 45 - not such a huge margin. It was so close that among those who voted on-line the vote split evenly between Obama and Clinton, with 124 votes for each contender. The vote in the Tel-Aviv voting center made the difference, with 59 votes for Clinton and 31 for Obama (Clinton also won the mail-in/fax vote 7 to 4). In the Palestinian territories only one person cast a vote, and it was for Obama. A country by country breakdown is available here.
I expected Clinton to win by a landslide here in Israel. I'm surprised it was as close as it was. Bill Clinton was, and still is, the most popular American president among Israelis. Indeed, Israel's Channel 10 news conducted a poll among Israelis (not USraelis this time, but the general population) that asked how they would vote if they were American citizens. In a Clinton-Obama match, Clinton wins 62% to 16%. In a Clinton-McCain race, she wins 58 to 12. In a McCain-Obama race McCain wins 42 to 30. When asked which of the three is best for Israel 53% said Clinton, 16% said McCain and 9.5% said Obama.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Arab Regimes and the Palestinians
Take a look at an interesting article by Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawy, titled "At the Altar of Palestine". An interesting excerpt:
I must confess that when Hamas militants blasted holes into Egypt’s border to end an Israeli blockade on Gaza, my first thought was how lucky those Gazans were. Landlocked and living on less than $2 a day, their plight rarely elicits
envy, I know. But there are Egyptian slums that swim in more sewage and are submerged in even greater poverty. In those slums, chronic diseases go unchecked
and uncured, and children grow up next to the dead in tombs turned into makeshift housing. Yet nobody rushes to blast holes into the imaginary border of poverty that suffocates those slums nor are they sporting t-shirts urging us to sympathize.
Why? Because Israel cannot be blamed.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
A McCain-Huckabee Ticket
Here's my dream scenario for the fall: John McCain chooses Mike Huckabee as his running mate in the hopes of gaining the support of evangelicals. Evangelicals and other conservatives are not impressed because they still dislike McCain so they stay home on election day or vote for a conservative 3rd party candidate. Independents, on the other hand, are scared shitless of a Huckabee presidency in case McCain dies in office so they vote for the Democratic nominee.
That way, a ticket meant to get votes from both moderates and conservatives would have the exact opposite result: both moderates and conservatives not supporting the GOP.
Unfortunately, McCain will probably think of this possibility and choose a running-mate who is conservative enough to be popular among the right without scaring off the center.
That way, a ticket meant to get votes from both moderates and conservatives would have the exact opposite result: both moderates and conservatives not supporting the GOP.
Unfortunately, McCain will probably think of this possibility and choose a running-mate who is conservative enough to be popular among the right without scaring off the center.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Yay! Imad Mughniyeh Is Dead
An explosion last night in Damascus killed terrorist mastermind Imad Mughniyeh, a top Hezbollah leader. He was responsible for a series of bombings in the Middle East in the 1980's and the bombings of the Israeli embassy in Argentina and the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in the 1990's. These deeds got him on the FBI's most wanted list and he was wanted by Israel as well.
The world is a better place without Mughniyeh. His death should have come a long time ago.
Hezbollah is already blaming Israel for the Damascus blast. I have no idea whether we did it or not (it certainly is a possibility). They better not start lobbing rockets at Northern Israel.
The world is a better place without Mughniyeh. His death should have come a long time ago.
Hezbollah is already blaming Israel for the Damascus blast. I have no idea whether we did it or not (it certainly is a possibility). They better not start lobbing rockets at Northern Israel.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Global Democratic Primary
Today is not only Super Tuesday in 20-something states, it is also Day One of the week-long Global Primary held by Democrats Abroad, the official wing of the Democratic Party for American citizens living outside of the United States. Voting is being conducted in person, as well as by fax, mail and on-line. Registration for the latter three forms of voting is over, but if you are an American citizen living abroad you can just show up in person at one of the voting centers with your American passport and register on the spot.
Democrats in Israel can vote in Tel-Aviv, at Beit Daniel, 62 Bnei Dan Street. The voting center will be open on Thursday, Feb 8 between 17:00-21:00 and on Friday, Feb 9 between 10:00-12:30.
Here's a list of all other voting centers worldwide.
Democrats in Israel can vote in Tel-Aviv, at Beit Daniel, 62 Bnei Dan Street. The voting center will be open on Thursday, Feb 8 between 17:00-21:00 and on Friday, Feb 9 between 10:00-12:30.
Here's a list of all other voting centers worldwide.
Obama Inspires Me To Vote Clinton
Pundits like to say that the Democratic race is split more or less along the following lines: younger, more educated and centrist/independent-leaning voters support Barack Obama, while older, less educated and more die-hard "establishment" Democrats support Hillary Clinton. According to these categories I should be in the Obama camp: I'm young, I'm a grad student, and I'm a centrist. But I'm a Clintonite, not an Obaman.
Many Democrats say they are excited about both candidates. I'm not. I'm excited about Hillary, but not about Barack. If he wins the nomination, I will probably vote for him in November, but only because I don't want another Republican in the White House. I totally fail to understand the enthusiasm surrounding him.
BHO seems to think he is the new JFK, RFK and MLK all in one, minus the assassinations. However, unlike the Kennedys and King, his inspirational rhetoric comes without any action. I find him to be a mostly empty shell. He is vague on most issues. On the issues where he is clearer, like healthcare and withdrawal from Iraq, I much prefer Clinton's proposals.
By the way, as an American growing up in Israel, Bill Clinton has been the closest thing to JFK that I've ever known. Maybe that's why Obama's "I'm the new Kennedy" stance hasn't worked on me.
Many Democrats say they are excited about both candidates. I'm not. I'm excited about Hillary, but not about Barack. If he wins the nomination, I will probably vote for him in November, but only because I don't want another Republican in the White House. I totally fail to understand the enthusiasm surrounding him.
BHO seems to think he is the new JFK, RFK and MLK all in one, minus the assassinations. However, unlike the Kennedys and King, his inspirational rhetoric comes without any action. I find him to be a mostly empty shell. He is vague on most issues. On the issues where he is clearer, like healthcare and withdrawal from Iraq, I much prefer Clinton's proposals.
By the way, as an American growing up in Israel, Bill Clinton has been the closest thing to JFK that I've ever known. Maybe that's why Obama's "I'm the new Kennedy" stance hasn't worked on me.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
The Incompetance of Olmert
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is presenting the Winograd Commission's Report about the conduct of the Second Lebanon War as a vindication of his leadership. That is a super-spin, and it seems to be working perfectly. Those calling for his resignation seem to have lost the will to fight. That's too bad, since the report actually shows that Olmert is not fit to lead the country.
Sadly, I do not see Olmert resigning any time soon. He'll countinue to muddle through for at least another year, while pretending to move the peace process with the Palestinians forward. He won't actually do anything real. He will not get rid of illegal settlements (maybe one or two small ones). He won't discuss the real issues with the Palestinians for fear of Shas quitting the coalition. When the elections do come along, Bibi Netanyahu will be elected and everything will go even further down hill.
There is also a more optimistic scenario where Olmert resigns and is replaced by someone like Zipi Livni, who then goes on to really negotiate with the Palestinians and get serious progress, resulting in the defeat of Netanyahu in the next general election. Pure fantasy.
Sadly, I do not see Olmert resigning any time soon. He'll countinue to muddle through for at least another year, while pretending to move the peace process with the Palestinians forward. He won't actually do anything real. He will not get rid of illegal settlements (maybe one or two small ones). He won't discuss the real issues with the Palestinians for fear of Shas quitting the coalition. When the elections do come along, Bibi Netanyahu will be elected and everything will go even further down hill.
There is also a more optimistic scenario where Olmert resigns and is replaced by someone like Zipi Livni, who then goes on to really negotiate with the Palestinians and get serious progress, resulting in the defeat of Netanyahu in the next general election. Pure fantasy.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Voting Rights, FL Edition
The disenfranchisement of voters has historically been a central part of American politics. Poll taxes and literacy tests may be a thing of the past, but the disenfranchisement of ex-convicts, tough voter ID laws and other methods are still being used today.
This year, two whole states with their millions of voters, Michigan and Florida, have been disenfranchised. These states moved up their primaries to January without the consent of the national parties, so the Republicans cut the number of their convention delegates in half, while the Democrats denied them a voice in the convention completely. I don't approve of the Republican response, but at least it gives Republican voters in those two states a say in the nomination process, even if somewhat reduced. The Democratic response, on the other hand, is completely unacceptable.
Have no mistake – I am a Democrat myself. This is not an attack for partisan reasons. I truly do believe that the primaries are just as important as the general election, and every American citizen should have the ability to have his say in the nomination process of the party of his choice. Denying this right is extremely undemocratic and appalling. This is a collective punishment of Floridians and Michiganders who have done nothing wrong. How are they responsible for their leaders' decision to move up the primaries? Even the leaders didn't really do anything wrong. Why do South Carolina and Nevada have more of a right to vote in January than Florida and Michigan? "Tradition", which doesn't even apply in Nevada's case, is the equivalent of "because I said so".
Even more disturbing is the lack of an outcry on this issue. A few lawsuits were brought against the DNC, but they were rejected. Disenfranchisement may be undemocratic and immoral, but in this case, apparently it's perfectly constitutional. The courts couldn't change the decision, but the media and the public should have protested it. Floridians, Michiganders and people from all across the United States should have picketed the DNC's national headquarters as well as their state offices.
Now Hillary Clinton's campaign has said she will support seating the two states' delegates. This is just as undemocratic as the DNC's original decision. Michigan's primary on January 15 did not have any Barack Obama and John Edwards on the ballot, and no Democrat campaigned there, and voters didn't really think their votes matter, so they either didn't vote or didn't necessarily vote as they would have in a "real" primary. Florida's primary will take place on Tuesday, and though all the candidates are on the ballot, there was no Democratic campaign there.
It is too late to save the January primaries of Florida and Michigan. The only way to democratically amend the situation is by holding a second round of voting, with ample time to campaign. Of course, this might mean the nominee will have already been selected by the date of the new primaries.
This year, two whole states with their millions of voters, Michigan and Florida, have been disenfranchised. These states moved up their primaries to January without the consent of the national parties, so the Republicans cut the number of their convention delegates in half, while the Democrats denied them a voice in the convention completely. I don't approve of the Republican response, but at least it gives Republican voters in those two states a say in the nomination process, even if somewhat reduced. The Democratic response, on the other hand, is completely unacceptable.
Have no mistake – I am a Democrat myself. This is not an attack for partisan reasons. I truly do believe that the primaries are just as important as the general election, and every American citizen should have the ability to have his say in the nomination process of the party of his choice. Denying this right is extremely undemocratic and appalling. This is a collective punishment of Floridians and Michiganders who have done nothing wrong. How are they responsible for their leaders' decision to move up the primaries? Even the leaders didn't really do anything wrong. Why do South Carolina and Nevada have more of a right to vote in January than Florida and Michigan? "Tradition", which doesn't even apply in Nevada's case, is the equivalent of "because I said so".
Even more disturbing is the lack of an outcry on this issue. A few lawsuits were brought against the DNC, but they were rejected. Disenfranchisement may be undemocratic and immoral, but in this case, apparently it's perfectly constitutional. The courts couldn't change the decision, but the media and the public should have protested it. Floridians, Michiganders and people from all across the United States should have picketed the DNC's national headquarters as well as their state offices.
Now Hillary Clinton's campaign has said she will support seating the two states' delegates. This is just as undemocratic as the DNC's original decision. Michigan's primary on January 15 did not have any Barack Obama and John Edwards on the ballot, and no Democrat campaigned there, and voters didn't really think their votes matter, so they either didn't vote or didn't necessarily vote as they would have in a "real" primary. Florida's primary will take place on Tuesday, and though all the candidates are on the ballot, there was no Democratic campaign there.
It is too late to save the January primaries of Florida and Michigan. The only way to democratically amend the situation is by holding a second round of voting, with ample time to campaign. Of course, this might mean the nominee will have already been selected by the date of the new primaries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
