i'll take the accolades too

There is really no way to describe the Republican reaction to Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize other than abject insanity. Granted, given the fact that Obama has been in office for a mere 9 months, the choice was certainly political (and does make one wonder whether the Committee either has absolutely no comprehension of American politics or harbors a wish for Obama's demise). Regardless, I had no idea what an overwhelming threat international approval posed for the United States.

In typical fashion, Limbaugh goes after Obama, "the Nobel people" and the rest of the world by boiling the entire process down to its core: it is an attempt to, essentially, cut off the United States' balls. He accused Obama of "basically emasculating this country" and the Nobel committee of attempting "to neuter the United States of America. They've done it by rewarding the pacifist." (No, not that! That might be even worse than l-word!) He also, in a shout-out to the Birther movement, referred to Obama as "the second Kenyan to win." Glenn Beck on the other hand took the opportunity to bizarrely suggest that the Nobel Peace Prize "should be given to the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project." My favorite Republican response, however, may have to be that of Senator Inhofe who said:

This just reemphasizes how this president has moved the United States from a foreign policy of strong national defense to one based on multinational cooperation. That is the kind of change that the Nobel committee believes in.

The Nobel committee believes in a foreign policy based on multinational cooperation?? It does not get much worse than that, folks.

In the midst of this absurdity, however, hats off to PJ Crawley of the State Department for summing up an appropriate response to the Republican charges:

Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum — when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.

words words words

Yesterday at a fundraiser for the Human Rights Campaign, Obama renewed his pledge to put an end to the absurdity of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The program has recently come under attack from an unusual source--an airforce colonel, Om Prakash, whose article citing the law's negative impact and urging its imminent repeal won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay contest. Although this earlier turn of events might indicate an legitimate shift in the military's attitude toward homosexuals serving openly in the military, Obama's restatement of his commitment to ending the policy--which failed to present a timetable for doing so--appears to be more of the same. Liberals (or progressives, as the Democrats like to call us when they deign to associate with our ilk) have been disappointed time and time again by Obama's reluctance to push certain issues--gay and lesbian rights, the public option--combined with his apparent about-face on others (see bill, "media shield").

In some ways, of course, this is just good politics--who else will the lefty likes of MoveOn.org vote for? But, on the other hand, Obama got elected not only by appealing to moderates, but in large part by sparking the passions of people (largely of liberal bent) who labored tirelessly to convince the rest of the country that voting for black man who shares a Muslim middle name with a recently executed enemy of the United States wasn't such a bad idea after all. The longer Obama stalls on increasingly uncontroversial issues like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the more he risks alienating those supporters. Of course, they'll still cast their vote for him in 2012, but they won't campaign doggedly for him--and, as a leader who is (through little fault of his own) presiding over the worst recession in a generation, that's not a chance he should be too eager to take.

death to the public?

Amidst the rejection of not one but two public option proposals by the Senate Finance Committee, the viability of any public option plan appears increasingly dim. Adding insult to injury, these two proposals failed to pass despite the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans on the Committee 13 to 10. if the Republicans are the Party of No then the Democrats appear increasingly the Party of Maybe, Maybe Not. Although Chuck Schumer, the author of one of the flouted proposals, vowed to fight on, it's hard to believe that any plan that includes a public option will pass as long as Democrats remain unable to keep their party in line. Barack Obama, who was never as devout a proponent of the public option as his bygone rivals for the democratic nomination, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, has failed to insist on a public plan. Even if the president changed course now, it's unclear whether it would make much of a difference. now that much of his political capital appears to be squandered (at least for the moment), aligning with a progressive president might not be an appealing option for those wavering blue dog Democrats concerned with their prospects of reelection in largely conservative states.

It's hard to find a silver lining in the current health care debacle. At least the Democrats of the Senate Finance Committee stuck (closer) to their guns on the subject of abortion, rejecting a proposal by Republican Orren G. Hatch of Utah that would have forbidden the use of federal funds to cover “any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion.” Yes, that's right, Hatch doesn't want to merely prevent federal money given in subsidies from going towards abortions themselves, but from going towards any health care plan that deigns to include coverage for those procedures. Although this is a significant victory for women, it's hard to take much solace in it as it concerns the rest of the health care debate. After all, a party's ability to reject proposals has rarely translated into any ability to pass one.

better than nothing?

This appears to be the new philosophy of Democrats vis-a-vis the health care debate in the wake of Ted Kennedy's death. Instead of rallying around the ultimate champion of health care (as many hoped initially hoped), the White House, at least, appears determined to continue its strategy of seeking increasingly unacceptable compromises with the Republicans. Just when the absurd idea of having a "public option" run by a health insurance co-operative (yes! let's have a non-profit reporting to the government on healthcare--what a brilliant way to cut bureaucracy!) seems to have momentarily blown over, the Obama administration is now investigating the possibility of transforming the public option into a "backup" plan.

Under this version of the plan, the public option would only be offered in states where fewer than 95% of residents had access to "affordable healthcare." Although Congress would set barometers as to what qualifies as "affordable" on a sliding income scale, there is no indication that the government would determine what services need be covered in these affordable healthcare plans. Without a public option that would cover some minimum level of benefits, health insurance companies can easily come up with relatively cheap (read: the maximum amount allowed by Congress's sliding scale of affordability) policies that provide the most meager amount of coverage. Instead of being a legitimate insurance program that would increase competition and bring down costs, the public option would just become another loophole that insurance companies could work their way around.

Furthermore, by only allowing a public plan in states where fewer than 95% of residents have access to affordable healthcare, the plan defeats one of the primary purposes of universal healthcare: namely, that it is, in fact, universal. Although the bills in Congress would provide tax subsidies and other incentives for people to purchase coverage, there is no guarantee that affordable healthcare plans would be available. So, in the end, we're left with a system that will charge people who are not on approved health plans, but refuses to guarantee that affordable coverage will exist.

Will this plan be better than the current system? Perhaps. But, unlike the arguments made by Obama's remaining supporters on the left, that is not enough. The Democrats have the opportunity to truly reinvent how healthcare in this country works, not just to throw on a few Band-aids that leave the current system more or less intact. What the Democrats will eventually regret is allowing this opportunity to provide true, affordable, universal healthcare to slip through their fingers. Furthermore, no matter how much the Dems bend over backwards to accommodate the GOP and the more conservative members of their own party, there is absolutely no guarantee that the Republicans will ever accept any reform. The more the Democrats have been willing to compromise, the more the Republicans have dragged the debate farther to the right. Days after the ill-advised health-care coop plan began to gain traction, GOP leaders in Congress summarily rejected the idea (Jo Kyl, the Senate's number two Republican, dismissed it as "a government plan by another name.")

The Republicans are too afraid of any sort of public option to ever agree to a plan that allows one in any capacity. And for good reason: a government healthcare plan would significantly increase competition for private insurance companies. It would essentially force them to lower prices and improve care or drop out of the business (you know, the way capitalism is supposed to work). It seems that the big, inefficient government is just better at providing healthcare than the private sector: people on Medicare are significantly more satisfied with their coverage than people on employer-based insurance plans. Private insurance is not a solution to our health care problem, it is the problem.

get the u.s. out of my... foreskin?

The amazing thing about the health care debate in this country is that just when you think it couldn't possibly get any more ridiculous (see death panels, Sarah Palin), it does. Evidently, the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control is considering whether to encourage universal circumcision of baby boys born in the United States. Now, on the surface, this seems like a fairly reasonable proposal to consider. After all, numerous studies have shown that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV during heterosexual intercourse by as much as 60%. The World Health Organization already recommends that male circumcision be considered as a way to reduce AIDS transmission in parts of Africa.

But--as potential benign as a public health campaign to encourage infant circumcision may seem--it is actually, according to right wing anti-health care crusaders like Rush Limbaugh, the government's attempt to institute a circumcision mandate. Limbaugh went on to warn that: "If we need to save our penises from anyone, it's Obama." So, there you have it: universal health care is really part of Obama's secret mission to wage war against American male genitalia (for that matter, this whole circumcision thing probably has to do with the fact that he's a Muslim).

And if that isn't enough to convince you that Obamacare is an Islamofascist communist scheme, the Republican party wants you to know that you may well not even be covered by this government run "health care rationing system.". That is, if you're a registered Republican. A recent RNC fund-raising survey included the following question:

It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person's political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibly concern you?

That's right, now the Democrats can pull the plug on Grandma not only if she's deemed an unproductive member of society but also if she voted Bush into office.

the end of an era

When Edward Kennedy succumbed to brain cancer this morning, it marked the first time in nearly 60 years that there hasn't been a Kennedy in the Senate. Ted Kennedy, as the only Kennedy brother to live past the age of 46 and, perhaps, fulfill at least some of that enigmatic dynasty's furious potential, leaves an undeniable mark on this country. He was, in many ways, the perfect liberal. Hailing from the bluest state in the Union and the most storied political family in American history, reelection was never much of a concern (his smallest margin of victory came in 1994 when he defeated Mitt Romney by a mere 58% to 41%). Tainted by the infamous Chappaquiddick incident and an ill-advised presidential primary bid in 1980, Kennedy fully abandoned any aspirations for national office. Instead, he devoted himself to progressive causes in the Senate, from raising the minimum wage to expanding federal health insurance for children to opposing the war in Iraq. He was an unabashed liberal at a time when Republicans were successfully transforming the concept into a dirty word. He carried out his battles to the bitter end, continuing to serve the people of Massachusetts and the United States as he always had: just last week, he asked the Massachusetts state legislature to change the law concerning Senator succession to allow Governor Deval Patrick to appoint a temporary replacement upon his death. Ted Kennedy was a deeply flawed man (as evidenced by what can only be generously referred to as youthful indiscretions), but he was a brilliant politician who managed to transform himself into one of the greatest and most influential Senators in American history.

At a time when the congressional Democrats (and even erstwhile champion of the progressive cause, President Obama) seem desperate to back away from anything that smacks of the slightest hint of "socialism" while destroying the best chance for health care reform in the process, it is important to recall what can and has been achieved by a single American legislator. No one can replace Ted Kennedy, but perhaps, in the wake up of his death, some Democrats in congress will be inspired by his example and attempt to carry on his mantle of liberal lion.

about those terror alerts...

Remember those terror alerts under the Bush administration? You know, that delightful color-coded warning system whose meaning seemed to run something along the lines of: "FYI: there may be an increased chance of some heinous attack somewhere in the US at some point. There's nothing you can do to protect yourself (and we're certainly not going to give you any useful details about the threat), but we think you should go about your day with a little more fear in your heart."

Evidently, this scientific approach to fear-mongering was, in fact, politically motivated (who would've thunk? well, you know, other than the busloads of liberal journalists who have been decrying the system for years). In his new book, Tom Ridge, former homeland security secretary, admits that Rumsfeld pressured him to raise the terror alert on the eve of the 2004 election in an effort to improve W.'s reelection chances. Tom Ridge (to his credit?) quit three weeks later because he "wanted to spend more time with his family." On the flip side, of course, Ridge had been vehemently denying that politics played any role in the system up until now (which, out of sheer coincidence, happens to be two weeks before the release of his book "The Test of Our Times"). So, as often happens with the secrecy-shrouded Bush administration, it remains difficult to determine exactly who is lying about what when.

so wait... now we're OUTSOURCING assassination attempts?

The CIA has a long and glorious history of flouting international law by engaging in state-sponsored assassinations. (Apparently, those crazy folks at the United Nations think that people, EVEN people the U.S. government doesn't particularly like, deserve a fair trial before being summarily executed.) So, when Leon Panetta finally told Congress that the CIA had been developing plans to assassinate senior Al Qaeda operatives since 2001, it really shouldn't have come as much of a surprise. However, news broke yesterday that the CIA had actually hired Blackwater USA (yes, that Blackwater USA) to assist with these attempts to locate and kill high-level terrorists. That's right, the CIA is now outsourcing assassinations.

Furthermore, this was all part of a "top secret" operation--so secret, in fact, that Cheney ordered that it had to be kept hidden from lawmakers (you know, like the ones on the Congressional Intelligence Committee). Yet, despite falling into the Bush administration's grossly expanded category of things that must be concealed from the legislature, the CIA, in its infinite wisdom, decided that large parts of this ultra-secret plan could not only be revealed to but also carried out by a private corporation with an (at best) contentious human rights record.

albany gets back to work - or why state government really doesn't need more power

After a five-week standoff between Republicans and Democrats (two Democratic defections left both parties with 31 members, an evidently untenable situation in state politics) in the New York Senate, the legislature returned to work yesterday. What brilliant compromise led to the resumption of government during the worst economic crisis this country has seen since the Great Depression? None. Instead, one of the idiots who defected in the first place, Pedro Espada, Jr., returned to the Democratic fold. The best part? In the new leadership structure, Mr. Espada will serve as majority leader. (Don't worry, that might not actually mean anything in state politics. But apparently it was enough to convince Mr. Espada to return the Democrats rather than face marginalization a proposed power-showering agreement between one Democratic faction and the Republican party).

The debacle in the New York Senate is merely the most vivid recent illustration (the very fact that Sarah Palin managed to be elected governor of an entire state was probably enough for me) of why transferring more power to the states might not be the brilliant idea Republicans make it out to be. (Or, you know, used to make it out to be until they discovered the wonderful uses of a large government, like unlimited military spending). Throw in Governor Sanford's mysterious week-long disappearance (later, he admitted, due to an affair with an Argentinian woman) and Governor Palin's puzzling resignation (as far as anyone could gather from her rambling speech, the perseverance of the military inspired her to step down in the face of adversity, or at least in the face of bad press and the prospect of being a lame duck governor) and it's a wonder anyone could support shifting more power to this set of politicians. The federal government is not, obviously, the model of brilliance and efficiency (but, then again, as we've all learned in recent months, neither is the private sector), but it is increasingly clear that it remains far superior to state legislatures, at least in terms of marginal functionality.

"death to the dictator"

After an 11-day lull, thousands of Iranians took to the streets again (despite numerous threats of retribution springing from the reigning regime) to commemorate the tenth anniversary student uprising of 1999. At the time, the riots, in response to hundreds of basiji storming the University of Tehran after a reformist demonstration, posed the greatest challenge to the government since the Islamic Revolution. Naturally, those tremors pale in comparison to today's persisting turmoil in the wake of the contested election.

Sadly, the Iranian government appeared to be as good as its word. In the midst of regime's continuing rhetoric about the foreign media agitators (whose journalists have conveniently been banned from the country), it has continued to crack down ever more brutally on those who dare to continue to protest. The demonstrators were greeted with hoards of riot police and basiji militiamen who beat them back with batons, tear gas and gun butts. The government seems determined not to back down -- but every night millions of Iranians continue to climb to their roof tops to shout "Allah'u Akbar" (a la 1979 Islamic Revolution).

more clerics break with khamanei

Despite the increasing crackdown on the opposition (complete with alleged confessions of top reformists officials), a prominent group of religious leaders, Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, declared the contentious election and the new government to be illegitimate yesterday. Furthermore, the released statement went on to call upon other mullahs to stand against the election results and likened the 20 protesters killed during the opposition demonstrators to the martyrs who died for the cause of the Islamic Revolution. The group not only directly defied the rule of Ayatollah Khamanei, whose word is supposed to reign supreme, but also continued to strengthen the allegorical connection between today's reformers and those of the Islamic Revolution (and, by logical, extension between today's government and that of the Shah). Naturally, the group in question has no real political power, but the symbolic significance of this act should not be overlooked -- the fact that an Association created by Khomanei himself has now turned against his successor is momentous indeed.

Meanwhile, of course, the Iranian government continues its increasingly ludicrous attempts to paint Mousavi as an American agent. Today, the Kayhan newspaper published a damning editorial in which its editor-in-chief, Hossein Shariatmadari, accused Mousavi of "terrible crimes," including murdering innocent people, holding riots, co-operating with foreigners and acting as America's fifth column." Such an editorial (despite its appearance in one of Iran's most prominent newspapers) is unlikely to actually sway anyone's views, especially given the close relationship between Shariatmadari and Khamanei. However, it does serve as an increasingly overt threat that the Iranian government intends to arrest Mousavi if he continues his steadfast refusal to back down.

another abortion exception

The wonderful thing about the technological advances of the last 100 years or so is that the private words of our former presidents can be preserved for posterity. Or for the renewed humiliation of the American public decades after these men have left office. Of course, Nixon (with his paranoid penchant for recording his own criminal dealings) probably takes the cake in terms of providing a virtually unlimited amount of increasingly embarrassing insights into his private thoughts. The latest, of course, emerge from 150 hours of newly released Oval Office tapes in which our 37th presidents discusses his ambivalent feelings about Roe v. Wade:

There are times when an abortion is necessarily. I know that. When you have a black and a white. [Pause] Or a rape.

Can't wait for the release of the George W. Bush White House text messages.

if there were a major breach, we could annul the election--thank allah THAT didn't happen

The Guardian Council (unsurprisingly) declared that it would not nullify the vote. Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, the spokesperson for the Council, offered the following reassurance:

If a major breach occurs in an election, the Guardian Council may annul the votes that come out of a particular affected ballot box, polling station, district, or city. Fortunately, in the recent presidential election we found no witness of major fraud or breach in the election.

Well, that's a relief... Because some people might have thought that the voting discrepancy of 3 million in 50 cities that the government actually admitted might qualify as a "major breach" in "a particular affected ballot box, polling station, district, or city."

a method to khamanei's madness?

Perhaps the most puzzling aspect of the events in Iran is the increasingly bizarre behavior of the Guardian Council and Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, beginning, of course, the decision to tamper with the election in the first place. The Iranian government is not typically in the habit of directly rigging elections (after all, the "republic" bit of the Islamic Republic of Iran conveniently grants the Guardian Council the "responsibility" of weeding potential candidates who are not sufficiently committed to the cause). Furthermore, Mir-Hossein Mousavi was more or less greeted as the poor man's version of the more charasmatic Khatami, the reformist former president of Iran from 1997 to 2005 who bowed out of the 2009 election. Evidently, however, the Green Wave appeared to have attracted sufficient fervor to transform the unlikely Mousavi into a symbol threatening to justify rigging the election.

Yet more surprising still is the decision to pair the increasingly violent crackdown on the opposition protests with the admission that there were substantial "irregularities" (to the tune of 3 million votes or so) in the voting process. While this appears to be an attempt to tow some sort of middle ground, it is impossible to imagine that the Iranian government actually believes that admitting to such widespread (and almost certainly intentional) fraud will do anything other than bolster the opposition's resolve by further delegitimizing the election.

about all those extra voters...

Today's message from the Iranian leadership:

Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100 percent of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80 to 170 cities are not accurate — the incident has happened in only 50 cities.

Only 50 cities? And it just accounted for 3 million votes? Anyway, we shouldn't worry (as Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hassan Qashqavi, pointed out), because it's just like that American election in 2000 and no one encouraged Americans to take to the streets (which perhaps begs the question "why the hell not?"). And yes, in case you were wondering, the Iranian governmen does appear to have just held up the Great Satan as a paragon of electoral virtue.

God, what are those opposition protesters complaining about... ?

mousavi: "ready for martyrdom"

In a distinct show of defiance, Mousavi, the improbable leader of the opposition, declared to his supporters on Saturday night that he as "ready for martyrdom." Such an unabashed act of resistence, in response to Khamanei's threats of violent repercussions against those who deny the legitimacy of the election (Mousavi also told his supporters that "protesting to lies and fraud is your right"), cements the opposition's resistance to the regime. It answers the question of whether the protesters would meekly step down with a resounding no. And it demonstrates that, despite his insider status, Mousavi has fully committed himself to his unlikely role as a would-be revolutionary.

Seeing that their leader continue to whole-heartedly encourage their demonstrations, protesters continued pouring into the streets on Saturday, despite the denial of official permission for these demonstrates and the not-so-oblique threats of violence that accompanied them. Unsurprisingly, the regime matched their threats with action; police confrontations resulted in at least 13 deaths yesterday.

supreme leader reverses again

In a not unexpected move (given the fact that most analysts believed his earlier conciliatory offer of a partial recount was primarily a bid to buy time and hope the opposition cools off), Khamanei reversed his position again in a speech delivered at Friday Prayers at Tehran University. He declared that:

The Islamic state would not cheat and would not betray the vote of the people. The legal mechanism for elections would not allow any cheating.

So much for that whole partial recount thing. Of course, there was no way that any "partial recount" could have made a dent in Ahmadinejad's alleged 11 million margin of victory over Mousavi regardless.

On a more worrisome (but still not altogether surprising) note, Khamanei also made a not-so-veiled threat of violence against protesters by stating that opposition leaders would be "responsible for bloodshed and chaos."

The questions that now remain are whether Mousavi and his supporters will step down (given the extent and tenure of the protests this would seem unlikely) and how much violence the Iranian government is prepared to implement. After all, government violence against protesters might not necessarily have the desired result (forcing the opposition to step down). And it will certainly allow for more of those pesky comparisons to the policies of the Shah.

the democrats and gay marriage -- or why obama won't repeal doma

The Democratic Party's insistence on being pro-civil unions but anti-gay marriage becomes more puzzling each day. Perhaps there was some secret meeting back in the 90's when everyone agreed that Americans would never accept gay marriage and that, assuming the Democrats wanted to win elections, the Party (at least on the national level) should stick to the civil unions line. The results of the 2004 election seemed to more or less vindicate this idea (many analysts attributed Kerry's loss in Ohio to rural voters coming out in droves to vote for a proposed amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage).

And yet, at a time when 44% of Americans support gay marriage and even Sarah Palin agreed with Joe Biden's characterization of her position on civil unions being "that there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple" (although, to be fair, it's never clear how well Palin understands what, exactly, she is agreeing to at any given moment), this policy seems increasingly out-dated. Nevertheless, the Democrats' equivocation on the gay rights front continues to rear its ugly head. After filing a motion last week to dismiss a case challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (which rightfully outraged gay rights advocates at the time Clinton signed it into law), yesterday the president failed to include healthcare in a package of domestic partnership benefits for same sex couples.

After 8 years of watching Bush relentlessly pander to his base, it's pretty understandable that large parts of the LGBT movement (not to mention the rest of us who voted for Obama assuming he would, you know, back all those liberal social causes he claimed to support or whatever) are somewhat upset. No one (or at least few of us pragmatists) expects Obama to champion gay rights to the detriment of other priorities. Nonetheless, it would nice if he'd refrain from using the occasion of dismissing a case challenging DOMA on the grounds of insufficient legal standing as an excuse to launch into a whole-hearted defense of the overall merit of the Act.

just kidding guys, "we like everyone"

Ahmedinejad, apparently convinced by someone that referring to large swaths (somewhere in, let's say, the hundreds of thousands) of his countrymen as "dust" and disappointed soccer fans was perhaps not the best idea, attempted to soften the barbs of his former remarks by issuing the following somewhat conciliatory statement:

I only addressed those who made riot, set fires and attacked people. Every single Iranian is valuable. The government is at everyone's service. We like everyone.

Meanwhile, however, increasing speculation about the fact that ahmedinejad has not been seen in public since monday suggests that he is not quite so confident that everyone likes him.

iranian protests continue

The proverbial shit appears to be hitting the fan as Iranian protests continue into their fifth day. Sparked by the questionable results of Friday's election (the latest rumor claims that leaked election results actually show Mousavi as the landslide victor) that left the presidency in the hands of Ahmadinejad with an alleged victory granting him 62% of the vote (a puzzling outcome considering the fact that the four-candidate election was thought likely to force a run-off), these protests mark the largest antigovernment demonstrates since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The Iranian government has responded in ways both expected (expelling journalists, arresting opposition leaders, blaming foreign elements for the disturbances) and less so (Ayatollah Khamanei has emerged from the shadows to publicly alter his initial steadfast support of the legitimacy of the election results). Naturally, Khamanei's decision to permit the investigation of the vote is likely an empty gesture intended to buy time in the hopes that the protesters will eventually cool off. However, such a public reversal from the country's Supreme Leader, who as the ultimate religious authority supercedes that of the president tends to remain above the political fray, may serve to cast further doubt on the legitimacy of the regime.

Of course, one aspect of these events remains refreshingly familiar. Ahmadinejad's predisposition toward offensive and inflammatory rhetoric marches on (apparently Mousavi supporters did not take well to having their protests compared to the actions of disappointed soccer fans, who would have thunk?)

the magic number 60 at last?

After drawn out speculation on a variety of right-wing blogs, Arlen Specter has official announced his switch to the democratic party (apparently, the Republican Party has moved to the right in the last 30 years, who knew?). In reality, Specter's decision is probably due primarily to political considerations (the conservative wing of the Republican party has been hounding him for voting with the Democrats for months and now are supporting a more conservative challenger for the 2010 Senate primary). Of course, this development would provide the Democrats with the magic filibuster-proof number 60 in the senate, assuming that anyone ever bothers to end the litigation in Minnesota and actually seat Al Franken. Naturally, Specter insists that his switch in affiliation does not mean he "will be a party-line voter for the Democrats."

Regardless of what practical difference Specter's change in affiliation will make, the symbolic impact is significant: yet another moderate Republican jumping a quickly sinking ship, leaving the party even more geographically and socially isolated from the American mainstream. Meanwhile, the Republicans still have to compete with being overshadowed by a Democratic president who continues to enjoy high levels of support.

NY post cartoonist likens Obama to a raging chimp, claims that accusations of racism are "absolutely friggin ridiculous"

To anyone who has even a passing familiarity with America's long and troubled history of racism, this cartoon appears to liken Obama (who just happens to be our first black president) to a raging chimp who should be shot. Apparently, however, this was not the intention. The best part is that cartoonist, Sean Delonas, claims that there is no racist attempt; he responded as follows: "Do you really think I'm saying Obama should be shot? I didn't see that in the cartoon It's about the economic stimulus bill. If you're going to make that about anybody, it would be [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi, which it's not." Um, naturally Nancy Pelosi would be the first person to come to mind, because white women have traditionally been depicted as violent, savage apes in the Untied States... The NY Post's editor-in-chief, Col Allan shares this view, describing the cartoon as "broadly mock[ing] Washington's efforts to revive the economy." How exactly white police officers (who clearly are not intended to represent politicians, but rather average citizens) shooting an ape for writing the stimulus bill qualifies as a caricature of Washington's efforts to help the economy is unclear. Not only is this cartoon clearly invoking racist hate speech (and the denials of such accusations are blatantly absurd), it is also inciting violence against the President (something that is not covered by First Amendment rights). The question of what to be done is more difficult; boycotting the Post is a clear first step for the non-racists who previously patronized the paper, but should Washington get involved? It almost certainly won't, in part because of the Democratic Party's historic dedication to First Amendment rights and also because it may well incite further racism. In this case, public outcry against racism is probably a more effective reaction than government intervention.

The New York Senate Seat

When Carline Kennedy withdrew from consideration for the soon-to-be-vacated New York Senate seat, I was somewhat skeptical of her alleged personal reason for withdrawal (initially reported to be concern for the health of her uncle, Ted Kennedy). Her nose-diving popularity and general mishandling of a political situation where she began as the far-and-away front-runner seemed a more likely cause. Furthermore, the whole gendered concept of her withdrawing because of her uncle's health generally irked my feminist sensibilities (can anyone imagine, say, Bill Clinton abandoning political aspirations under such circumstances?). So, you can imagine my delight in discovering that, apparently (according to such laudable and reliable sources as gawker and rightpundits.com), her "personal" reasons for withdrawing concerned her affair with New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger. Hopefully, she wasn't relying on this affair to receive decent press coverage). While the fact that our female politicians are now engaging in at least some level of morally ambiguous extra-marital sexual relations in an attempt to match their male counterparts may gave some hope to feminism, it is important to keep in mind the fact that this would never (unless it was publicly revealed by an outside source) be the cause for any man to step down from consideration of political office (it didn't seem to bother John Edwards during his latest failed presidential bid).