Ten Random Wishes for the New Year

Instead of New Year's Resolutions, I'm going to list just ten of my many wishes for 2010. They're more like fantasies because they're either impossible or so ridiculously improbable as to be "impossible":

1) That Jennifer Aniston will appear on no magazine covers for the entire year.

2) That the media will not cover Sarah Palin all year because they conclude she's a failed politician with no serious leadership potential. Palin will be treated like just another citizen of Alaska.

3) That former Vice President Richard Cheney will look in the mirror, get some therapy and begin a series of public admissions of wrongdoing and mistakes during his time in office. The "confession period" will culminate in Cheney publicly apologizing to President Obama for his unwarranted, outrageous criticisms and volunteering to do anything humanly possible to support Obama during the rest of his presidency.

4) That Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will all leave their jobs, and FOX TV will cease to exist and transform itself into a serious think tank that studies the potential benefits of socialism.

5) That PBS' Bill Moyers Journal will begin to air in a prime-time slot every week - and that members of the US Congress will be required to watch the show and report on lessons they learn.

6) That President Obama will get more in touch with the deepest convictions that motivated him to become involved in national politics and will speak, with passion, about those convictions to the nation.

7) That we will learn of real anecdotes of President Obama displaying strong leadership at behind-the-scenes meetings at the White House or elsewhere. In these reports, we'll hear of Obama saying "NO" to individuals and groups, getting in conflicts, showing some passion, fighting for his convictions, and, being willing to disappoint others in doing so.

8) That the Republican Party will conclude that it should cease to exist unless it can begin advocating for some principles that relate to improving the nation. As a result, if the Party continues, its members will choose to participate in public debate and action on issues instead of solely trying to defeat every one of President Obama's his initiatives.

9) That Derek Jeter, Mark Teixeira, Alex Rodriguez and Mariano Rivera of the New York Yankees, surprisingly, all will announce their retirement from baseball before spring training in February. In a related story, the Red Sox will win another World Series title in 2010.

10) That a new alternative television network will emerge with a terrific news operation and a commitment to presenting unprecedented OPEN public debate on major issues of the day - from the war in Afghanistan to world hunger to the underlying causes of terrorism. Leading thinkers from all political persuasions will be invited to participate - especially from the Left, which has been unrepresented on mainstream media for so many decades. Among the guests on the first show, which will focus on Afghanistan, will be: Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky.

I Haven't Cared About the Tiger Woods Story

I guess I'm in a tiny minority, but, I just haven't gotten caught up in the recent Tiger Woods story. Now, it's true the media frenzy has subsided in the past ten days or so, but, any new development would probably cause it to percolate again. The coverage of Woods' extra-marital affairs - which surfaced following Tiger's car accident around Thanksgiving time - was obsessive, sensational and out-of-control.

None of that was surprising in this day and age. Particularly when a sports hero of Tiger's stature ran into these sort of personal problems. (A "perfect storm" for today's entertainment-driven media)

I grew tired of this story after the first few days. Yes, I was surprised and interested, at first, to learn about Woods having so many affairs with different women. That was unusual, but, after his multiple philandering became clear, I lost interest.

Now, I think part of this is because I'm not a Tiger Woods fan, or, even, a golf fan...but, I realized, as the saga unfolded, that there was something else affecting my sensibility around this story.

It was the context that goes with disclosure of adultery by a public figure. I realized I've learned about so many, many public figures - including many politicians - having affairs that the cumulative impact has caused me to have some burnout or indifference on this topic. Nothing surprises me anymore. I mean: What have we not heard at this point? It was hard to top President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky's escapades. Let's see, in the past year or two, we've had stories about former NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer, former US Sen. John Edwards, US Sen. John Ensign, Gov. Mark Sanford. I still recall the media's crushing coverage of Gary Hart's affairs in 1987. So, the "novelty" of the media aggressively exposing someone's affair is a thing of the past, but, other aspects of this phenomenon bother me.

I've grown tired of how the public and media so, so enjoy feasting on the flaws, problems and vulnerabilities of public people, who, after all, are human beings first and celebrities second. The issues around the adultery and marital difficulties and crises of public figures are personal. They have no impact on the rest of us. Our lives are not impacted.

Yet, when you watch the television media, in particular, report on the day-to-day developments relating to a story, or, soap opera such as Tiger Woods' recent struggles, they report the news as if it is something of such magnitude and immediacy that we all should know - we all need to know about all the details. What a farce. They should put a subtitle at the bottom of your TV screen that says: "Covering Tiger Woods' affairs helps our ratings - that's why we're doing this."

I understand that one can argue that a limited amount of reporting on this Woods story might be "justified" on some level, but, no one can convince me that most of the coverage has been necessary or natural or right. I've felt this way more and more about these adultery stories.

The problem is we've all grown accustomed to the blurring of boundaries - which, years ago, used to separate entertainment from news, and, yes, public figures' personal lives from being juxtaposed next to foreign policy developments in newscasts.

I'm always reminded of how the coverage of the OJ Simpson trial in the mid-1990s marked a turning point downward in how the media began to glaringly blur the line between news and entertainment. It began with the networks providing OJ's live Bronco chase to the minute-by-minute reporting of the trial - as if it was all-encompassing news story greatly impacting all of our well-being.

I guess the coverage of Tiger Woods has just reminded me of how disgusted I am with television news coverage in this country. I cannot believe the extent to which attempting to attract higher ratings drives everything from local weather forecasts to excessive coverage of murder stories to repeating reckless public statements of people without identifying they are false. Similarly, I cannot believe how an obsession with ratings has helped create a climate that allows figures like reactionary Glenn Beck to survive, or, succeed on TV despite Beck's irresponsibility and tasteless low standards.

OK, maybe it's a leap to go from the Tiger Woods story to discussing Glenn Beck, but, to me, we live in a media environment that disregards the truth and rewards the sensational at any cost.

The Tiger Woods story, unfortunately, will probably receive coverage for a long time, because it simply attracts ratings too high to be ignored. And, the ratings, unfortunately, are all that counts.

Obama Has Made Mistakes, But Let's Not Forget W.

The news media and the public need more perspective as they evaluate Barack Obama these days.

Obama and the Democrats have been sliding downward in the polls in the past several months. Of course, the continuing economic recession, the war in Afghanistan and the messy, unproductive struggle over health care reform have contributed to the President's vulnerability. I think Obama deserves serious criticism for his decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and his lack of leadership in the health care debate.

But, you know what? I'm getting tired of the non-stop attacks from the Right and the other whiners and moaners who seem to think Obama is to blame for everything in the universe - including the H1N1 virus.

I just read George Will's Dec. 17th column that ripped Obama, and it was the "last straw." Among Will's complaints about Obama is his observation that Obama, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, used the pronoun "I" 38 times. Will also notes that "...the fruits of the president's policy of "engagement" have been meager. Witness Iran continuing its nuclear program and China being difficult about carbon emissions...."

Is Will suggesting that it's inexcusable for Obama to have not forced Iran to shut down its nuclear program by now? Or, that another president would have gotten China to do whatever the US wished on carbon emissions? Give me a break! This is what I cannot stand about right-wingers, who seem to, sadly, dominate the airwaves far too often: They're routinely selective about which truths to share and which to disregard. Often, they don't bring up Bush's eight years and the tremendous damage his administration did.

Excuse me Mr. Will, but, would you argue that George W. Bush did a better job "managing" the US relationship with Iran? Bush took unnecessary military action by invading Iraq and did enough "sabre-rattling" with Iran to further poison our relationship with Iran. Bush and his White House chose to spew hawkish rhetoric toward Iran and seemed to suggest the US longed to go to war with Iran. Gee, that helped the US and Iran a lot, didn't it, Mr. Will?

Meanwhile, Obama came in and openly spoke of his willingness to try talking with Iran while, at the same time, seeing how Iran behaved. Now, after nearly a year of Iran being unresponsive, Obama is in a much stronger position with countries around the world to pursue economic sanctions against Iran, if necessary, because he handled the relationship carefully and thoughtfully.
Would you dispute that, George Will? You'd probably say - without factual back-up - that somehow, Obama worsened the situation and that you prefer the tough (reckless) talk of Dick Cheney. I don't know. I'm just sick of everyone blaming Obama for everything.

Let's pretend we have an imaginary checklist and let's compare Obama with George W Bush:

• Obama is more intelligent. Far more.
• Obama is more capable, across the board. Far more.
• Obama has demonstrated a greater capacity to listen to others, including those who disagree with him - while Bush failed to do this, particularly in his decision to invade Iraq.
• An illustration: Obama presided over a careful, thorough review before his decision on Afghanistan (though I disagree with his conclusion!) while Bush reportedly spoke with very few who dissented (with him) on Iraq.
• Obama has done FAR MORE to improve the US' image and relationship with the rest of the world. Bush's actions and policies hurt the US' image in many parts of the world.
• Obama is "hands-on." He gives us a sense that he's "on top of things" - In fact, he's similar to former President Bill Clinton in his impressive, sweeping command of facts. Bush was, disturbingly vague about numerous topics and conveyed a sense that without his cue-cards, he'd be LOST, and, I mean LOST. I still believe Cheney and others ran the country more than Bush. Bush was the "puppet" who others manipulated.
• Obama is an outstanding speaker who can inspire in prepared remarks AND speak articulately and directly in responding to specific queries on policy. Bush could do neither and often had to defer to others to respond with details.
• Obama has shown he can remain "in the fray" on a number of fronts simultaneously while keeping his cool and advancing action and change. Bush did not show a similar capacity - at least in public. He gave the impression he was the "front man" for a group of men who made the real decisions in the corridors of the White House.

I could go on and on - and, you could too. We've forgotten how low our expectations fell during the Bush years. It was a hopeless feeling. You had the sense decisions were made secretly and the Administration was not listening.

Obama has serious flaws - like every President - but, it's all relative. He arrived with the country on the brink of another Depression. His administration helped ward off a Depression, but, it wasn't done easily or without some ugly setbacks. The stimulus bill was flawed and has been implemented with those problems on full display.

Yet, I don't recall a President in my lifetime who had to wrestle with more pressing domestic and foreign policy matters on the fly during his first year. It has been a roller coaster ride for Obama. His decision on Afghanistan, has been, by far, his worst move, in my view. Also, his effort to get a comprehensive health care reform bill passed has unraveled badly. The bill now seems so flawed and watered down that its value and potential impact have diminished. Obama chose to stay in the background during almost the entire debate. He has failed to step up and assert what he believes MUST stay in the health care bill or not. He and his team have failed to lead the US representatives and senators and other involved parties; instead, the debate for months has been out-of-control and created an impression that the White House is not in charge.

In the end, however, I prefer Obama not only over Bush, but, a number of other Presidents because of the strengths he DOES have. What I am tired of is the avalanche of disproportionate criticism and attacks that has been directed at Obama. I believe a sizeable portion of that venom is due to racism. Another portion, I think, is due to the short attention span of the news media and the public. People want problems solved immediately and without making many sacrifices most of the time.

It's not an easy time to be President of the United States. If we're measuring the President's ups and downs constantly, let's do that by comparing him to others who have held the office most recently. I'm delighted Obama is our leader rather than George W. Bush or others who came before, and, also had flaws and made mistakes.

Obama's Disappointing Decision on Afghanistan

I oppose President Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan for many reasons, but, if I had to identify the most all-encompassing one, it's that I oppose war unless our national security is at risk. I don't think the President came anywhere close to making the case that such a risk exists during his speech at West Point last week.

Like most Americans, I have extremely limited knowledge of what's really going on in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and about developments with the Taliban, Al Qaeda or the reactions of the people who live in those two countries. There is, obviously, an enormous amount of information that Obama's team of military and foreign policy decisionmakers reviewed that the rest of us never saw - so, I base my opinions on the limited coverage I've seen on television or read in newspapers. The media, I think, presents an incomplete, oversimplified, often-confusing picture of what's going on in these countries.

However, I find the new US policy in Afghanistan troubling not only because the Obama Administration failed to justify putting the lives of thousands of US men and women at risk, but, failed to provide adequate answers to so many substantive questions about its escalation of military involvement. In addition, there are factors about how the decision evolved that concern me.

Here are just a few examples of my questions or concerns about Obama's decision:


1) The Obama administration has not sufficiently explained why Al Qaeda's presence in Pakistan and other countries amounts to a threat to our national security warranting 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, where all acknowledge, there are very few Al Qaeda members still located.

It seems the crux of Obama's policy is that by adding US troops, we'll train the Afghan troops, who will then be better-equipped to help prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven to Al Qaeda. However, this is a "hypothetical deterrent" because, in fact, we don't know exactly what Al Qaeda will do if the Taliban presence in Afghanistan grows in power and influence. (We don't know exactly what the Taliban or Al Qaeda will do - period). Perhaps Al Qaeda will linger in Pakistan or go to other locations. So, Obama's policy is a hypothetical premise for war -- which is NOT enough.
Al Qaeda poses an ongoing threat to the US - as do other terrorist groups, but, if we do NOT send these 30,000 troops, does Al Qaeda pose a significantly greater threat? I guess the US generals, military advisors and Obama's team are arguing "they might pose a greater threat in the future," but, that argument is NOT a rationale for escalating a war.

2) Did the US exhaust attempts to use diplomacy and non-military action or moves to address the problems in Afgahnistan?

Tom Hayden, former Chicago 7 leader and former California state senator, wrote a Dec. 1st piece for Nation in which he reported that some elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan might be willing to negotiate a "peace settlement" in the country "without safe havens for Al Qaeda..."
Instead, Hayden concluded, the US chose to pursue military action. Were there signs of potential - as Hayden wrote? I don't know, but, I hope the US pursued any opportunities for negotiating settlements of any kind.

There has been little news about efforts to negotiate anything in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but, does that mean we must assume any resolution will come only through continuous war?

3) Did President Obama provide enough evidence that, in fact, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be better in July 2011 (or, later, when our troops will likely leave) as a result of the 30,000 troops going there?

No, he did not. Obama and his military advisors are banking on the Afghan troops being ready to take responsibility after receiving training and assistance from US troops. However, let's face it: we simply don't know how that "training" and "readiness" will work out. It certainly seems very possible that either: a) Events might not evolve as the US predicts in terms of Al Qaeda rushing into Afghanistan if and when an increased Taliban presence evolves and provides a "safe haven;" or, b) Developments in Pakistan might unravel in ways we cannot anticipate given the tremendous instability there now, making our "surge" in Afghanistan less relevant.

4) Does the Obama administration have good reason to believe the corrupt Karzai government will be a "reliable partner" in resisting the Taliban?

Clearly, this is a weak part of the Administration's plan. At the same time, President Obama is hoping for the best from Karzai, he's saying things like "the days of providing a blank check" are over. Repeated reports have document the corruption and ineffectivenss of Karzai's government. How will Obama & the US transform Karzai's approach overnight? How can the US rely on this government for much of anything? Within days of Obama's speech, Karzai was voicing concern about the US withdrawing too early. It seems the US runs a tremendous risk, now, of taking on a role way too invasive and large in trying to implement its "policy" and that US effort is more likely to lead to resentment, resistance, hostility and non-cooperation from Afghan security forces and civilians. People in other countries don't like the US coming in and dictating what they need to do - period.

5) Obama has repeatedly pointed to Pakistan as the real object of US concern; yet, in Pakistan as well, there is much uncertainty over how an increased US military role in Afghanistan will make a difference.

It seems the Administration is trying hard, through the troop increase, to send a loud, clear signal to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan that "You won't be able to come into Afghanistan because we're shoring things up there..." Yet, again, is there enough evidence that we know the impact of this troop increase? Al Qaeda has resided primarily in Pakistan in the past few years, including on the border regions, but can the US really know Al Qaeda's next moves and destinations? A war has been raging much more in Pakistan between the Pakistan Army and Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan.

6) Reports have documented that Pakistan has, until the recent past, been unwilling to take on Al Qaeda in its own country. There is much turmoil in Pakistan. The US needs to work very hard to help Pakistan maintain stability without doing so in the role of "aggressive intervenor."

In my limited attempts to follow this story, I've been intrigued and troubled by the fact that Pakistan has lent its support to the Taliban in the past and often done little to attempt to quell or defeat Al Qaeda forces in its own country. Now, recently, the US has supposedly pressured Pakistan's army to take far more decisive action against Al Qaeda.. Clearly, the US can quietly provide much assistance.
The point is that Pakistan is the place we need to focus more now - not Afghanistan.

7) Therefore, a related point: Why couldn't the US restrict its involvement to: a) A much more focused effort to support Pakistan's "containment" of Al Qaeda in Pakistan; b) Continuing to support Pakistan's targeting of Al Qaeda leaders and halting of any moves by Al Qaeda that pose any threats to the government of Pakistan?

8) In the end, President Obama's action pleased the military and his Defense Secretary, but, was the President perhaps too influenced by the powerful US military, who - let's face it - usually advocate for more troops and more military action rather than the alternatives?

I thought Obama should have publicly scolded General Stanley McCrystal, when McCrystal came out, months ago, and publicly called for a large increase in troops. (He did this by leaking a document to the Washington Post) McCrystal was out of line and deserved a reprimand. Instead, in the end, McCrystal got most of the troops he wanted. What happened to the "Biden plan" - for sending a much, much smaller number of troops and focusing our efforts more on containing Al Qaeda? What happened to Obama, the "peace candidate" in 2008, when he espoused more common sense in our policy toward Iraq? It seems Obama, through this decisionmaking process, has morphed into "another conventional US President," who, in his desire to avoid risks, ends up following the influence of the military - and, in doing so - abandons his principles and good instincts.

9) How - after months of a careful, deliberative "review" of matters relating to his decision - can President Obama be so vague about whether and when the US troops will begin to withdraw in July, 2011?

In the week since his speech, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been asserting, in remarks, that, in fact July, 2011 will just mark the "beginning" of a US assessment of how and when to initiate withdrawal of troops. In his speech, Obama said that the US training of Afghan forces would "allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011..." Yes, Obama said the US would consider "conditions on the ground" in executing the withdrawal, but, if he intended to identify the date, shouldn't he have stood by it? Instead, Gates has been attempting to re-define Obama's words and is, in essence, saying we'll stay longer, if necessary. Who's in charge here, President Obama? Don't you realize this backpedaling makes you look weak?

10) Doesn't it make sense to at least give at least a minute's thought to whether there are any OTHER steps the US might take to reduce the threat of terrorism by Al Qaeda?

Acting in the role of "occupier," in Afghanistan surely helps fan the flames of anger and resistance to United States. The Afghan people, understandably, do not want our troops there. The more the US lingers in other countries - flexing our military muscles - the more the US assumes an image that can stir hatred, resistance, anger and help make enemies out of individuals who might previously be neutral.

I think it'd help to talk to former Al Qaeda members, former Taliban members and people all over the world about what steps they believe would help reduce terrroism.

Why don't we hear more about how leaders of countries are meeting - frequently, for that matter - to discuss strategies, steps and actions - that they might take to address the underlying causes of terrorism? Should the world just give up on that - and go on assuming that a relatively small group of Islamic terrorists should hold the rest of us hostage?

I'm not suggesting we stop trying to identify, or, eliminate those leaders of Al Qaeda we know responsible for the killing of many people. Sometimes, clearly, counter-terrorism, and military action is justified and probably the only effective course. On the other hand, it's time leaders and citizens from across the world try talking about alternative ways to deal with terrorism.