This is just unreal. Not that there are people in America who think this way, but that there are highly educated college professors who think this way. Why? Is it because far too many Americans ever leave the borders of their own country? That America is a 'world apart?' Is it some kind of sick provincialism? What is it that prevents us, in a country of immigrants, to be so intolerant of other people(s) making different choices? The real irony is that a self-described conservative--in the best sense of the word, I hasten to add--would write something so culturally relativisitc. (I'm sure Col. Lang is aware of this irony, as well.) This is the kind of writing that comes with a deep, committed relationship with the world, ideas and other peoples, and the value of real liberty and real choice.

Republicans Vote Against Moms; No Word Yet on Puppies, Kittens

Video at Think Progress

By Hannes Artens

No doubt, this Sunday's parliamentary elections in Serbia are the most decisive in the country's short but turbulent democratic history. Never since the fall of Slobodan Milosevic the stakes have been so high and prospects so ominous. In two days, the Serbian people will decide on whether they still envision a future in the European family of nations for their nation or decay into self-inflicted isolation and the status of a Trojan Horse for Russian great power aspirations. For the European Union, the elections will determine whether it can count on having an interlocutor in Belgrade to negotiate with past May 11, or face up to a nationalist Serbia acting as a permanent spirit of discord for the entire Western Balkans.

The unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo on February 17, sent shockwaves through the country that not only culminated in the ravage of several Western embassies and brought the government down, but also dominates this election campaign right down to the last comma on every stump. The collective national trauma of having ultimately lost the very territory mystified as the cradle of the Serbian nation and the impolitic signals the EU sent out over the last weeks render a radical-nationalist landslide a given. According to most recent polls, the nationalist bloc could bank on winning a super-majority of 55%, relegate all reform-minded powers into opposition, and set off to permanently disengage Serbia from Europe.

Lambert doesn't like what Matt Stoller saying about how Obama ran his campaign and how he's now consolidating power. He thinks Matt's kissing Obama's boots.

What Matt is saying is simple:

Obama is taking over the party and cutting out everyone who isn't in his camp. He believes in post-partisanship (this doesn't contradict having Daschle as your bud, y'know). Money flow is going to come mostly from Obama going forward, unless he loses the election. The independents-folks like MoveOn, ActBlue, the netroots, etc... are being cut out or marginalized, whether they realize it or not (and I know that some don't.) Obama doesn't feel he really needed them (sorry MoveOn), and he isn't planning on giving them any real say or power.

I advocate all the time for talking as a means of resolving conflicts. Somehow this has become a somewhat radical idea, but like Roosevelt and Reagan I believe that we can talk with people even in the midst of conflict.

Talks encounter all kinds of hurdles. But that doesn't make it a bad idea to talk. When talks break down, the pessimists - and the hawks - will be quick to gloat over that fact, arguing that it reinforces the need for heavy-handed military solutions. And when that happens, sane people should remind everyone that shutting down channels of communication rarely works.

With that said, recent talks between Pakistan's civilian government and hardline pro-Taliban elements are breaking down. About a week and a half ago, the Taliban decided to suspend talks, citing the government's continued military presence in the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan as an obstacle to an agreement, despite the fact that all parties seemed interested in the draft proposal that was then on the table.

I will be appearing on Virtually Speaking tonight at 9PM Eastern, in second life live, on Blog Talk Radio and podcast available later. I'll be speaking on a very simple idea: the coming Progressive Century, and why it is society, and not technology, that is going to be driving this change.

For people who have Second Life accounts - which are free and take only a few minutes to sign up for - the SLURL is In world Studios. Regular attendees in world include Jesus' General and other in world progressives. Previous guests have included McJoan of Daily Kos and Jeffery Feldman. Coming up is Darcy Burner on the 15th, Ed markey on the 22nd and Rick Perlstein, author of the just published Nixonland, on the 29. For those of you who don't kno the host Jay Ackroyd, he is a long time progressive media stalwart, with a sharp mind and a broad knowledge of politics and economics. This is sure to be an incisive discussion.

Brian and Numerian have added some very nice new additions to our blogroll, check them out here:

Brian Downing's Picks:

Al Jezeera, Asia Times, Night Watch, Emirates Journal, Soldiers for the Truth , The War Report, Iraq Casualties and Global Security

Numerian's choices:

Mother Jones, Tom Dispatch, Der Spiegel, Big Picture, Calculated Risk, Bonddad, House Bubble and Prudent Bear

And in the future you can find them midway down the right-hand column under the 'timely' divider.

Sarah Rohrs | Bay Area | May 8

San Jose Mercury News - Vallejo has become the first city of its size in California to seek bankruptcy protection.

The decision to file for bankruptcy came in a unanimous vote by the city council Tuesday night as hundreds of residents watched . . . Vallejo has been slammed by increasing costs of its public safety contracts, the housing crisis and lower property values. The city faces a $16 million deficit in the 2008-09 fiscal year that starts July 1. Tuesday night's vote came after months of fruitless talks between city and labor representatives.

Nota bene: They are the first, but they certainly won't be the last! ~spk Mish who is now on our blogroll has more.

This email comes from an email correspondent of mine who reads the site regularly. There are some interesting generational comments and observations here that might be the seeds of a fruitful discussion:

[War Inc. was] co-written by a very angry John Cusack. Most of the audience, which I would say was my age or older was very unconfortable with the over-the-top satire of Haliburton, US in Iraq etc. I guess it might be less uncomfortable to see if "Iraq" ever ends. Somewhere my generation's heart, boomer or no, is not prepared to confront our country'sactions as strictly driven by greed. But younger audiences at the Tribeca film festival had no problem accepting it.

I forget how much after the height of the cold war Doctor Strangelove was made and whether it was a hit as opposed to an Oscar nominee. It will be interesting to see how it does when it is released. It was made in Bulgaria by an Israeli production company.

Thoughts?

Many of you will no doubt remember and recognize my loathing of SUVs. I've blogged about it many, many times, most especially by laughing (and crying) at Detroit and it's errant stupidity when it comes to SUVs. Things haven't changed:

General Motors Corp still expects the U.S. economy to recover in the second half of 2008, pulling industry-wide auto sales higher, an executive said on Tuesday.
GM sales analyst Mike DiGiovanni, speaking to reporters and analysts on a conference call, said he saw "early signs" that the U.S. market was steadying.

One thing you can always bet on: stupidity at the Big Three, er Two and A Half now, or something. They haven't changed in Detroit--and one of them will probably have to die before they do. But things are changing elsewhere, as in, the consumers are tired of getting fleeced at the pump (admit it, paying $80 twice a week to fill up an SUV is fucking stupid) and are trading down:

Menicocci, a resident of the upscale Miami suburb of Palmetto Bay, recently placed his 2003 Chevrolet Tahoe with leather seats and 39,000 miles for sale on Craigslist for $16,000 -- roughly $2,000 less than what his research determined was the Kelley Blue Book value. He bought a 2003 Kia Spectra for $5,000 because he was tired of paying so much for gas with his heavy Tahoe. "I was wasting $30 a day compared to $10 a day," he said. "Everybody is like, `What is that? Is that the maid's car?"' said Menicocci, who sells marble and granite for a living. "But I don't care. At this point, I'm way past looks and appearances."

I can't help but reiterate when people says things like, "I'm way past looks and appearances," there is a sea change underway. And not a day too soon. Although, there will always be people with lots of money and little sense who will buy Hummers.

I drive a 20 year old Acura. It runs, gets decent milage and I could care less how it looks. It gets me where I need to go and that is all that ever mattered. But I do look forward to the day when the highways aren't full of huge behemoths and it's safe to putz around on a moped. Then I can really minimize my carbon footprint.

Maybe at some point I might have to eat my words, but I doubt it. Someone needs to tell Hillary it's over. She's doing more harm than good at this point. She cannot win without tearing the party apart. It's time to think of the country and the party, before herself. Bow out. Gracefully and then have a future. Don't bow out and go down hard, or win the nomination and lose in the general and wreck the party in the process? Just bow out.

Update: Obama camp says Oregon, May 20, is the day they wrap it all up. Regardless of my opinion, the numbers indicate that they are correct. It's inevitable at this point.

When Nicolas Sarkozy was elected president one year ago today, the US media were full of praise for him and expected a big improvement in transatlantic relations.

Sarkozy's pro-American rhetoric was very much appreciated, because it was a big contrast to Gerhard Schroeder's US critical election campaigns. With Schroeder replaced by Angela Merkel and Chirac now replaced by Sarkozy, many Americans were looking forward to a new era in transatlantic relations led by a younger generation of pro-American leaders in Europe.

I did not find this much convincing, but have been very critical of Sarkozy (and to a lesser extent of Merkel). In the last few months, however, President Sarkozy announced some policy changes that indicate more support for US interests, so perhaps I should reconsider my position on Sarko.

Gaelle Fisher has written a very balanced analysis on the question "Has Sarkozy truly improved the state of transatlantic relations and earned his reputation as the most pro-American president France has ever had?" She presents three arguments in favor and three against in a pro & con feature on Atlantic Community: Sarkozy l' Américain? Here is a snippet:

Sarkozy has agreed to increase France’s contribution to the war effort in Afghanistan by adding 1500 to 1700 to the existing French contingent of 1600, sending combat troops to the East, and providing military arsenal. Yet the main new element of French military cooperation with the United States is Sarkozy’s commitment to reintegrating France into NATO’s military wing.

On Sarko’s first anniversary in power, the French are very critical of his domestic policies (and his style), but I wonder what Americans think of his foreign policy. Has he met your expectations? Has he repaired the damage in transatlantic relations as expected by many in the US media?

As Dave Neiwart points out over at FDL, the results for Hillary in North Carolina and Indiana were less than she needed, and may have destroyed her chances with the superdelegates. Her speech sounded suspiciously like a concession speech. Now anyone counting Hillary out until she formally says she's out is taking a big chance, this is the energizer bunny of candidates. But let's assume she will decide the gig's up and to throw in the towel and turn our eyes forward.

Obama has his work cut out for him. The possibility that a lot of Hillary's white working class base could turn to McCain or stay home should be a real worry for him. There's been a great deal of bitterness and anger on both sides of the fight. And, to be crass and point out the unpalatable truth, there isn't a lot in it for Hillary to back Obama in a more than pro-forma "going through the motions" fashion. If he loses, she's the presumptive nominee in 4 years, after all. If he wins, she probably has to wait 8 years, and she's not getting any younger. If she really wants to be president, well, Obama's still in the way. Now I'm not saying she won't help Obama even if such thoughts are going through her mind, no doubt she understands what another 4 years of a Republican presidency would mean. Still, there's help, and there's going all out. And there's a lot of space between the two.

So if I'm Obama; if I'm one of Obama's advisors, no matter how much I may share the view of some associated with the campaign about Hillary, I'd be thinking real hard right now about what it's going to take to bring her and Bill onboard in a big way, so that they do everything possible to really deliver the votes of their supporters.

For Bill, probably a seat on the Supremes if the opportunity comes up (and it will, if Obama is elected.) For Hillary? Probably Senate Majority leader—it's not like Harry Reid really likes the job anyway.

For our hopes of there being a Democratic President taking office in 2009 I trust that similar thoughts are going through Obama's mind. Because he's going to need all the help he can get.

Don't know what this is about but it certainly bears watching:

Federal Bureau of Investigation agents raided the Office of Special Counsel here, seizing computers and documents belonging to the agency chief Scott Bloch and staff.

This guy may very well be a bad actor. Or he may not. He is, after all, investigating Karl Rove.

One of these days the guardian's of our elite establishment are going to wake up and realize they a.) either need Russia for something very serious or b.) realize that they have made a very serious mistake pushing them around for the last several years. John McCain's latest comments on Russia are just another exhibit in how awful (and hypocritical) our policy towards the Russians is:

McCain, 71, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, favors expelling Russia from the Group of Eight club of industrial powers. He calls for forging a ``League of Democracies'' to confront Putin and hand-picked successor Dmitry Medvedev, who takes over tomorrow, on Russian threats against former Soviet republics and rollbacks of domestic freedoms.

That's a brilliant idea. The only thing dumber than that would be adding the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO.

Oh, wait. All three candidates want to do that!

Here's a question for the guardian elites of America: are we willing to fight the Russians over this?

In recent weeks we’ve seen numerous supporters of the war point confidently to positive indicators and to benchmarks being met or neared. And we’ve also seen numerous critics of the war assert just as confidently that there’s been little if any progress. It all makes me think back to events long ago.

Late in the Vietnam War, I occasionally came into contact with a special forces captain. He stopped by to look at the militia units I worked with and we spoke often and in time informally. A former NCO, he had been in Southeast Asia intermittently for over nine years going back to the late fifties, mostly with S. Vietnamese (ARVN) units. I doubt anyone knew them better. Before he left for the states, after the usual farewell conversation I asked, “How long will this country last after the American troops leave?” The question was not if the ARVN would hold – any 19-year-old corporal could see they wouldn’t – but how long until the N. Vietnamese and Viet Cong inevitably overwhelmed them. It was a guileless if tactless question, and pondering it was unpleasant to someone who had worked with the ARVN so long and devotedly. He exhaled then began his reply.

Somalia is quickly slipping into a yet more gruesome circle of hell. Protests erupted today over food prices, and aid organizations are issuing panicky - but accurate - statements about impending mass tragedy.

Most headlines are simply reporting that two people died in today's protests. But the reality is one of extreme social disruption, and the casualties are already starting to climb:

Protestors took to the streets in Somalia's dangerous capital Monday to demonstrate against rising food prices and the business community's refusal to accept 1,000-note Somali Shillings, Radio Garowe reported.

Ouch, oil clears $120. Nasty, nasty, nasty. I can only imagine how expensive gas will get with the arrival of the summer driving season.

On Thursday evening I had the privilege of hearing a lecture by Abdullahi Ahmed an-Na'im, an expert on shari'a law and constitutionalism, and one of the foremost intellectuals in the Islamic world.

The professor who introduced an-Na'im did so in a G-rated manner, highlighting his distinguished academic career. An-Na'im, who is from Sudan, obtained degrees from the Universities of Khartoum, Cambridge, and Edinburgh, and has taught at a number of universities in the US, including Emory Law School where he is currently the Charles Howard Chandler Professor of Law. He also served as Executive Director of Africa Watch (a division of Human Rights Watch) from 1993-1995. He is the author of numerous books, including The Future of Shari'ah, which was the subject of his talk.

I ripped this idea off from Stephen King's latest column in Entertainment Weekly. His point was to put his playlist where his mouth was, rather than list what he thought were his favorite songs.

Step 1: Open up your PC music library.
Step 2: Sort your tracks by number of plays.
Step 3: List the results in this thread.

Let's see what you really listen to when you're at your computer.

Do not walk, but run over to the Washington Note and read this essay by Nir Rosen about the US, Iraq and Iran. A note on Mr. Rosen: he's the only reporter I know of who has extensively reported from within the insurgency, not from without like most MSM reporters. And on that note, he knows what he's talking about in a way others cannot and will not ever know. Two short quotes for flavor:

[T]he Americans have always blamed their failures in Iraq on outsiders, Baathists, al Qaeda, Iranians, because they refuse to admit that the Iraqi people don't want them [there].

There is no proxy war in Iraq, because the US and Iran share the same proxy and the US installed that proxy and empowered it.

Now, please go read. See also, Col. Lang on 'new' Israeli intel on Iran, here.

This takedown of Naomi Klein's books is exceptional. I'd post about it, but it would pretty much be a whole bunch of quotes from the article and me simply adding, "yeah!" Or "indeed!" Or some such. Here's one for you, however:

. But the damage done by Chicago School thinking had less to do with the unleashing of acquisitiveness than with the stupefaction of thought. People indoctrinated in a ‘radical anti-state agenda’ would obviously not be well prepared for the challenge of restoring order in post-Saddam Iraq . . . It was not the utopian project of creating an ideal market that was the original sin of the war planners, as Klein argues, but the failure to appreciate the difficulty of building even a minimal state capable of monopolising violence. Without such a state, needless to say, nothing resembling a free market could survive.

I'm not a fan of Klein's arguments--although my father is--and I think Holmes' essay is a good corrective. Her ideas are too easy intellectually, as Holmes amply proves.

When you stare into a bisque, a bisque stares back at you. In honor of Fafblog. Why? Well, why not?

This article by Jonathan Landy and Warren Strobel and Hannah Allam of McClatchy is worth a read. It's from last Monday but still interesting. I have some problems with many of its claims, but I hasten to add that it comes recommended from a gentleman's who's military judgement I trust. So, take that into consideration when you read it. I hope to drag him into an email discussion about specific claims made in the article and by the US military at some point in the future and will let you know what the thrust of the conversation is when it happens.