Just Call Me Hussein: The Meme
Yesterday I explained why you can just call me Karoli Hussein. That meme is now spreading through the blogosphere, smacking down the folks who think using Barack Obama’s middle name as a way to snidely associate him with violence and terrorism works. It doesn’t. Whether or not you support Barack Obama, please digg the Momocrats’ meme as a way to send the message that we aren’t going to let the talkalots tell us what to be afraid of, or let them insult an entire group of people who are proud to bear that name.
Here’s one example: King Abdullah II ibn Al Hussein spoke at Princeton today, saying in part:
Division and hatred have eroded understanding and agreement. They have played into the hands of the enemies of humanity – those who attacked the World Trade Center, those who would divide multi-cultural Europe, those who, right now, seek to tear my region apart.
Indeed. This is not about supporting a candidate. It’s about pushing back and smacking down hateful speech and acts by showing people there is nothing in a name that we need to fear.
I’m honored to be an honorary Hussein, and hope you are too.
Technorati Tags: justcallmehussein, meme, momocrats
Sphere: Related ContentBarack Obama – Start the Iraq Dialogue, then Own it
The Pew Research Center released the findings of a voter survey conducted around the Presidential candidates today, specifically analyzing their perceived strengths and weaknesses in various policy areas when compared to each other. Voters believe that Barack Obama will win the nomination by an astounding margin — 70% believe he will win it versus 17% who believe Hillary Clinton will win it. However, when pure voter preference is measured, the margin decreases — 49% Obama; 40% Clinton.
I don’t want to spend too much time on the specifics — it’s all available on the Pew Research site — but one area worth noting is where Obama measures up next to McCain. When voters were asked whether the candidates had provided enough information on their policies, 36% said Obama had and 56% said he had not, compared to 67% who said Clinton had and 28% who said she has not. Further, they perceive Obama as “not tough enough”.
In the debate on Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton mentioned withdrawing 1-2 brigades per month from Iraq. The typical size of a brigade is 4,000-5,000 troops. There are approximately 180,000-200,000 US troops in Iraq right now, roughly the same number that were sent to Vietnam. That was the extent of her specifics.
Jeffrey Feldman has written an excellent three-point plan of how he believes the Democrats need to frame Iraq. For Barack Obama, sooner is better than later in this regard in order to begin to demonstrate his command of the specific facts and his specific policies around Iraq. The three points are:
- End the Occupation – The key word here is ‘occupation’. Changing the frame from war (a justifiable freedom-fighting act) to occupation (an aggressive, unwanted intrusion) pushes back on McCain’s attempt to frame this as a struggle against Al Qaeda which we will “lose” by withdrawing. When it’s framed as an “occupation”, withdrawal becomes a moral act, an act of strength and respect to the Iraqi people. It also calls it what it is — an unwelcome incursion into another sovereign nation. It is an occupation.
- Move Toward a Diplomatic Summit – By calling for a diplomatic solution and discussion with Iraq’s leaders, the Iraq problems are framed in terms of peaceful solutions and mutual agreement, instead of “cutting and running”, which is how McCain will attempt to frame it. As Feldman points out, if the Bush administration decides to initiate a summit to pre-empt the Democrats, the Democrats can still take credit for it as the ones forcefully pushing the idea to the American people, not to mention getting the Bush Administration to do something besides use force.
- Approach Iraq as Part of a Bigger Picture – Feldman suggests a frame like “Smart Security”, where Iraq is framed into a larger plan for regional security, which would include Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other players in the region. There is no better time than now for this to happen, with the Pakistani election result effectively deposing the Musharraf regime in favor of a completely new government. As Feldman points out, by placing Iraq into a larger perspective, the electorate begins to understand the stark differences between the McCain-Bush doctrines of remaining in the region and using force for 100, 1,000, even 100,000 years and comparing that to a shift in solutions from military to diplomatic.
Barack Obama has some unique qualities in the area of foreign policy that work to his advantage, and he should begin to emphasize these inside of his more specific discussions of the plan for Iraq. He understands the value of knowing the cultural and societal values of a region. He lived in Indonesia during a time of unrest, he is well-regarded internationally for his desire to end the occupation of Iraq and begin to rebuild relationships based on solid diplomatic footing, and he is the polar opposite of George Bush in terms of his approach to conflict. He’s demonstrated an even temper and firm approach to conflict, and has the ability to see a bigger picture. And as trite as this may sound, he does have the ability to inspire, and that is true abroad even as it is here.
One final point. A study was done by Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz on the true cost of the Iraq occupation. Conservative estimates say that it will cost 1 TRILLION dollars. Stiglitz reports that the true cost is 3 Trillion Dollars to the US alone, and that’s a conservative estimate. Obama should hammer that number home, along with what didn’t happen as a result:
By way of context, Stiglitz and Bilmes list what even one of these trillions could have paid for: 8 million housing units, or 15 million public school teachers, or healthcare for 530 million children for a year, or scholarships to university for 43 million students. Three trillion could have fixed America’s social security problem for half a century. America, says Stiglitz, is currently spending $5bn a year in Africa, and worrying about being outflanked by China there: “Five billion is roughly 10 days’ fighting, so you get a new metric of thinking about everything.”
Recently President Bush tried to justify the costs of the occupation by claiming that the economy was stimulated by the goods being manufactured in the US for the military (the old military-industrial complex). But Stiglitz found otherwise, stating:
Thus, any idea that war is good for the economy, Stiglitz and Bilmes argue, is a myth. A persuasive myth, of course, and in specific cases, such as world war two, one that has seemed to be true – but in 1939, America and Europe were in a depression; there was all sorts of possible supply in the market, but people didn’t have the cash to buy anything. Making armaments meant jobs, more people with more disposable income, and so on – but peacetime western economies these days operate near full employment. As Stiglitz and Bilmes put it, “Money spent on armaments is money poured down the drain”; far better to invest in education, infrastructure, research, health, and reap the rewards in the long term. But any idea that war can be divorced from the economy is also naive. “A lot of people didn’t expect the economy to take over the war as the major issue [in the American election],” says Stiglitz, “because people did not expect the economy to be as weak as it is. I sort of did. So one of the points of this book is that we don’t have two issues in this campaign – we have one issue. Or at least, the two are very, very closely linked together.”
Stiglitz’ recommendation?
Far better, he suggests, to leave rapidly and in a dignified manner, and to spend some of it on helping Iraqis reconstruct their own country – and the rest on investing in and strengthening the American economy, so that it can retain its independence, and have the wherewithal, at least, to play a responsible role in the world.
This is an economist speaking — a highly respected one. An economist who is analyzing the risk-benefit of an unwelcome incursion into a sovereign country over a span of time longer than World War II. He has some scathing indictments of the Bush administration, saying that there has been no coherent policy, just a Bush “policy of convenience”. His bottom-line message is this: The economy and the occupation are inextricably linked, and the economy will continue to spiral downward until the occupation ends. Therefore, end it.
The Democrats need to take hold of this and clearly explain it to the blue collar workers, the moms, the dads, the seniors, the college students, everyone. They need to own this piece of the debate by being clear and specific. I could even imagine a policy speech or podcast or video which explains this. The Obama campaign has been so creative with the video that I’d really love to see them communicate a clear and cogent and very specific plan for Iraq using this method.
Technorati Tags: Election2008, reframing Iraq, three trillion dollar war, occupation, invasion, democrats, policy, foreign policy
Sphere: Related ContentIs America Ready?
Watch and see if you are. Thanks to twitterbuds @QueenofSpain and Baratunde. Pass it along.
Technorati Tags: humor, election2008, video
Sphere: Related ContentJust Call Me Karoli HUSSEIN
Whaddya think? Today is “Just Call Me Hussein” Day in response to the continuing idiocy over Barack Obama’s middle name.
The amazing thing about this whole dustup is how stupid it is. Can you imagine the field day the pundits and press would have had if Barack HUSSEIN Obama had changed his middle name and it was discovered mid-campaign? These guys don’t get it — he’s not afraid and neither are we.
Michelle Obama called it a ‘fear bomb’. It’s silly for them to try and use a subliminal tactic like this, but since they have, the Momocrats have decided to treat them like the catty brats they are and show them how
Bill Cunningham is nothing more than a schoolyard bully who has to swagger around with big threatening gestures to show how powerful he is despite his small penis. And like a bunch of sheep, the conservative talkalots get right in line behind him, prompting the mainstream media talkalots to push back with a lot of silly talk too.
Take it from moms: The way to end name bullying is to toss it right back in the bully’s face. HUSSEIN, you say? Well, HUSSEIN this! And while you’re at it, don’t forget to HUSSEIN that, too. And by the way, you’re talking to Karoli HUSSEIN…be afraid. Be very afraid.
Here’s what really ought to scare the conservatives. It isn’t going to work this time. So, Mr. Bill Cunningham, HUSSEIN that.
And then go read the other posts at Momocrats.
Technorati Tags: Hussein, callmehusseinday, momocrats, bullies, GOP
Sphere: Related ContentHypocrisy Encore: John McCain
Just after I published my post on Hypocrisy, this crossed my feeds:
Mega-Church Pastor in Texas Backs McCain
Senator John McCain got support on Wednesday from an important corner of evangelical Texas when the pastor of a San Antonio mega-church, Rev. John C. Hagee, endorsed Mr. McCain for president. Mr. Hagee, who argues that the United States must join Israel in a preemptive, biblically prophesized military strike against Iran that will lead to the second coming of Christ, praised Mr. McCain for his pro-Israel views.
My friends, he must reject, repudiate, denounce this endorsement. Or else we must make sure McCain is not elected, because it’s not just that McCain was endorsed by this guy, it’s McCain’s statement that he’s “honored” to have his endorsement.
Mr. McCain, who has been on a steady search for support among conservative and evangelical leaders who have long distrusted him, said he was “very honored’’ by Mr. Hagee’s endorsement.
Key things you should know about John Hagee:
- He promotes hate speech, particularly toward gays. See the article “Rebuilding the Gates (PDF)” in the most recent JHMagazine.
“The gates of America are burning down when main line churches ordain homosexuals into the pulpit. The gates of America are burning down when the accepted climate of “new morality” is to throw the Ten Commandments out the window. This acceptance has tossed the Bible out of public schools and replaced it with condoms. Your children can’t read the words of King David, but they are forced to learn witchcraft through the required reading of the Harry Potter novels. The gates of America are burning down and the foundations are being destroyed when most churches in America live so far beneath the standards of New Testament holiness that if you joined most churches you would need to backslide
to be in fellowship. - He is a fierce advocate for Israel not because he believes in democracy as he claims, but because he views Israel’s existence as a keystone for the ‘end times’. His endorsement of an invasion of Iran shows how far he is willing to destroy this country in favor of his ‘end times’ strategy.
His most recent sermon series is entitled “Vote the Bible”, which he describes in the most recent newsletter (PDF):
One party is for a socialistic government where government controls every element of your life with a tax and spend philosophy that’s breathtaking.
The other party promises a strong national defense, to be pro-life, pro-Israel, and sustain the Bush Tax Cuts. Literally, the future of the nation is hanging in the balance.
When you go into the voting booth, I want you to take your Bible positions on political issues and vote the Bible. If every Christian in America will do that in this coming election, America’s future will be secure.
So I looked through my Bible, but I couldn’t find a damn thing on the Bush Tax Cuts. Funny thing, that.
By the way, this particular endorsement steps very close to crossing the line between what is, and what is not, acceptable activity for a church with tax-exempt status. The senior minister’s personal endorsement of McCain alongside a sermon series that is clearly intended to signal the endorsement of the church toward a specific candidate (since Huckabee clearly does NOT support the Bush Tax Cuts) certainly walks very close to the line of what is and what is not considered ‘political activity by a church or tax-exempt organization’.
I can almost smell the brimstone now.
Technorati Tags: McCain, Religious right, christian extremists, religious terrorism, Iran
Sphere: Related ContentHypocrisy in Three Acts
…or the “Do as I say, not as I do” edition:
The Bush Administration
US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to Turkey, on the subject of Turkish incursions into Northern Iraq (Kurdish territory):
“It’s very important that the Turks make this operation as short as possible and then leave,” Gates said before departing India. “They have to be mindful of Iraqi sovereignty. I measure quick in terms of days, a week or two, something like that, not months.”
Gates has the gall to say this as if we have any moral authority to demand rapid withdrawal of another country’s troops in Iraq. Turkey’s response? No timetables. Tell me if this quote sounds familiar:
“Our objective is clear, our mission is clear and there is no timetable until … those terrorist bases are eliminated,” senior Turkish envoy Ahmet Davutoglu said after talks with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari.
Hillary Clinton
After stirring up lots of hysteria in the blogosphere over the perception that Barack Obama’s failure to “reject” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic and divisive statements somehow made Obama anti-Semitic, Hillary Clinton found herself in the same pickle.
Clinton was questioned by Dallas station KTVT about comments by Adelfa Callejo, a local activist who supports Clinton candidacy. The interviewer quoted Callejo as saying “Obama’s problem is he happens to be black” and asked Clinton to respond.
…Clinton goes on to say that it’s historic to have a woman and African-American running against each other, to look at the record, etc., but when pressed, what happens?
The interviewer asked Clinton whether she rejected or denounced Callejo’s comment.
“People have every reason to express their opinions, I just don’t agree with that,” she said, adding “You know, this is a free country. People get to express their opinions.”
When confronted with her debate comments on this topic:
Clinton said: “I don’t see any comparison at all with what you’re referring to and I don’t know the facts of what you’re telling me over the TV. So I’m just going to repeat that I want people to judge us on the merits.”
Her aide backtracked on that later, saying she was caught off-guard and that “of course she denounces and rejects that kind of politics in any way, shape or form.”
So she denounces the politics? Or the racism? Either way, it seems like a politically expedient answer. Hillary Clinton hasn’t seemed to learn this: If you’re going to hold yourself out to be standing on a principle, you’d better make sure you stand on it all the time rather than only when it’s politically expedient.
Bill Cunningham, The “True Conservatives”, and Hack Radio
Speaking of political expedience, last week all the conservatives rallied behind John McCain when the New York Times insinuated that he might be having an affair. But today, the rallies were behind the obnoxious Bill Cunningham, the Ohio radio hack who insisted on referring to Barack Obama as Barack HUSSEIN Obama (despite Karl Rove’s admonition NOT to do that). Evidently when you’re a ‘true conservative’ it’s okay to villify the GOP candidate for having the balls to stand up when epithets are tossed, but sex, that’s completely out of the question. And so, the whipsawing of McCain begins, exposing the deep divide that is the Republican party today. What bothers me the most is how many people have lined up behind Cunningham, defending his indefensible tone and sneer as acceptable.
Technorati Tags: McCain, Clinton, Obama, hypocrisy, racism, Bill Cunningham, Turkey, Iraq, Bush
