Don't look now, but I'm baaaaaaack... (and glad to be blogging again): Observations about some recent momentous events

I experienced some personal turmoil over the past week or so that kept me away from Blogging. I will spare you the gory details, except to say that things are fine now. And I'm eager to get back into Blogging again. Rather than comment on one subject in this entry, I thought I'd weigh in on several. There has actually been quite a bit of interesting news in the past week. It may not be the Bloggers' paradise that the 2008 presidential campaign was, but we're still living in interesting times nevertheless. Here are some odds and ends that, in my humble opinion, are worthy of commentary: 

Obama's Bill Clinton Moment: President Barack Obama has gotten a lot of flack for a motion filed last week to dismiss the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, who challenged the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This odious law -- which should have been jettisoned years ago -- essentially forbids same-sex unions and all the rights that go with them: filing taxes jointly, receiving Social Security spousal benefits, the list goes on and on. When the Obama administration essentially dropped the ball on this matter and backed the wrong side, this understandably enraged many within the Gay and Lesbian community, who felt betrayed by Obama. Jennifer Pizer, marriage project director of Lambda Legal, was more restrained than most when she said: "The president made very explicit and empathic campaign promises that he opposes DOMA and would provide leadership calling on Congress to repeal it. This brief was not consistent with that promise." The Justice Department took the chickenshit way out. "Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system," said Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. (Source.) In other words, don't expect any action from the president on this front. Those of you who've followed this Blog know I've been an ardent defender of Obama in the past -- and for the most part, I remain one now. But even I can't hide my disappointment. The administration had the opportunity to take a bold step -- a step that might have been parallel to bold presidential actions on Civil Rights in the 1950s and 1960s. Sadly, this did not happen. They took the easy way out. They supported one of the most nefarious laws from the Contract With America Era. In my last Blog entry, I spoke of Obama's Lincoln Moment. His administration's sorry stance on DOMA, I'm afraid, was Obama's Bill Clinton Moment. Too many more of these and he'll find himself drifting away from the principled decency that won him the last election. 

Iran Election Protests: Iran's Tiananmen Moment?: On the Twentieth Anniversary of the bloody Tiananmen Square Massacre, Iranians are now out in the streets, protesting against electoral fraud and for democracy and greater openness. This one is a no-brainer. How can you not back the protesters? Will the Iranian government crack down with the same absolute crushing brutality of the Beijing regime? Or is this the beginning of a new chapter of Iranian history? I was struck by the size and intensity of Iranian pro-democracy protests here in Waterloo, Ontario -- which is, sadly, otherwise a relatively protest-free community. If the protests are passionate and well-attended here, they must thriving elsewhere. Both inside Iran and overseas, people are on the march. They are united together by the internet in a way that protesters at the time of Tiananmen were not. Back in the fall of 2007, I wrote a cautiously optimistic editorial in The Waterloo Region Record celebrating the nonviolent street demonstrations in Myanmar. Not long after my piece appeared, it became clear that the Myanmar protests were unraveling, due in large part to forceful and decisive government crackdowns. One can hope the protests in Iran will have greater longevity and better results than the protests in China and Myanmar. But there is simply no getting around the fact that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a very popular man inside Iran. Western media outlets portray him as villainous, but among his own people, he is often regarded as an effective leader who is not afraid to defy the West. Westerners have often misunderstood the extent to which the authoritarian regimes in these countries are actually supported by the people. Many ordinary Iranians undoubtedly feel that the governing regime is good for the country, and they don't want to see Western-style liberal openness. Moreover, the long and painful history of U.S. intervention in Iran -- from the CIA's overthrow of a democratic government there in the 1950s to Washington's propping up of the hated Shah -- has only discredited the pro-democracy protests in the eyes of many Iranians because they're supported by Washington. So while there is nothing wrong with sympathizing with the pro-democracy protests in Iran (which have now spread to other countries), it is also helpful to understand that those protests are not occurring in a vacuum. There is a complex web of history in Iran that is too often overlooked by media reports of the protests. And this history may work against -- not for -- the pro-democracy movement. 

Big Bucks for War: It should come as no surprise that Congress yesterday approved of $105 billion in "emergency funds" to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are extremely costly wars. And some of the expenditures in the $105 billion are absolutely necessary. For example, $534 million of that money will go to bonuses for the 185,000 service members whose enlistments were involuntarily expanded. Most of the money, close to $80 billion of it, will go to "defense and intelligence activities" in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Source.) Rep. Luis Gutierrez (R-Ill.), who initially opposed the funding but was lobbied by Obama on Air Force One to support it, remarked, "I thought we needed to wrap up the wars. But he said it was important for his administration not to lose momentum." Already, Obama is beginning to withdraw U.S. troops from towns and cities in Iraq. As Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki put it earlier today: "It is a great victory for Iraqis as we are going to take our first step toward ending the foreign presence in Iraq." (Source.) Violence and war are still taking a toll on Iraq. Earlier today, a suicide truck bomb killed 30 Iraqis -- men, women and children -- near Kirkuk. This type of violence has been a daily occurrence in Iraq. But at least we can begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel with the Iraq intervention. The same cannot be said of Afghanistan. That occupation -- and the war that goes with it -- threatens to last for years. The Obama administration is not talking about an end to the war in Afghanistan. And Americans there are beginning to resemble a permanent occupation force. So the news is mixed. To make matters worse, Obama's strategy of throwing money at problems is not a viable solution. These wars have taken a terrible toll, both on the countries where they're occurring and on the collective psyche of Americans. The Obama administration deserves praise for seeking an end to the conflict in Iraq. But until the war in Afghanistan begins to move toward a conclusion, these wars will continue to eat away at America like a corrosive acid. 

Comments

[Joe Murphy]

I read with interest "Obama's Bill Clinton Moment". However, the emphasis is upon homo-sexual couples without regard to others who could benefit from allowing all forms of marriage.

Examine if you will, the situation of a friend of mine, who has for many years been deeply in love with and totally committed to a tree. A slender silver birch; radiant in summer and starkly beautiful in winter.

My friend has been laughed out of more registry offices than I can count. The last Vicar to whom my friend spoke of marriage had apoplexy when the silly old cleric discovered that the intended was not the same religion or even the same species.

My friend needs the support of other "tree lovers" when applying for a licence to marry. But where are they? Out in the woods, communing with nature, or closeted in some forestry convention. They are never available at the crucial time.

In this world, change is effected by those who parade and loudly challenge the status quo. I have told my friend "Forget any help from the "tree huggers", try to enlist the aid of the "dog fanciers", there are lot's of them and the "Kennel Club" knows how to put on a really big show'.

Regards, J. Murphy