Last of the Iraqis

A blog worth checking out:
http://last-of-iraqis.blogspot.com
The blogger describes himself:

i'm a 25 years old dentist i live in iraq (Baghdad) i was born and raised here but unfortunately i'm thinking that the iraqis are going to extinct so i made this blog wishing that i can make a difference or even share my greif with the whole world and give them an idea about what's happening here from the point of view of a civilian living in the war zone not from the politicians nor people who gets their benefits from the conditions.

Maybe the paradox of rioting Tibetan monks...

... is easily explained, based on the past precedent exhibited in this photo. The Dalai Lama has made a credible claim that this kind of staged protest was responsible for the surprising recent violence in Lhasa.

Real Anger, Real Dialogue...

... and dare we say, real hope -- for healing the deep wounds of this nation's legacy of slavery and systematic racism, and decades/centuries of mutual misunderstanding?
Is that too audacious to posit?
Sure, some pundits say Obama had to say something in response to the Rev. Wright controversy, especially if he was going to (I think, admirably) choose not to just "dump" the man who had been his pastor for 20 years, and some say he had to say something big, to address what is a pretty enormous issue, not just in this campaign but in American history and American life.
But I was very impressed with what he said, and how he said it.
I'm impressed with what he had to say about his white grandmother, and his message to working-class white Americans. Maybe it was in the context of this primary, but the implications of opening up such dialogue go way beyond this election. And frankly, Obama is the right person at the right time to say these things. If the spirit of Geraldine Ferraro's comments were to say that there is a time and a place... I'll agree (I think that is being generous, but, in any case, her frustration is real, just as Rev. Wright's is, and it was decent of Obama to acknowledge that, however subtly. Whatever it may mean in the context of this campaign, it's something that needed to be said.)
Yes, Barack Obama giving a good speech is nothing new. But I think, in this one, he touched on something real, something beyond just the talking points on race, that actually broached the issue itself. To sum up by paraphrasing Faulkner, to acknowledge that the past isn't dead, or even past. Until we face up to that, we'll just be running in circles on this issue.

So is this post meant to imply that I've finally switched camps?
Not... necessarily.
I'll leave it at that, I guess, so I can enjoy my vacation.

We are gray now.

Well, not "us," yet, but this blog, anyway.
I've been planning to change the look (superficial tweaking greatly amuses me :) for the blog's 1 1/2 year anniversary, but since we're going on vacation next week, I thought I'd make the change a little early. I guess I'm going back to basics this time. The times seem to call for it.

Oh, yes, and happy Ides of March! Et tu, Geraldine? (Sorry... I felt I needed to throw a little something topical in there, since it's been awhile. The electionscape has just been so depressing lately, I needed a little time to psych myself up into developing an opinion again.)

We are not amused.

I agree with Deborah Howell. "Tongue in cheek" and self-deprecating opinion pieces do not come with a moral attached (in the case of Charlotte Allen's piece, that women really are stupid after all, and should stay out of politics, being content, I guess, to gaze at pinups of their favorite politicians from the safety of their kitchens.) Maybe I (and all those Post readers who flooded the editors' inbox) are just sensitive right now (Sensitive! Yes! We're women :-P) but if this is a "tongue in cheek" humor piece, it's lacking a punchline.
Allen's premise seems to be that, since some women get a little too worked up at Obama rallies, (yeah, he's a good-looking guy, and unfortunately, unlike men, some members of our gender are susceptible to attractiveness in the opposite sex) therefore we're all a bunch of hysterical dimwits.
I don't find the following nonsequitur all that rib-tickling: "The theory that women are the dumber sex -- or at least the sex that gets into more car accidents -- is amply supported by neurological and standardized-testing evidence."
If Charlotte Allen wants to call herself stupid, (I'll admit she has a tendency to display gaping holes in logic) then she can speak for herself -- as she does here: "I am perfectly willing to admit that I myself am a classic case of female mental deficiencies. I can't add 2 and 2 (well, I can, but then what?). I don't even know how many pairs of shoes I own."
And then, "I have coasted through life and academia on the basis of an excellent memory and superior verbal skills, two areas where, researchers agree, women consistently outpace men."
And those skills are meaningless? The only skills that matter are the ones at which men statistically excel? That bill of goods sounds familiar. (All women who excel at these other skills, or excel in a spectacular way at any skill, even prissy, frou frou ones like memory and language, are "outliers," according to Allen -- yep, George Eliot and Elizabeth I, Sappho, and Margaret Thatcher were barely women at all. Well, of course... One refused to marry and the other called herself George. It all makes sense. And Sappho was a lesbian. I'll leave Margaret Thatcher alone for now. But Allen is obviously the rare exception of an analytical female, if she can see through these historic women's accomplishments -- each not just equal but superlative in her field -- and conclude that they were merely freaks of nature.)
Yeah, too bad women these days can't take a joke. It must be a hardwired deficiency in our ability to delight in tired, warmed-over insults in a transparent new guise.

Perspective

I've always found Samantha Power to be a bit personally irritating, and I welcomed her resignation over the ridiculous "monster" comment. (You don't say things like that to reporters, Scotsmen or otherwise, and expect them to keep it off the record; no true reporter ever passed up a scoop like that.)
And speaking of bias, note the photo the Huffington Post chose to run with this story (yes, admittedly, it's not one of her more "animated" shots, but, still, c'mon.)

However... I don't think Ms. Power was making a conscious effort to "demonize" Clinton; if any forethought had gone into her remark, she would have no doubt stifled it. She's a little zealous, but not an idiot. I think it probably did stem from genuine frustration with the other camp's tactics.
And honestly, I'm a little frustrated, too. Some of the stuff that apparently went on in Ohio is almost too depressing to ponder, but I can't ignore it.

Yes, I'm still on board, but as a matter of commitment, not a blood oath. I haven't jumped ship on the Clintons for being the Clintons; I knew that, once Hillary slipped behind, it was going to get a little ugly.
And I didn't freak out because my standard of integrity for politicians is somewhat lower than that I'd hold for the average person. Good people may enter politics, but it's the rare person who emerges intact. And that doesn't mean the American system is hopelessly evil; it's one of the best in the world. But when humans get together, and power is involved, things are going to go on that the average person isn't going to like, and stopping short of bloody revolution (which just spawns another corrupt system, either sooner, as in many cases, or, in the rare case -- like ours -- later) there's not much we can do. We can change things here and there -- and we should -- at the grassroots level, but we're not going to overhaul it permanently without immense cost.

So the bar is pretty low. I'm not looking for an ideal human being; just someone who can be a good president, who can follow the Constitution and improve the national standard of living rather than erode it, who can keep us out of needless wars and the alienation of our allies... the same standards I would hold a male candidate to.

But Obama's desire (despite that of many in his campaign, I'm sure) to stay above the fray is appealing, I have to admit. It's refreshing, and it's almost even crazy, in an appealing way.

I would really like to see Hillary in the White House, but not at all costs. I know she believes she can do a good job. So do I. But we all need to keep some perspective. If we (as Democrats) don't, we could be looking at another 8 years of kicking ourselves for it.

(But at least Natalie Portman's keeping the faith.)

Keeping Up With the Zeitgeist

I guess I'm not the only one dreaming of a Clinton-Obama ticket.

Doesn't sound like Obama shares the dream, though.

What She Said

Lynn Harris in Salon -- Women and Clinton: Damned if they vote, damned if they don't?

Except I'm a little more ambivalent (for which, in itself, I feel I must apologize to someone; I'm not sure who; perhaps Hillary herself? ;) I voted; I gave money, but I haven't trekked down to Arlington to make phone calls. Guilt, guilt.

But voting is so personal, as is the level of one's investment in a candidate. What other ladies do isn't really my business. And gender isn't the only factor in this equation. Still, I can relate to Ms. Harris' points.

And so, now that she lives to fight another day, according to the rules her campaign had voiced via Bill, (and probably regretted for a while there) that she had to win both big states tonight, who knows what the hell will happen next? Besides Pennsylvania. And a lot more punditry. Maybe one more debate, or two.

I still daydream sometimes of that Clinton-Obama ticket... or some kind of alchemical synthesis.