Friday, May 24, 2013

For Madonna “Dressing Your Age” Is an Evolving Concept. By Ray A. Smith.

“Dressing Your Age” Is an Evolving Concept. By Ray A. Smith. Wall Street Journal, May 22, 2013. Video.

Madonna at the 2013 Billboard Awards (Photos and Videos). myMDNA.com, May 19, 2013. YouTube.

Madonna: Super Bowl Halftime Show Medley 2012. Video. womanizer2008brit, March 7, 2012. YouTube.

The MDNA Tour (Director’s Cut): Full Show– [Edit by BPP Productions]. Video. GLProductions02, May 14, 2013. YouTube. More videos of the MDNA Tour here, here, here, and hereThe Virgin Tour Live 1985. Blond Ambition Tour 1990 Barcelona (also here). Who’s That Girl World Tour 1987 Tokyo. Ciao Italia Concert 1988.











Smith:

Madonna continues to push boundaries and buttons. And once again, people are asking if she’s gone too far.

This time, it’s not the costumes she wears in her concerts but the racy clothing she has been wearing (or not wearing) to public events like Sunday’s Billboard Music Awards. Accepting a Top Touring Artist award on stage, Madonna showed up in a provocative and skimpy ensemble. The outfit, custom made by Givenchy’s Riccardo Tisci, included a black shredded-fishnet dress revealing a garter belt and black briefs.

The outfit set off a round of tweets. “Madonna you are my mothers age. Needless to say i don’t want to see either of you in fishnet tights,” one viewer complained.

Others expressed a blend of revulsion and envy. Madonna “is like 50 years old and has a better body than me oh,” another viewer complained.

To some people, older women often seem to be trying too hard when wearing sexy outfits. The look can come off as desperate, embarrassing, a little sad.

Madonna may be doing what she feels she must to remain relevant and compete with the likes of Lady Gaga, Beyoncé, Britney Spears and Rihanna, who are each in their way indebted to her. Yet if Lady Gaga dressed in one of these outfits, people would probably yawn.

Given Madonna’s age, which is 54, is she making herself look foolish? Why do such provocative outfits seem less offensive when worn by younger women? Should older women wear something a little more covered up?

On the other hand, some people are asking a different question: When did we decide a woman over 50 should stop being overtly sexy? Why, if she still has a toned body, can't she wear risqué outfits?

Yet even Madonna’s fans might be forgiven for wondering how much longer she will continue wearing get-ups like this.

What does it all mean for real women and men entering their 40s, 50s and beyond who want to walk the line between dressing their age, whatever that means, and dressing as if they are denying their age? We'll wait to see what Madonna decides to wear next, when she is expected to appear as a presenter at a big Gucci-sponsored benefit concert next month in England.


Fearless in Fishnets: At 54, Madonna sported a provocative outfit from Givenchy
 to an awards show on May 19. Getty Images.


Madonna wore something slightly more demure—also from Givenchy—
at the Metropolitan Museum Costume Institute gala on May 6. Getty Images.
 


The 20th Anniversary of Waco. By Peter Berger.

A Grisly Anniversary. By Peter Berger. The American Interest, May 22, 2013.

Waco in red and blue: 20 years after the siege. By Philip Jenkins. Christian Century, May 15, 2013.

Berger:

Jenkins astutely describes how the Waco incident has supplied contradictory symbols to both the progressive and conservative camps in the ongoing American culture war. On the Left, Waco has come to symbolize the lethal potential of religious fundamentalism. The notion of mass suicide has obviously appealed to this constituency: Waco can then be interpreted as a companion piece of the Jonestown incident, when in 1978 another sect leader, Jim Jones, ordered the mass suicide of 918 people (also including children, and also in response to a perceived threat from the US government) at his so-called Peoples Temple in Guyana in South America. Then as now, this type of fundamentalism is associated by progressives with the Christian Right, the “gun culture” of the National Rifle Association, and conservatism in general. I suppose a proof text of this perspective could be the notorious statement by Barrack Obama, made at a fundraiser in 2008, saying that jobless people in small towns “get bitter [and] cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them”. (One may wonder what sort of religion Obama was “clinging to” during the twenty years he was a member of Jeremiah Wright’s church in Chicago.)

And on the Right, Waco symbolizes government overreach, tyranny and the attack on the Second Amendment of the constitution. On this side of the aisle, of course, there is the propensity to blame the FBI for the tragedy—a massacre by government forces rather than a mass suicide by the Davidians. It is then put in the company, not of Jonestown, but of Ruby Ridge, Idaho, where in 1992 federal agents (also from the FBI and the ATF) besieged the compound of the “survivalist” Randy Weaver and in the resulting firefight killed his wife and son.

I think that Jenkins is right when he suggests that the contradictory symbolizations of the Waco incident not only demarcate the boundaries of the two camps of the American culture war twenty years ago, but continue to do so today. He expresses the view that the tensions have lessened somewhat. I rather doubt it. Perhaps the ideological rhetoric is a bit less strident, but the polarization in politics has deepened, as the two major parties are more clearly aligned with one or the other camp in the culture war. Both moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, the kind of politicians who make compromises possible in a democracy, have been marginalized if not eliminated in their respective parties. And survey data show that the religious profile of an individual is a major predictor of which side he or she belongs to. The polarization continues, as does the mutual demonization of the two camps manifested so clearly in the conflicting interpretations of Waco. Of course both stereotypes are distortive—most conservatives are not religious fanatics with guns, most progressives are not bent on federal thugs running roughshod over the Bill of Rights. Stereotypes can be empirically false, yet be very useful politically.

The Mideast Crack-Up.

The Mideast Crack-Up. Roundtable Moderated by David Samuels, with Robert Worth, David Goldman, Edward Luttwak, Amos Harel, Nathan Thrall, and Lee Smith. Tablet, May 21, 2013.

John Kerry’s Silly Play. By Lee Smith. Tablet, May 22, 2013.

The Myth of the Arab State. By Aaron David Miller. The National Interest, May 21, 2013.

Tell Me How This Ends. By Thomas L. Friedman. New York Times, May 21, 2013.

“Liberal” Think Tank Caught with Hand in the Cookie Jar. By Walter Russell Mead.

“Liberal” Think Tank Caught with Hand in the Cookie Jar. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, May 23, 2013.

The Secret Donors Behind the Center for American Progress and Other Think Tanks. By Ken Silverstein. The Nation, May 21, 2013.


Mead:

Yet the clumsy incompetence of CAP management aside, there’s a bigger problem here that The Nation doesn’t want to confront. The American Left, whose soul and conscience the magazine purports to be, wants to give Washington politicians more and more influence over the economic reins and resources of the country. This inevitably drives more money into the political process and creates more incentives for exactly the kind of behavior The Nation deplores.

The problems of the American Left are much deeper than amateur-hour leadership of a think tank. Left politics in America are caught in a trap. The Left doesn’t pose a serious threat to the broad contours of the capitalist system in the US; the Constitution and public sentiment block any real shift in American politics away from liberal market capitalism. Thus the Left oscillates ceaselessly between a futile politics of “purity” with no prospect of ever affecting anything important and a toxic “partnership” with the powers-that-be—a relationship in which it is inevitably manipulated and abused.

The chief function of the American environmental movement, for example, is to paint green lipstick on corporate pigs like Solyndra or the ethanol scam. The Nation is right to chide the Center for American Progress for becoming the servant of corporate interests rather than an opponent of them; what it misses is that this relationship describes the limits within which the movement as a whole is bound to operate.

There is no actual or potential social or political basis in America for genuinely anti-capitalist politics. Those who try to convince themselves otherwise are indulging in the kind of petty bourgeois self-deceit for which Karl Marx reserved his fullest and most biting contempt.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Social Media, the Hookup Culture – and the Insidious Quest for Fame. By Rush Limbaugh.

Social Media, the Hookup Culture – and the Insidious Quest for Fame. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, May 23, 2013.

The “Hook-Up Culture”: Dates Are Dead, Sex Is Alive? By Martha MacCallum. Video. Fox News Insider, May 23, 2013.

Time to stop hooking up. (You know you want to.) By Donna Freitas. Washington Post, March 29, 2013.

Abstinence Is Not the Radical Solution to Hookup Culture. By Amanda Hess. Slate, April 1, 2013.

Is Sex Still Sexy? By Emily Esfahani Smith. The Atlantic, May 17, 2013.

Give Monogamy a Chance. By Emily Esfahani Smith. Wall Street Journal, April 9, 2013.

Why Is There a Hookup Culture? By Dennis Prager. NJBR, April 30, 2013.

A Link to Ears of Early Humans. By Douglas Quenqua.

A Link to Ears of Early Humans. By Douglas Quenqua. New York Times, May 20, 2013.

Early hominin auditory ossicles from South Africa. By Rolf M. Quam et al. PNAS, published online before print, May 13, 2013. Get PDF in 6 months.

Mayor Bloomberg to Students: Become Plumbers.

Skip college and become a plumber: Mayor Bloomberg. By Jennifer Fermino and Jonathan Lemire. New York Daily News, May 17, 2013.

Mayor Bloomberg’s advice to students: Become plumbers. RT, May 20, 2013.

Pipe dream: Skip college, become a plumber, NYC Mayor Bloomberg says. FoxNews.com, May 19, 2013.

Mayor Bloomberg Gets It Right Over Harvard/Plumber Comments. By Steve Siebold. The Huffington Post, May 21, 2013.

John Gambling and Mayor Bloomberg. Audio. WOR Radio 710, May 17, 2013. Full Bloomberg comment runs from 3:40 to 5:40 in podcast.




Kenyon College: NYC Mayor Bloomberg Commencement Address. Video. KenyonCollegeVideo, May 18, 2013. YouTube.



Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Job Creation in the Information Technology Age. By Walter Russell Mead.

Jobs Jobs Jobs. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, May 22, 2013.

Mead:

As the latest round of scandals swirls around the White House, there is the usual empty chatter from various spokesmen about the President’s intention to “pivot toward the economy” (again!) and to prioritize unemployment.

If only that would happen; America’s jobs problem is big enough and crucial enough that it should be the President’s priority every day, not something to pivot toward every now and then. Creating an environment conducive to job creation is make or break for our society, and there is much to be done to get things on the right track.

There are really two choices before us as we think about the future of jobs in an age of information. Either most human beings are about to become economically obsolete, or the information economy can find a use for their talent and hard work. Much depends on which of these two pictures turns out to be the best description of the future.

If we believe in the first alternative, we are going to start planning for the mother of all welfare states. There will be a period of transition, but something like 80 percent or more of the population is going become superfluous to the economy. There will be no jobs where the work of this group could command a living wage; the state must somehow make provision for them or wait for them to fall into poverty and risk the social explosion that will probably follow.

It’s likely that an information age welfare state would consist of two components: straight out welfare and “social inclusion” payments for some, subsidized make-work jobs (like Postal Service employment in an age of email) for others. The money to fund these programs will have to come from corporate profits and from the incomes of those who still manage to surf on the waves of digital change.  That suggests rising tax burdens and a constant class struggle between the economically connected citizens who want to keep what they have earned and the clients of the welfare and make-work state.

If the information economy works like this, the whole country would start looking more like California and New York City: unbridgeable class divides, huge inequality, fountains of innovation, and tiny islands of great wealth and privilege surrounded by proles on the dole. Inside the glittering bubble, the digirati and their courtiers would live lives of intense purpose and excitement. Outside the bubble, meaning would be the good in scarcest supply. To have a life where your work means something and your hands help steer the world would be the exclusive privilege of a tiny handful of enlightened, intelligent, and energetic people.

This is Blade Runner softened by food stamps, but as in the public housing projects and other warehouses where we store “surplus” people today, the most acute form of poverty and deprivation will not be the lack of food, clothing or even shelter. It will be a lack of social connection, of independence founded on achievement, on the human dignity that comes from doing work. Bellies will be full, but lives will be empty, and with that emptiness will come ills of every kind: addiction, brutality, ugly, and stunted sexual and emotional lives for many, neglect of the young and the old.

Fortunately, this does not have to be the future. Barring a singularity in which the AIs go rogue and take over the planet, the information revolution is going to create more jobs and better jobs than the ones it destroys. What we are looking at is the humanization of the economy: a shift from interaction with nature to interaction with other people as the locus of human work. Fewer people will spend their lives wresting food and raw materials from the earth or transforming those raw materials into the necessities of life. More people will spend their lives enriching the lives of other people through social interactions. There will be fewer coal miners and more ballet teachers, fewer truck drivers and more blues guitarists, fewer farmers and more life coaches, fewer factory workers and more entrepreneurs.

Anthony Weiner Reinvents Himself as Champion of the Jacksonian Middle Class.

Anthony Weiner launches bid to become NYC mayor. By F. Brinley Bruton. NBC News, May 22, 2013.

Weiner Announces Candidacy for New York Mayor in Video. By Michael Barbaro. New York Times, May 22, 2013.

Anthony Weiner makes it official: He’s running for mayor. By Celeste Katz and Jonathan Lemire. New York Daily News, May 22, 2013.

Anthony Weiner hides from the tough questions and serves up pizza for reporters. By Andrea Peyser. New York Post, May 23, 2013.

Anthony Weiner for Mayor. Video. AnthonyWeiner.com, May 21, 2013. On YouTube here and here.

Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former congressman infamous for tweeting pictures of his you know what, is trying to reinvent himself as a wholesome champion of the Jacksonian middle class. His video draws on classic New York Jacksonian themes and imagery of hard working strivers pulling themselves up by their bootstraps through education, public service, and entrepreneurship. Most importantly, Weiner’s wife Huma Abedin is shown by his side in the video supporting his candidacy for mayor. The message: if Huma can forgive her wayward husband and give him a second chance then so can the people of New York. Of course to see Weiner, a liberal progressive firebrand and elite protégé of Senator Chuck Schumer, as a Jacksonian champion of the middle class is a bit of a stretch.




White Privilege. By Charlotte Allen.

Beyond the Pale. By Charlotte Allen. The Weekly Standard, May 27, 2013. Also find it here.

At “white privilege” conferences, a lengthening list of victims issue an ever-more-detailed indictment of Western civilization.

White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies. By Peggy McIntosh. Working Paper No. 189. Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, 1988.

Spain’s Angry and Unemployed Young Men. By George Friedman.

Spain’s Angry and Unemployed Young Men. By George Friedman. Real Clear World, May 21, 2013.

Friedman:

I should have been prepared for this. We stayed in a very nice hotel in Granada. In the morning when we left the hotel, there was a beggar sitting on the sidewalk, his back to the wall, to our right. We paid little attention. Beggars are not uncommon in Europe or the United States. But there is an aesthetic to beggars. They look a certain way, owing to alcohol, madness or a very long time in trouble. When we returned in the late afternoon, he was still there. He was in his mid-to-late 20s, wearing glasses and reading a book. He was dressed in khakis and a decent shirt. He wasn’t mad, he wasn’t drunk and he wasn’t like the hippies of my youth. He wasn’t playing an instrument. He was sitting, absorbed in a book and begging. There were other beggars in Granada of the more conventional sort but also several more who looked like this one.

There is an argument that says Spanish unemployment is not as bad as it seems because a huge amount of it is youth unemployment. It is implied that youth unemployment has less social consequence. Certainly, it is more immediately destabilizing to have the head of a household with children out of work, but when – as some say – 57 percent of those under the age of 25 are unemployed, it also has consequences. Older people get bitter, despair and tend to be fatalistic with what life dealt them – or at least a lot of them do.

A 22-year-old becomes desperate. When a young man is unemployed because he is a musician or an artist awaiting discovery or because he has lived carelessly, that’s one thing. But this is different unemployment. It is a generation whose dreams are shattered. They may have hoped to be a businessman or a craftsman, but that’s not going to happen now. Unemployment of this sort doesn’t go away in a few months or years. This is the level of unemployment the United States experienced in the Great Depression, the kind of unemployment that scars an entire generation. World War II solved the unemployment problem in the United States, but there is no global war on the horizon for Spain. Imagine what would have happened in the United States if the war hadn’t come and the Depression had lasted 20 years.

No one knows how long this will last but everyone suspects that it will be a long time, and I share that suspicion. How do you accept a situation that says you, at the age of 22, will live on the margins of society along with half of your friends? More important, how do you live with that fact if you worked hard preparing for a career?

Failures that are caused by living carelessly can be managed. The very carelessness of the life makes the consequence nearly morally required. Some people in every generation fail and fall to the bottom rungs of society because, well, bad things sometimes happen. Those people do not constitute a social force. But when nearly half a generation, most from middle-class families, finds itself at the bottom, there is no explanation to provide solace. In its place there is, quite reasonably, a sense of victimhood. Whatever explanation one gives for the Spanish crisis – the stupidity of politicians, the laziness of the public, the greed of bankers or whatever else – the generation that is bearing the burden is the only one that is not guilty – at least not yet.

This – being the victim in personal calamity shared by half a generation – is the foundation not just of political instability but also for the politics of rage. The older middle-class citizens, with the lives they thought they had secured shattered, hurled into the ranks of the permanently impoverished, represent the vanguard, if you will. But those who will never live the lives they thought they would, they are the explosive mass.
. . . .

The German problem is the European problem and vice versa, and so it has been for a long time. Ever since 1871, when Germany was unified, Germany and Europe have been struggling with the question of how to live with each other. They thought they had found the answer in the European Union – and maybe they will, but not yet. Europe does not know how to live with a Germany that uses the free trade zone to surge its exports while blaming Europe for being lazy and shiftless. Germany does not know how to live with a Europe that does not see that all of its problems are due to its lack of industriousness.

Of course, to our 22-year-old in Spain, the debate has become irrelevant. He is broke, scared and bored – not something you want a mass of young men to be. That is the point at which history turns. Over time, they become men with nothing to lose; they become violent men, trying to reshape the order by any means necessary. Looking around the violent parts of the world, it is young men with nothing to lose and fantasies of glory, led by older men who understand them and their needs, who wage the civil wars that tear countries apart.

The same happened in Europe after World War I. Sometimes the disaffected youth turn to crime, sometimes they turn to political crime and sometimes they become a political party. In Europe, it was a generation that felt betrayed by World War I, then an older generation crushed by unemployment and inflation and finally a younger generation with nothing left to lose. Then came World War II and the stunned realization that there were indeed things left to lose.

Driving in Spain, things look quiet, neat and empty. But in that emptiness there is something ominous, perhaps not so much post-apocalyptic as pre-apocalyptic. Spain is still under control, and the European elite still believe an answer will be found. But I don’t see the path that leads to the redemption of a generation’s hopes. There is time, but in my mind there isn’t enough. And given the attitude of the Eurocrats I have met, there is no sense among the elite that time is running out.

Is Israel Having a Jewish Identity Crisis?

The Jewish coercion administration. Editorial. Haaretz, May 22, 2013.

Egyptians Try to Complete the 2011 Revolution. By Ursula Lindsey.

Rebels Without a Pause. By Ursula Lindsey. New York Times, May 21, 2013.

Is Egypt Heading Toward a Military Regime? By Jacques Neriah. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, May 20, 2013.

Fashion Is About Illusion.

14 Fashion Tips and Tricks to Make You Look Taller. StyleList.

Fashion is the art of illusion and deception; illusion and deception for the most noble of purposes. With the right clothes, makeup, and hairstyle, skillfully applied, a petite woman can look taller, a heavy woman can look slimmer, and a plain or average-looking woman can appear more attractive, even beautiful. The feminine art of fashion has deep roots in history, at least as far back as the Egypt of the Pharaohs. Of course the real purpose of fashion is to create a surface beauty that allows a woman’s true inner beauty to shine through.


Queen Nefertiti of Egypt. An ancient ideal of beauty. Wikipedia.

How the State Department Gets the Niqab Wrong. By Walid Phares.

How the State Department Gets the Niqab Wrong. By Walid Phares. History News Network, May 20, 2013.

Scholars in Bondage. By Camille Paglia.

Scholars in Bondage. By Camille Paglia. The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 20, 2013.

Dogma dominates studies of kink.

A Letter to My Grandfather. By Charles Barzun.

A Letter to My Grandfather. By Charles Barzun. The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 13, 2013.

Obama Didn’t Need to be Told About the IRS Targeting Conservatives. By Rush Limbaugh.

The Great Unifier Didn’t Need to be Told About the IRS Targeting Conservatives. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, May 21, 2013.

Rush:

Obama’s attempt to unify the country was to unify people who believe that his enemies need to be eliminated. That was the unity Obama sought. He sought a unanimous agreement with him, that his opponents – I should say his enemies, in his world – need to be neutered. There was never, ever any attempt to take people who disagree with each other and find the resolution. It’s never happened anyway in the course of human history.

It’s not gonna happen today. You have to beat people into agreeing with them. Ask the Germans. Ask the Japanese. You have to defeat them, and they sign what’s called “terms of surrender,” and I don’t know about you, folks, but I’m not ready to surrender. Therefore I’m not ready to sign anything. Therefore I’m not ready to agree. Therefore I’m not ready to be bipartisan. All of this is smoke and mirrors.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Signs You May Be a Liberal Imperialist. By Stephen M. Walt.

Top 10 warning signs of “liberal imperialism.” By Stephen M. Walt. Foreign Policy, May 20, 2013.

Walt:

Are you a liberal imperialist? Liberal imperialists are like kinder, gentler neoconservatives: Like neocons, they believe it’s America’s responsibility to right political and humanitarian wrongs around the world, and they’re comfortable with the idea of the United States deciding who will run countries such as Libya, Syria, or Afghanistan. Unlike neocons, liberal imperialists embrace and support international institutions (like the United Nations), and they are driven more by concern for human rights than they are by blind nationalism or protecting the U.S.-Israel special relationship. Still, like the neocons, liberal imperialists are eager proponents for using American hard power, even in situations where it might easily do more harm than good. The odd-bedfellow combination of their idealism with neocons’ ideology has given us a lot of bad foreign policy over the past decade, especially the decisions to intervene militarily in Iraq or nation-build in Afghanistan, and today’s drumbeat to do the same in Syria.

It’s not that the United States should never intervene in other countries or that its military should not undertake humanitarian missions (as it did in Indonesia following the Asian tsunami and in Haiti after a damaging earthquake). It should do so, however, only when there are vital national interests at stake or when sending U.S. troops or American arms is overwhelmingly likely to make things better. In short, decisions to intervene need to clear a very high bar and survive hardheaded questioning about what the use of force will actually accomplish.

So while I often sympathize with their intentions, I’m tempted to send all liberal imperialists a sampler cross-stitched with: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” At a minimum, that warning might help them be just a bit more skeptical about the wisdom of their advice. But I’m lousy at needlepoint, so instead today I offer my “10 Warning Signs that You Are a Liberal Imperialist.”

#1: You frequently find yourself advocating that the United States send troops, drones, weapons, Special Forces, or combat air patrols to some country that you have never visited, whose language(s) you don't speak, and that you never paid much attention to until bad things started happening there.

#2: You tend to argue that the United States is morally obligated to “do something” rather than just stay out of nasty internecine quarrels in faraway lands. In the global classroom that is our digitized current world, you believe that being a bystander – even thousands of miles away – is as bad as being the bully. So you hardly ever find yourself saying that “we should sit this one out.”

#3: You think globally and speak, um, globally. You are quick to condemn human rights violations by other governments, but American abuses (e.g., torture, rendition, targeted assassinations, Guantánamo, etc.) and those of America’s allies get a pass. You worry privately (and correctly) that aiming your critique homeward might get in the way of a future job.

#4: You are a strong proponent of international law, except when it gets in the way of Doing the Right Thing. Then you emphasize its limitations and explain why the United States doesn’t need to be bound by it in this case.

#5: You belong to the respectful chorus of those who publicly praise the service of anyone in the U.S. military, but you would probably discourage your own progeny from pursuing a military career.

#6. Even if you don’t know very much about military history, logistics, or modern military operations, you are still convinced that military power can achieve complex political objectives at relatively low cost.

#7: To your credit, you have powerful sympathies for anyone opposing a tyrant. Unfortunately, you tend not to ask whether rebels, exiles, and other anti-regime forces are trying to enlist your support by telling you what they think you want to hear. (Two words: Ahmed Chalabi.)

#8. You are convinced that the desire for freedom is hard-wired into human DNA and that Western-style liberal democracy is the only legitimate form of government. Accordingly, you believe that democracy can triumph anywhere – even in deeply divided societies that have never been democratic before – if outsiders provide enough help.

#9. You respect the arguments of those who are skeptical about intervening, but you secretly believe that they don’t really care about saving human lives.

#10. You believe that if the United States does not try to stop a humanitarian outrage, its credibility as an ally will collapse and its moral authority as a defender of human rights will be tarnished, even if there are no vital strategic interests at stake.

If you are exhibiting some or all of these warning signs, you have two choices. Option #1: You can stick to your guns (literally) and proudly own up to your interventionist proclivities. Option #2: You can admit that you’ve been swept along by the interventionist tide and seek help. If you choose the latter course, I recommend that you start by reading Alexander Downes and Jonathan Monten’s “Forced to Be Free?: Why Foreign-Imposed Regime Change Rarely Leads to Democratization” (International Security, 2013), along with Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s Little America: The War Within the War for Afghanistan and Peter Van Buren’s We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People.

And if that doesn't work, maybe we need some sort of 12-step program . . .


Forced to Be Free? Why Foreign-Imposed Regime Change Rarely Leads to Democratization. By Alexander B. Downes and Jonathan Monten. International Security, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Spring 2013).

Abstract:

Is military intervention effective in spreading democracy? Existing studies disagree. Optimists point to successful cases, such as the transformation of West Germany and Japan into consolidated democracies after World War II. Pessimists view these successes as outliers from a broader pattern of failure typified by cases such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Those in between agree that, in general, democratic military intervention has little liberalizing effect in target states, but contend that democracies can induce democratization when they explicitly pursue this objective and invest substantial effort and resources. Existing studies, however, often employ overly broad definitions of intervention, fail to grapple with possible selection effects in countries where democracies choose to intervene, and stress interveners’ actions while neglecting conditions in targets. Astatistical examination of seventy instances of foreign-imposed regime change (FIRC) in the twentieth century shows that implementing prodemocratic institutional reforms, such as sponsoring elections, is not enough to induce democratization; interveners will meet with little success unless conditions in the target state—in the form of high levels of economic development and societal homogeneity, and previous experience with representative governance—are favorable to democracy. Given that prospective regime change operations are likely to target regimes in poor, diverse countries, policymakers should scale back their expectations that democracy will flourish after FIRC.

The Limbaugh Theorem. By Peter Wehner.

The Limbaugh Theorem. By Peter Wehner. Commentary, May 21, 2013.

Fight Clubs: On Anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon. By Peter C. Baker.

Fight Clubs: On Napoleon Chagnon. By Peter C. Baker. The Nation, May 15, 2013. From the June 3, 2013 issue.

Review of Noble Savages: My Life Among Two Dangerous Tribes—The Yanomamö and the Anthropologists. By Napoleon A. Chagnon. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2013.

About That Dissertation. By Jason Richwine.

About That Dissertation. By Jason Richwine. National Review Online, May 20, 2013.

On being the media’s villain of the week.

Nature and Nature’s God. By Walter Russell Mead.



Nature and Nature’s God. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, May 21, 2013.

Mead:

[Our hearts and prayers are with all those affected by the tornado in Oklahoma and their families. In light of this tragedy, here are some comments we made on the eve of Hurricane Sandy on natural disasters and our relationship to the higher powers around us. The disaster is different, but the message is just as pertinent today as it was then.]

While the lights went out across Manhattan tonight, and the city that calls itself the capital of the world was cut off from the mainland as flood waters thundered through its streets, many people around the world watched the spectacle and were reminded just how fragile the busy world we humans build around us really is.

Manhattan is one of those places where nature seems mostly held at bay. Except for the parks, oases of carefully preserved nature deliberately shaped by the hand of man, every inch of the city’s surface has been covered by something manmade. The valleys have been exalted, the mountains laid low and the rough places plain.

Those who live and do their business there pay very little attention to the natural world most of the time. It can be hard to get a taxi in the rain, and the occasional winter snowstorm forces a brief halt to the city’s routine, but the average New Yorker’s attention is on the social world, not the world of nature. What’s happening to your career, your bank account, your friendships and loved ones, the political scene and the financial markets: those are the concerns that occupy the minds of busy urbanites on their daily rounds.

Into this busy, self involved world Hurricane Sandy has burst. Sharks have been photographed (or at least photo shopped) swimming in the streets of New Jersey towns; waves sweep across the Lower East Side; transformers explode on both sides of the Hudson as salt water surges into the tunnels and subways. For a little while at least, New Yorkers are reminded that we live in a world shaped by forces that are bigger than we are; tonight it is easy to identify with the sentiments in John Milton’s paraphrase of Psalm 114:
Shake earth, and at the presence be aghast
Of him that ever was, and aye shall last,
That glassy floods from rugged rocks can crush,
And make soft rills from the fiery flint-stones gush.
Soon, though, the winds will die down and the waters recede. The bridges will open, the roads will be repaired, the water will be pumped from the subways and service restored. New Yorkers will go back to their normal pursuits and Hurricane Sandy will fade into lore.

But events like this don’t come out of nowhere. Sandy isn’t an irruption of abnormality into a sane and sensible world; it is a reminder of what the world really is like. Human beings want to build lives that exclude what we can’t control — but we can’t.

Hurricane Sandy is many things; one of those things is a symbol. The day is coming for all of us when a storm enters our happy, busy lives and throws them into utter disarray. The job on which everything depends can disappear. That relationship that holds everything together can fall apart. The doctor can call and say the test results are not good. All of these things can happen to anybody; something like this will happen to us all.

Somewhere in the future, each of us has an inescapable appointment with irresistible force. For each one of us, the waters will someday rise, the winds spin out of control, the roof will come off the house and the power will go out for good.

We can protect ourselves from a storm like Sandy by taking proper precautions; at the Mead manor we have candles, firewood and food stocked against the possibility that our power will go out. But one day, dear reader, a storm is coming which neither you nor we can survive. The strongest walls, the sturdiest retirement plans stuffed with stocks and CDs, the best doctors cannot protect us from that final encounter with the force that made and will someday unmake us.

Coming to terms with that reality is the most important thing that any of us can do. A storm like this one is an opportunity to do exactly that. It reminds us that what we like to call ‘normal life’ is fragile and must someday break apart. If we are wise, we will take advantage of this smaller, passing storm to think seriously about the greater storm that is coming for us all.

A grand and powerful woman I once knew died after two encounters with cancer and a devastating stroke took her from the realm of normal life into the storm tossed waters that surround us all on every side. She’d never been a religious woman and, growing up in a segregated South where so many churches and churchgoers defended a brutal system of institutionalized injustice and cruelty, she was always a rebel against the conventional piety and ritualized religious life she saw around her.

But late in her life when the winds around her howled and the dark waters were rising, she was driven to face the truth behind the illusions and the pretense, and told the person she loved best in all the world that “I’ve made my peace with God.”

That is something we all need to do. It involves a recognition of our helplessness and insufficiency before the mysteries and limits of life. Like the First Step in the Twelve Step programs, it begins with an acknowledgment of failure and defeat. We each try to build a self-sufficient world, a sturdy little life that is proof against storms and disasters — but none of us can really get that done.

Strangely, that admission of weakness opens the door to a new kind of strength. To acknowledge and accept weakness is to ground our lives more firmly in truth, and it turns out that to be grounded in reality is to become more able and more alive. Denial is hard work; those who try to stifle their awareness of the limits of human life and ambition in the busy rounds of daily life never reach their full potential.

To open your eyes to the fragility of life and to our dependence on that which is infinitely greater than ourselves is to enter more deeply into life. To come to terms with the radical insecurity in which we all live is to find a different and more reliable kind of security. The joys and occupations of ordinary life aren’t all there is to existence, but neither are the great and all-destroying storms. There is a calm beyond the storm, and the same force that sends these storms into our lives offers a peace and security that no storm can destroy. As another one of the psalms puts it, “Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.” Accepting your limits and your dependence on things you can’t control is the first step on the road toward finding that joy.

Via Meadia hopes that all our readers survived Hurricane Sandy with their lives intact and their property whole. And more than that, we hope that our readers will take the opportunity that a storm like this offers, step back from their daily lives, and reach out to the Power who plants his footsteps in the sea and rides upon the storm. Getting the right connection with the highest power of all not only gives you a place of refuge when the big storm finally comes; it transforms daily life and infuses ordinary occupations with greater meaning and wonder than you ever understood.

The world needs people who have that kind of strength and confidence. Storms much greater than Sandy are moving through our lives these days: the storms shaking the Middle East, recasting the economy, transforming the political horizons of Asia. It will take strong and grounded people to ride these mighty storms; paradoxically, it is only by coming to terms with our limits and weakness that we can find the strength and the serenity to face what lies ahead.
 

Monday, May 20, 2013

How Neocons and Obama Liberals Helped Create a Middle East Catastrophe. By David P. Goldman.

Dumb and Dumber. By David P. Goldman. Tablet, May 20, 2013.

How neocons and Obama liberals have created catastrophe by consensus in the Middle East.

Middle East Mess: When Dems and GOPers Agree, Be Afraid. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, May 20, 2013.

Better a Pharaoh or a Tempest? By Fouad Ajami. Tablet, December 13, 2012.


Goldman:

It is a salutary exercise to consider the views we hold with impassioned conviction and ask: “What would it imply if we are wrong?” Neoconservatives of all stripes believed with perfect faith that the desire for liberty is a universal human impulse, requiring only the right institutions to reinforce it. The Obama Administration believed that all cultures have equal validity and that—as Obama said early in his presidency—that he thinks of American exceptionalism the same way that the Greeks think about Greek exceptionalism. In both cases, Republicans and Democrats believe that there is nothing inherently unique about America—except that this country was the first to create the political framework that corresponds to the true nature of every human being.

Kristol’s 2011 assessment of the Arab Spring was erroneous, but he was right to link America’s state of being to events in the Middle East. We stumbled by national consensus into a strategic morass, from which there is no apparent exit, in the naïve belief that under every burka was a prospective American ready to emerge like a butterfly from a chrysalis.

But if large parts of the Muslim world reject what seemed to be an historic opportunity to create democratic governments and instead dissolve into a chaotic regime of permanent warfare, we might conclude that there really is something different about America—that our democracy is the product of a unique set of precedents, the melding of the idea of covenant brought here by radical Protestants, the traditions of Anglo-Saxon democracy, and the far-reaching wisdom of our founders. To present-day Americans, that is an unnerving thought. We do not wish upon ourselves that sort of responsibility. We eschew our debts to deep traditions. We want to reinvent ourselves at will, to shop for new identities, to play at the cultural cutting-edge.

What these events might teach us, rather, is that America really is exceptional and that there is no contradiction in cultivating our democracy at home while acting elsewhere in tough-minded pursuit of our security interests.

The Arab Collapse. By Ralph Peters.

The Arab Collapse. By Ralph Peters. New York Post, May 19, 2013.

Middle East a vulture’s feast.

Peters:

The Arab Spring has unleashed the Arab Collapse. Everybody still standing in the region is picking the flesh of the helpless. The Islamist cancer proved more virulent than Arabs themselves expected, while dying regimes behave with unrestrained ruthlessness.

And our diplomats still think everyone can be cajoled into harmony.

We’re witnessing a titanic event, the crack-up of a long-tottering civilization. Arab societies grew so corrupt and stagnant that violent upheaval became inevitable. That’s what we’re seeing in Syria and Iraq — two names, one struggle — and will find elsewhere tomorrow.

We can’t stop it, we can’t fix it, and we don’t understand it. But we can stay out of it.

When the US is in the Middle East, the Arabs want us out. When we’re out, they want us in. But our purported Arab (and Turkish) allies consistently agree that Uncle Sam should pay the party bill, while they take home all the presents.

Yes, Syria’s humanitarian crisis is appalling. And no, I don’t like to see innocents dying or suffering. But the calls from the region for American action are nakedly cynical.

Turkey has the largest military in NATO after our own, but cries “helpless” crocodile tears over Syrian refugees — while dreaming of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire upon their ruined lives. Our Saudi “friends” spent decades building the most-sophisticated military arsenal in the Middle East, apart from Israel. Now the Saudis wring their hands over Syria’s misery — but won’t intervene directly to stop the killing.

The Saudi position is always “You and him fight!” As long ago as Desert Storm, Saudis joked about renting the American army and our bumpkin gullibility. (Try to find one US officer who’s worked with the Saudis and doesn’t hate their guts. . .) Now they want Washington to spend our blood and treasure to open the mosques of Damascus to their Wahhabi cult.

Well, the Assad regime is horrible, but not al Qaeda horrible. Better poison gas than poisoned religion, as far as our own security’s concerned. This is an Arab struggle (with Turkish and Iranian vultures overhead). This time, we need to let them fight it out.

The region’s outdated order is disintegrating. But Washington’s still mesmerized by the artificial boundaries on the map.

Nine decades ago, the diplomats at Versailles ignored the region’s natural fault lines as they carved up the Middle East, forcing enemies together and driving kin apart (while Woodrow Wilson turned his back on the Kurds). Only brute force and dictators kept up the fiction that these were countries. Now the grim charade has reached its end.

Iraq was carved out for British interests, while Syria was France’s consolation prize. Now Syria’s collapsing in a too-many-factions-to-count civil war. And Iraq’s in the early stages of its own dissolution; even a would-be dictator — another of our one-time “friends,” Nouri al-Maliki — can’t keep the “country” together.

We don’t even know how many new states will emerge from the old order’s wreckage. But the Scramble for the Sand is on, with Iran, Turkey, treacherous Arab oil sheikdoms and terrorists Sunni and Shia alike all determined to dictate the future, no matter the cost in other people’s blood.

We had our chance to extend the peace and keep both Iran and Wahhabi crazies at bay after we defeated Iraq’s insurgencies. But a new American president, elevating politics over strategy, walked away from Baghdad, handing Iraq to Iran. Now it’s too late. If George W. Bush helped trigger the Arab Spring, Barack Obama made this Arab Winter inevitable.

We must not be lured into the current fighting — centered, for now, on Syria — by cries of humanitarian necessity. The local powers could step in to stop the killing. But they won’t. Once again, they want us to pay the bill. (It’s time for the Saudis, especially, to give their own blood.)

We’ve paid enough. Rhetoric and red lines notwithstanding, we need to back off from Syria, if for no other reason than a strategist’s golden rule: If you don’t understand what a fight’s about, stay out.


A New Map of the Middle East by Ralph Peters