Top official among at least 8 killed in explosion in Beirut

Top official among at least 8 killed in explosion in Beirut

The numerous political parties and factions in Lebanon are to a large extent delineated by their relationship with the Syrian government, and the support from within Lebanon to the Syrian rebels or government has been both implicit and explicit, as has the opposition. Since the start of the uprising in Syria, there have been fears that the conflict would spill over into neighboring Lebanon. The explosion in East Beirut today has fueled those fears dramatically.
Although the attack was initially thought (or simply said) to be 'non-political', it is now known that a top intelligence official, Wissam al-Hassan, was among those killed in the blast. al-Hassan was well-known as the leader of an investigation into a Lebanese politician accused of planning attacks within Lebanon with the support of two Syrian officials. It is estimated that at least 7 others were killed in the attack, along with dozens injured.
There will doubtless be speculation in the next few hours and days into who is responsible for the attack, but all of this is guesswork and assumptions before an investigation takes place. Even then, however, there's no guarantee that we'll know for certain who the perpetrators are, or on whose orders they're acting. 

Is there any daylight between Romney and Obama?

Mitt Romney spoke at the Virginia Military Institute today in a speech his campaigned billed a "major foreign policy" address. The purpose of the speech was to showcase Romney's foreign policy ideas while simultaneously criticizing President Obama's performance.

Romney gave this speech while his campaign was still on a high after his performance in the first debate last Wednesday. The timing makes sense - foreign policy won't be a major deciding factor in this election, so Romney can afford to score political points on Obama by taking advantage of the recent developments in the Middle East, while not offering specifics or significant foreign policy strategies. And that's exactly what we saw in yesterday's speech While Romney had much criticism for the President's actions (or inactions) in places like Libya and Egypt after the embassy attacks and riots, Syria, and Iran, most of it was only rhetoric. The little substance that he offered did not especially differ from the President's policies. Whether this is an effect of his relative inexperience in foreign policy or a concerted effort to ride the wave of support after the debate without having to hold himself to specific policies if he were elected, the result is that all anyone has talked about today is whether Romney would actually do anything differently than Obama has done. Someone needs to tell Mitt that speaking about Iran's nuclear program and the importance of sanctions in a sterner voice will not yield different results.

Perhaps the biggest take away from his speech is the continued arrogance on the part of much of his party (although the Democrats are not guiltless in this either) that the opinions, values, suggestions, advice, pressuring, cajoling, controlling, bribery and war that the US inflicts on the people and governments of the Middle East will always have their desired impact. An entire piece could be written on the hypocrisy of speaking about the need to influence and shape the outcomes of the democratic elections in Arab countries that are supposedly there to help the people decide their own fate (Romney took the chance to criticize Obama for 'allowing' the Muslim Brotherhood to take power in Egypt). This notion that the American president, whether through his policies or simply public statements (meet with Netanyahu publicly and Iran will suddenly realize they shouldn't build a bomb, some say), has control over the increasingly complex and unpredictable events unraveling in the Middle East is not new, but it continues to endure.

So, is there actually any daylight between Romney and Obama? Would a President Romney lead us in a significantly different direction than one Obama has charted for the country?

I don't think the answer is clear, and even if it is, leading the country in a different direction doesn't necessarily mean that it will alter events in other parts of the world (barring any military or direct involvement in some areas - see Syria, as example). The Romney we saw in yesterday's speech was a moderate one, taking essentially the same stance on Iran that Obama has, and even his strategy for Syria  artfully steered clear of promising direct military and/or material support to the opposition from the United States. His speech was not absent the lies that are traditionally used in the campaign - the cuts in defense spending he touted Obama as advocating are in reality part of the sequester that will occur (well...might occur) as part of the Budget Control Act. Romney's inexplicable promises of increased military funding and construction of new ships was undoubtedly at the suggestion of his hawkish advisors.

The net impact of this speech for Romney's campaign is minimal. It's still the economy, stupid, but Romney blew his chance to speak at a relatively quiet event in a military academy and lay out his plans for foreign policy. If that even matters, anyway. My bet is that he'll keep wagging his finger in Iran's direction and just hope for the best. 

The Netanyahu Nexus

Full Text of Netanyahu's Speech to AIPAC, March 2012

Last night, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to attendees of the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Policy conference in Washington, DC. As expected, all of his speech was on the topic of Iran. However, Netanyahu makes it clear from the beginning that he will not talk about what Israel he will do, he will instead focus on "why Iran must never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons".

He goes on at lengths about what has happened in the past when countries haven't intervened in international atrocities (citing the Holocaust) and how unstable the region will become if Iran has a nuclear arsenal.

When noting the argument that attacking Iran to halt their program would be more dangerous than diplomatic methods, Netanyahu also dodges this by using his typical rhetorical devices and standard sound bites. He never addresses the concern that almost all experts have that there is an extremely slim chance that a military strike on nuclear targets in Iran would do anything more than set back the program a few years, or that a strike would serve to inflame the region just as much as a nuclear armed Iran would, or that the continuous threats emanating from Israel and the US about probable military action against Iran are giving the Khameini regime more fodder for developing their arsenal. Netanyahu would have done well for himself if he could offer  rebuttals to these arguments, which are just a few of the rational ones being offered up by everyone from military leaders in the US to political commentators.

But he wouldn't say all these things, because he's talking to AIPAC.

It's the First Amendment, stupid.

Throughout 2011, the political debate in this country centered around the economy. Whether it was job creation, the deficit, or the Eurozone crisis, the sheer amount of time and attention given to (discussion of) solving these economic woes led to the generally held opinion that the most common issue of the 2012 Presidential Election (and exasperatingly drawn out GOP primary process). This could also be seen through the countless national polls that showed 'the economy', 'unemployment rate', and 'jobs' invariably as the most important issue for voters.

In the past few weeks, however, social issues have emerged as debate item of choice for both political candidates and the media. The key impetus for this trend was the controversy over a new rule in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, that would require the insurance policies of religious-affiliated organizations, including universities and hospitals, to cover reproductive health and contraception. The source of the opposition to this provision was, expectedly, the religious right. They claimed that forcing an organization to provide coverage for something they morally object to is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, and even led conservative writer L. Brent Bozell to call it "perhaps the greatest intrusion on individual freedom and religious liberty in our nation's history."Here was Obama, attempting to assert even more control over our personal lives, just another battle in his war against Christianity.

The provision was changed so that the coverage in question (reproductive health and contraception) only required coverage on the part of the insurance company. This didn't appease everyone, though, and the Congressional Oversight Committee instead decided to hold a hearing asking the question "...Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?"
The fact that a) no one invited to the hearing was supportive of the provision b), essentially resulting in the panel asking a rhetorical question, and c) the panel was overwhelmingly made up of religious leaders d) of which not a single one was a woman, all resulted in the hearing being a textbook definition of farce. Women present were deemed "not qualified" to testify on the topic.

The right is fighting a losing battle, and here's why.

Facts on the Ground


The notion that employees of religious organizations are being forced to subscribe to something they morally object to is a fantastical idea that the opposition to this bill is somehow touting. Although the 8 male priests, rabbis, and religious leaders would like to think that everyone in their congregations , a NYT poll shows that 98% of sexually active Catholic women aged 15-44 have used some form of contraception. Women who need or want contraception will use it, regardless of their religious affiliation.  This also raises the point that not all employees or students of a Catholic-affiliated organization are even necessarily Catholic. 4 out of 5 students at the University of Notre Dame do not self-identify as Catholic, and the number who are regular church-goers and actively practice their faith is likely much lower than that. Denying contraception coverage to all women in these institutions is not only dangerous, it's also unfair. This provision actually does the opposite of what it's opponents are claiming; it provides religious liberties for individuals that they would not otherwise have.

Citing the First


Contending that this is a violation of the First Amendment is as valid as arguing that gay marriage is...in that it isn't. The same people who tout the importance of personal liberty and personal choice are trying to deny those very things to an entire population of people in this country. The government shouldn't have a say in whether an employer provides health insurance, but it should have a say in defining what marriage is. And only on the issues that conservative Christians in this country can take a practical stance. The Catholic church forbids a divorcee remarrying, but you'd be hard pressed to find a politician in favor of a provision that does not allow divorced woman to marry another man, because that man would then be "committing adultery".
With the Republican party edging further and further to the right, the words "religious freedom" have come to mean the freedom to impose your religious views on the entire population, regardless of whether someone else prescribes to them or not.
If two gay men marry each other, it might be considered offensive, sinful or "destructive" (in Kirk Cameron's recent words) to someone who doesn't agree with it, and that person has the right to feel that way. They can right about it and condemn it in any way they choose. But denying it on legal grounds because of moral or religious convictions is what's really destructive. Most people would agree that Kim Kardashian's 4-hour wedding to some guy is more morally destructive than gay marriage being legalized, but how could we create a law prohibiting that? Maybe something that outlaws marriages that have reality shows based on them, and where the ring costs >$2 MM.

If you don't like contraception, then don't use it. Don't provide it. But purposefully making it difficult for others to access the healthcare options they want or need is infringing on the very freedoms you boast of protecting.

The TV Event Of the Week

I haven't watched many Best Picture nominees, so my weekly TV entertainment had to come from watching the 87th Republican Debate. Many have been saying that as the last debate before numerous primaries next week, this could make or break any of the candidates' chances at winning the nomination, but the only thing breaking tonight was my heart, as I wondered "Why did I skip Modern Family to watch this??"

Just kidding.

My heart broke because the candidates tonight proved more than ever that the only thing any of them have going for them (with some exception in Ron Paul, but not completely) is that America doesn't like Barack Obama.

Okay, that's not true. What I meant is that Republicans don't like Barack Obama. And the candidates know it, and that's what they used to carry them through this debate. 

I'll be honest, I haven't watched any of the other debates. Maybe this is how all of them have gone. But the only message I got from any of the candidates tonight is "Barack Obama can't/won't/didn't do it; but I will"It could be anything from bomb Iran, to defund Planned Parenthood, to "securing our border". The lack of communicable and realistic, measurable goals and policies was disheartening, but not that surprising.

Take Iran, for example. All of the candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, seem to think that they have Iran completely figured out. Despite the sanctions the US has imposed on Iran, it was repeatedly stated that Obama refused to apply sanctions and has no interest in "standing up" to Iran and its never ending quest for nuclear weapons. The candidates had to use scare tactics to win some applause, since their logic was all but non-existant. Ron Paul's assertion that there was no proof of Iran building a nuclear weapon was laughed off by Rick Santorum and the rest of the Republican candidates, who seem to have forgotten how well things went the last time we went to a war with shaky proof (that turned out to not be proof at all).

The argument for military action against Iran is predicated on the assumption that Iran is building nuclear weapons and plans to use them to attack Israel or the United States, either overtly or by using proxy groups like Hezbollah or nameless Latin American organizations. The candidates (and most observers) neglect the fact that Iran is also facing a threat from both the United States and Israel. Even while Iran refuses international investigators access to its facilities, it is clear that it has to play a guessing game with all of the parties who are currently threatening it with military action. Iran knows that it can not attack the US or Israel with a nuclear weapon and expect to survive the next day. Even if a nuclear missile managed to leave Iran without the US or Israel knowing about it, the defenses that each country has in place would give Iran a slim chance of hitting its target. This isn't to say that we should take a chance. But Iran knows that its chances of becoming the most powerful player in the Middle East and Central Asia will not be through launching nuclear weapons against Israel or the US. Neither country would allow it, and that method of persuasion has long been proved obsolete, anyway. It will instead work towards that goal the way it has been: quietly and cleverly. 

But all we really know about the Republican's position is that they wouldn't do it the way Obama has.

If there's another debate after this one...I'm going with Modern Family.

Untitled

Monday was just as painful as I thought it would be

Coming back from a vacation or trip out of town is always a weird experience for me. I spent Tuesday-Sunday in San Francisco on my first vacation in a while. It wasn't a long trip, but at times it felt like it was. I've been saturated with New York City and what little parts of Jersey I see for so long that going somewhere completely different and new had a bigger effect on me than I expected. Two days after I got to California, it felt like I didn't have anything back in New York; and the only thing I have here is my job. That was a nice change, and I think it was the point of the vacation anyway. But it made me realize that what I usually think about as "important" or "big" parts of my life are completely relative, and always changing.

I was having a conversation with two of my coworkers last week about our sleeping patterns. One of my coworkers is pregnant, and she mentioned that even though she's pregnant, she's been having trouble sleeping because of a project she's working on that's causing her a lot of stress. Another coworker countered that at the end of the day, a job is just a job, and worrying about job-related stresses after you've gone home isn't productive and isn't helpful. While I agree with him, that's tougher to accomplish in practice.

My job isn't high stress relatively (sorry, it sounds like a cop out word, but it's what I'm using). I'm not a spinal surgeon, or a fire fighter, or a soldier, or a criminal-defense lawyer. I'm not sure I can yet handle a job where someone's life is resting in my hands. I deal with $'s and other small technical things for a large financial company, and in the grand scheme of things the projects I work on are pretty low on the priority list of Senior Management and even my direct manager. So why do I end up coming home and stressing about it? I'd like to say it's because I'm a perfectionist, and in some ways I am. But maybe it's because I have nothing else to worry about.
I have a healthy and happy family that lives independently of me. I don't have anyone to take care of, and my only responsibilities are paying my rent, doing the dishes, and going to my job. (Even though my SO is 10,000 miles away, I can't take being a good boyfriend off that list. It just requires little physical effort on my part at this point).

Cells and bytes


Worrying about a job in the first place is silly, unless you have to worry about something, and a job is all you have. But barring that unfortunate situation (I think that's where I am right now), how much does it really matter? I've had this conversation one too many times with friends, and we inevitably end up at a sort of nihilistic destination. Maybe nihilist isn't the right word, go ask a philosopher. But having that kind of conversation really makes you start to put things into perspective. I'm one person in one city in one country on one planet in this solar system. The things that I care about and accomplish in life are such a tiny piece of all existence that they make no difference at all. Why am I staying awake at night worrying about them?
You could say that "In my life, in my existence, they mean a lot." Placing yourself out of an ego-centric viewpoint and looking at things in the very big picture can help or hurt. On one hand, your every day problems, things that annoy you, become rightfully insignificant. On the other, the little joys and accomplishments that you congratulate yourself on suddenly have their importance diminished.

While I was in San Francisco, my brother, friend, and I did the non-geeky thing and went to see a planetarium show at the Science Academy. The show took on the daunting task of tackling "Life" from the perspective of outer space. I'm not smart enough to understand all of the topics the show delved into, but I did come away with a few things:

1. A reclining comfy chair in a dark room will put you to sleep.
2. There's no way we can be the only form of life in the universe.
1. What defines "life" anyway? I think the definition we learned in biology class something to do with carbon, metabolism, and homeostasis. This is too broad of a topic for now, maybe I'll talk about it later.
2. We haven't gotten very far out into the universe anyway; there's gotta be someone else out there trying to find us too. Let's keep looking.
3. The same fears we have about computers becoming self aware and "thinking" on their own have already happened: just look at humans.

That last point came up as the show described how the first cells were formed out of this primordial sludge. I started thinking about how the cells that became the building blocks of our entire bodies, complete with brains that ponder religion, love, war, and death, all started as some sub-atomic particles bonding together and eventually becoming us. (I simplified billions of years of evolution into a couple sentences.) We became these self aware and philosophical beings out of electrons and protons and the things that make them up. 

I'm just one bunch of elements and cells moving around, metabolizing, signaling, on one chunk of rock in a solar system in the infinitely large universe.   I'd like to say that musing on all of this has made me not worry or stress about my job. 

But what else can I worry about?

Making me look bad

My excuse for the gap between posts is that I've been in San Francisco for the past 4 days. Lots to see, taste, and think about in this city.

Check out the real thing here: http://my4lifecrisis.wordpress.com/
Follow it if you like what you read!

Not much else to say,

Just watch the ad. Joe Hoekstra wants to make a case that his opponent Debbie Stabenow likes to "Spenditnow", so his people put together an ad that features a Chinese woman not only riding a bicycle through a random rice paddy (with the appropriate gongs and chimes playing in the background) , but then speaking in broken English about why Debbie Stabenow's fiscal policies are helping China's economy and hurting ours. "Your economy get very weak. Ours get very good...We take your jobs."

Joe Hoekstra is not only peddling the most blatant racism I've seen in years (was the girl in the ad that desperate for money? Doing porn would have been less insulting than this), but the same tired fallacy that politicians today feel they can always fall back on when they need an economic policy that the public will blindly accept.

Hoekstra's assertion that Debbie Stabenow's spending habits in Michigan are significantly contributing to the US-China trade imbalance actually seems reasonable when compared to the ad he used to say it.

On the advice of a friend..

...I'm going to try to keep writing. Attempt #2. I'll take baby steps so I don't over exert myself like last time. Three paragraphs was too much, so I'll start with just one (and not including this one).

Read a Slate article today that Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the only breast cancer charity known to anyone, is pulling its funds from breast-cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is not only a resource for contraception and STD treatment for women, but (as I learned in conversation with my sister, who is more well-versed in women's health than I am) also one of the only places where uninsured women can go for breast-cancer screenings and elective abortions.
The notion of an elective abortion is interesting, anyway. Discussing an elective abortion to an expecting couple doesn't seem like it would register on the same wavelength as it does for the medical staff. One thinks about it in a purely clinical and technical way...because they have to. The other chooses to think about it in terms of the child they've been carrying and expecting for months, because they want to.
I could never be a doctor.