The iPINIONS Journal

How gallant! How French!  And here’s why:

Every French newspaper is emblazoned with headlines about the intriguing split between Segolene Royal, the Socialist candidate I endorsed in last month’s French presidential election, and Francois Hollande, the leader of the Socialist Party… [T]hese two have been ‘partners’ forever (30 years) and have four children, but never bothered to marry….

(Royal claims that she ended their relationship because Hollande was having an affair with journalist Valerie Trierweiler. Never mind reports that she has been a consenting, though frigid, party to this ménage a trois for years.) But what intrigues me about this split is not the announcement of it… Instead, I’m intrigued by the apparent fact that Royal’s resounding defeat precipitated not only the dissolution of her and Hollande’s personal relationship but also the termination of their political partnership.

Moreover, as if this split were not already sensational enough, the French are salivating with prurient anticipation now that Royal has declared her (woman-scorned) intent to challenge Hollande for leadership of the Socialist Party – a position he has held like political Svengali for 10 years.

(“Segolene Royal and Francois Hollande divorce French Style,” The iPINIONS Journal, June 19, 2007)

And here is a tease on how this played out when Hollande defeated Nicolas Sarkozy to become president of France:

The woman standing next to Hollande during his victory celebration last night was his former mistress, now acknowledged “companion,” Valerie — which must make his former companion Segolene doubly green with envy.

(“Hollande defeats Sarkozy…,” The iPINIONS Journal, May 7, 2012)

Frankly, one probably has to be French (or at least European) to understand this, but Hollande had tongues wagging in the United States this week when he nominated his first partner Segolene as President (aka Speaker) of the National Assembly (aka Parliament). She will likely be elected by virtual acclimation after parliamentary elections next month.

But, as if highlighting the dramatis personae that will provide palace intrigue throughout his presidency, he announced almost simultaneously that he has no intent to marry his second partner Valarie — deriding marriage, in true socialist fashion, as a “bourgeois institution.”

No doubt this will help Segolene get over the understandable resentment and jealousy that must have stirred in her as she watched the younger Valarie — who Hollande dumped her for — standing by his side when he became president.

But Valerie must be wondering now about the security of her position in this ongoing ménage a trois. After all, not only has Hollande made Segolene the most powerful woman in France, Valarie is surely mindful that she (i.e., Segolene) is also the only mother of his four children.

So who’s resentful and jealous now? Karma’s a bitch: meow….

Related commentaries:
Hollande defeats Sarkozy…

International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia

Related commentaries:
Obama (personally) supports  gay marriage…

Michael Barone is senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner.  But if anyone can be called the dean of political analysts in America without fear of contradiction it is he.

Which is why he generated so much buzz when he published the following on Monday in Three Ways to Look at the 2012 Campaign:

It is my view that Obama was helped in 2008 by a widespread belief that, in the abstract, it would be a good thing for Americans to elect a black president. I know I felt that way myself.

This year, I sense that many, perhaps most voters do not want the country to be seen rejecting the first black president. Such a feeling might be buoying Obama’s support despite the lagging economic recovery and the widespread opposition to his signature policies.

This is clearly a compelling and provocative observation. What’s more, it is unassailably true. But Barone went further:

[I]t is possible that in the last days of the campaign a large number of voters will decide, quietly and out of public view, that they just don’t want any more of what they’ve had for the last four years and they will try the other guy and see if he can do better.

Barone did not elaborate but the reason this part of his commentary is so compelling, provocative, and true is that many black politicians have been misled by White voters expressing support for them in polls throughout the campaign only to “vote their race” on Election Day. This fate befell Tom Bradley when he ran for governor of California in 1982 and 1986 and Harvey Gantt when he ran for the U.S. Senate from North Carolina in 1990 and 1996.

Therefore, Obama has just cause to worry about this backstabbing/racist phenomenon rearing its ugly head in November. Because only this would explain why anyone who voted for Obama in 2008 would become so disillusioned with what he failed to do (as opposed to what Republicans deliberately prevented him from doing) that s/he would vote for Mitt Romney.

Which is why, with all due respect to Barone, I presaged his commentary on this topic on January 4, 2012 in Iowa Caucuses: Much Ado About Nothing as follows:

[W]hen all is said and done, I am convinced that even some (White) Republicans will think twice about helping to perpetrate the historic spectacle of re-electing George W. Bush to a second term – after he nearly bankrupted the country with his unfunded wars and tax cuts for the rich, but denying Obama a second term – despite his commendable efforts against the odds to clean up the mess Bush left behind.

Besides, trust me folks, race matters. This is why I am even more convinced that disappointed (White) Democrats like actor Matt Damon, as well as Independents [like Michael Barone] whose votes are so indispensable, will definitely think twice about causing this first Black president to go down in history as a failure – especially given all of the mediocre White presidents who cruised to second terms.

HOPE springs eternal, but we shall see….

Related commentaries:
In support of Obama…
Iowa caucuses…

I find it stupefying that Greece is causing so much existential angst in Europe. Mind you, I used to accept the prevailing view that, like JPMorgan Chase, Greece is just too big to fail; moreover, that if it failed others would surely follow.

I am now convinced, however, that this transformative logic simply does not hold. Not least because the more appropriate analogy is not the risk of a major bank failing, but the fear of a little tumor metastasizing. And in this context, cutting Greece out of the Eurozone – the way one might excise a metastasizing (malignant) tumor out of the body - is the best way to forestall the self-fulfilling prophecy of its failure triggering a contagion/domino effect. (Unfortunately, just the prophesying is having a withering effect on markets around the world.)

Yet here is the foreboding, self-fulfilling way no less an authority than the Financial Times framed this debt crisis just yesterday:

The idea of a Greek exit from the Eurozone is no longer fanciful. After 70 percent of voters in elections on May 6 supported parties that rejected the terms under which €174bn of international bailout loans were offered to Athens, many investors now see a fissure in the 17-member Eurozone as increasingly likely. European governments are furiously thinking through the various scenarios, while still urging Athens to stick to its agreements on austerity and reform. If those hopes are dashed and Greece goes, what happens next?

In other words, Greece is refusing to take the only medicine that stands any chance of putting the cancer it represents into remission. Frankly, this symptom alone demonstrates why it needs to be excised out of the Eurozone.  And, by the way, the ongoing, farcical failure of its political parties to form a governing coalition should be the least of Europe’s problems. Greece should be left to its own devices to become the terminally debt-ridden, dysfunctional and ungovernable mess in Europe that Haiti has been in the Caribbean for centuries.

But here is the prescient way I framed this untenable state of affairs years ago:

Greece may be the cradle of civilization but it’s being regarded throughout Northern Europe these days as little more than a beggars’ colony. This is because Greece is now looking to richer member states of the European Union, like Germany and France, to bail it out of an existential financial mess…

It is hardly surprising that most Europeans are developing as much contempt for the Greeks as most Americans now have for bankers. Not least because rich member states in the North believe that their poor relations in the South have nothing to blame for their financial woes but their own ‘Club Med’ approach to fiscal discipline…

You’d think that having to go to their betters in the North – hat in hand – would humble the Greeks. Instead, public sector workers have gone on strike in a self-indulgent effort to pressure their government against imposing any austerity measures as a condition for receiving a bailout package from the EU (and IMF).

(“Greece Just Another Panhandling PIG in Europe,” The iPINIONS Journal, April 29, 2010)

Again, that was over two years ago. So the only thing I find newsworthy about this Eurozone debt crisis today is the extent to which countries like Germany and France have allowed the financial contagion Greece represents to metastasize. The situation is clearly critical now.

So instead of begging Greece to take the medicine to save both itself and the “euro project,” European leaders should be scrubbing for the surgery that is necessary to cut out Greece to save the Eurozone. Greece is not too big to fail.

NOTE: I’m not saying I told you so, but European leaders would have been well-advised to heed the counsel I provided in such commentaries as A Dead EU Constitution Resurrected as a New Treaty Is Still a Dead EU Constitution (November 13, 2007), A Europe Divided by Debt Cannot Stand (March 25, 2010), If Rescuing Greece is Necessary to Save Europe, Europe’s in Big Trouble (October 15, 2011), and Forget the Euro, Europe Itself is Falling Apart (December 15, 2011).

Related commentaries:
Greece … PIG…

Former presidential candidate John Edwards gained a great deal of political mileage by pretending to be a devoted husband to his cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth. This is why he is now being prosecuted for allegedly using campaign funds to keep his mistress and their bastard child a secret – not so much from his wife as from voters who were buying into his charade of a family life.

After the prosecution rested on Friday, legal (and political) pundits were all over TV opining that the defense had so discredited Andrew Young, the star witness for the prosecution, that Edwards would be acquitted. Some of them even suggested wistfully that Edwards still has enough charm left to convince the jury that that mountain of evidence proving his infidelity, mendacity, and venality merely reflects his chivalrous efforts to spare his terminally ill wife any undue emotional distress.  

By contrast, in The Indictment of John Edwards (June 7, 2011), I predicted that he would be found guilty. I even charged Elizabeth as an unindicted co-conspirator because she not only knew about his cheating but was complicit in his illegal efforts to conceal it from unsuspecting voters.

Accordingly, instead of joining the chorus of those now speculating about the outcome of his trial, I shall suffice to reprise that June 2011 commentary as a means of reiterating my belief that the jury will not buy into his defense – even if his terminal conceit misleads him into taking the stand to present it himself.  

_____________________

The reason this was so shocking is that Edwards had endeared himself to millions of voters by presenting himself as a faithful and loving husband who was supporting his wife Elizabeth through her heroic battle against cancer.

Never mind that he cravenly used his wife’s illness as a campaign tool to win sympathy and shield himself from any further media scrutiny into his private life. This SOB even had her all over TV attacking his opponents, knowing full well that none of them would fight back against a woman stricken with cancer.

(John Edwards caught cheating on his wife, The iPINIONS Journal, July 23, 2008)

This was how I expressed just a little of the contempt I felt for John Edwards after the National Enquirer exposed him as a cheating dog who had even fathered a child with his mistress, Rielle Hunter. However, because I’d chronicled so much hypocrisy in his public life, I was not nearly as shocked as others when he turned out to be a hypocrite in his private life as well.

Here, in part, is what I wrote in this respect – adding for context that this guy should be a car salesman because he gives politicians (and lawyers) a bad name:

Even the most cynical political commentators could not ignore the hypocrisy of Edwards showing up [in New Orleans] just for one day to decry the fact that – more than a year after Katrina – these long-suffering people are still struggling to rebuild their lives of quiet desperation.

Because during all this time, instead of traveling to lend a helping hand (like so many people who are genuinely concerned about the gap between the “two Americas” did), Edwards was busy watching contractors build a mansion on his plantation in North Carolina that is so, well, presidential, it would turn both George Ws (i.e., Washington and Bush) green with envy.

(Edwards is running for president … again, The iPINIONS Journal, December 29, 2006)

Given all of this, you can be forgiven for thinking that I’m celebrating the six-count indictment a federal grand jury handed down against Edwards on Friday. But I’m not.

The indictment accuses him of conspiracy, taking illegal campaign contributions, and making false statements – all in an effort to conceal his affair and lovechild.

[W]e will not permit candidates for high office to abuse their special ability to access the coffers of their political supporters to circumvent our election laws.

(Attorney General Lanny Breuer, head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, Associated Press, June 3, 2011)

And, as indicated above, the abuse alleged in this case is particularly contemptible because he allegedly did all of this while running for president in 2008 and posing as a devoted husband to his terminally ill wife - who ended up dying last year not just of cancer, but of a broken heart.

Nevertheless, there are two main reasons why I’m not celebrating:

The first is that this case reeks of selective prosecution. Because even if all of the allegations are true, and I believe they are, it is equally true that all presidential candidates have “abused their special ability to access the coffers of their supporters” to fund all kinds of personal matters. So this is rather like making a federal case out of a jaywalking violation.

Even worse, the feds are predicating their entire case on the claim that Edwards used almost one million dollars in campaign donations from just two wealthy donors to cover up this affair. For it’s bad enough that one of those donors, Rachel ‘Bunny’ Mellon (who donated nearly $750,000), is 100 years old, and too sick to testify; but the other donor, Fred Baron, is dead.

Of course, even if they could testify, these donors would probably claim that they considered the sums at issue legal gifts to a personal friend to help him cover up a personal indiscretion. (“That’s what friends are for”….)

Hell, another personal friend, Andrew Young, was so determined to help cover up this affair that he persuaded his wife that they should claim they were the parents of Edwards’s lovechild. Never mind that he has since fallen out with Edwards and now has more than an axe to grind as star witness for the prosecution.

The point is that it’s arguable Edwards wanted to keep his affair a secret as much to save his marriage as to save his campaign: hardly honorable, but entirely credible.

In any case, the feds are clearly relying on the just conviction Edwards has already suffered in the court of public opinion to inform and influence jury deliberations at trial. But Edwards did not earn his reputation as a formidable trial lawyer for nothing. Because here is the shrewd way he’s already beginning to undermine their strategy:

There’s no question that I’ve done wrong. And I take full responsibility for having done wrong. And I will regret for the rest of my life the pain and the harm that I’ve caused to others. But I did not break the law, and I never, ever thought I was breaking the law.

(Associated Press, June 3, 2011)

Showing contrition and taking responsibility for his utterly repugnant behavior, yet insisting that he’s no intentional law breaker: brilliant! Moreover, if I were on the jury, I would resent the feds wasting millions of dollars trying to throw him in prison for being just another scumbag politician … no different from Arnold Schwarzenegger and far too many others.

(Reports are that Edwards was happy to plead to all of his wrongdoing, provided that he was sentenced only to probation and a commensurate fine. But the feds insisted not only on jail time but also on the revocation of his law license, which the man would need when he got out to support his family.)

The second main reason I’m not celebrating is that the people most hurt by his cheating are clearly not celebrating the legal comeuppance he’s now facing. Indeed, nobody can deny that the implosion of his once-sterling political career and the merciless public humiliation he’s suffered are punishment enough.

In other words, if I thought for a moment that Edwards ending up in jail would provide justice for his dead wife, I too would be celebrating his indictment and even praying for a conviction.

But here is what I was compelled to write some time ago about her presumed victimization:

My sympathy for her turned into dismay when the Enquirer reported that, despite knowing all about the affair, she went on to become his most ardent and passionate campaigner. Now that dismay is turning into contempt as I watch her trying to cast herself as a profile in courage in a new memoir entitled Resilience.

After all, that title is plainly misleading. Not least because the only thing resilient about Elizabeth seems to be her determination to serve as an enabler – not only of her husband’s venal and narcissistic ambition, but also of his unconscionable ploy to disown his lovechild.

(Elizabeth Edwards standing by her man, The iPINIONS Journal, May 6, 2009)

Meanwhile, despite rumors about her plans to divorce him, they were still married when she died more than two years after his affair and all of its tawdry details became public. This suggests that Elizabeth would still be standing by her man, even throughout this ordeal. And it seems from her appearance in court on Friday that their 30-year-old daughter Cate (as pictured above) is now standing there in her stead.

I rest my case.

Now, having said all that, if this goes to trial (since Edwards and the feds still could/should settle), I predict he will be convicted on at least one count (just for being a scumbag as indicated above), he will serve jail time (at least two years), and he will lose his law license. Hey, he made his bed….

Related commentaries:
John Edwards caught cheating on his wife
Edwards is running for president…

Related commentaries:
Obama … supports gay marriage

Most titillating of all however is the controversy brewing over the reportedly intimate relationship Travolta had with Jeff Michael Kathrein – one of the two (male) ‘nurses’ who provided 24/7 care for Jett.

(“Tragic Death of John Travolta’s Son Jett,” January 5, 2009)  

Virtually every Bahamian was horrified three years ago when two of our fellow citizens compounded John Travolta’s grief by (allegedly) attempting to extort millions from him. They threatened to release compromising details which, according to them, showed that Travolta’s antic behavior contributed to his son’s death.

Thankfully they were swiftly arrested and prosecuted. Despite the actor’s compelling testimony, however, (inadvertent) political interference caused a mistrial. Travolta then said the ordeal was too traumatizing for him to participate in a retrial, which struck many of us as more than a little incredulous.

In any event, the trial disclosed that the idiot extortionists had nothing that stood even a remote chance of compelling Travolta to fork over millions to avoid embarrassment … or worse. This led us to suspect that a 2006 National Enquirer story featuring a photo of Travolta kissing the aforementioned Jeff, who discovered his son’s body, was really what caused the trauma he cited. Especially since this photo, which went viral during this period, was supplemented by tabloid reports outing Jeff not only as not being a registered nurse but also as having no qualifications to care for a chronically ill child….

This is the context in which I am commenting on the claims two masseurs are making now about the way Travolta propositioned them for sex during massage sessions earlier this year. Even though they do not know each other, both men are reportedly giving similar accounts of what transpired.

A lawyer joined their claims and filed a lawsuit against Travolta in Los Angeles on Tuesday for sexual battery, assault, and harassment. Below are excerpts from that filing:

Re: Doe Plaintiff No. 1

[Travolta] started to rub Doe Plaintiff No. 1’s leg, and Doe Plaintiff No.1 thought it was accidental… [Travolta] touched Doe Plaintiff No. 1’s scrotum and this time Doe Plaintiff No. 1 told [Travolta] to please not touch him again… [Travolta] then touched the shaft of Doe Plaintiff No. 1’s penis and seized upon it. [Travolta] quickly tried to rub the head of Doe Plaintiff No.1’s penis as he tried to pull away…

[Travolta] said, “Come on dude, I’ll jerk you off!!!!” [Travolta] penis fully erect … lumbered to his feet and began to move towards Doe Plaintiff No. 1 … telling Doe Plaintiff No. 1 how selfish he was; that [he, Travolta] got where he is now due to sexual favors he performed when he was in his Welcome Back Kotter days…

[Travolta] went on to say how he had done things in the past that would make most people throw up… that when he started out he wasn’t even gay and that the taste of cum would make him gag … that he was smart enough to learn to enjoy it, and when he began making millions of dollars, that it all became worth it… that the high-class in this world always favor same-sex relationships; that sex with beautiful, fit men is actually more intense and if Doe Plaintiff No. 1would just be open minded enough to let it happen, he would experience the best fucking of his life…

Re: Doe Plaintiff No. 2

[Travolta] suddenly turned on his stomach with his legs wide open with a full erection. He then tried to force Doe Plaintiff No. 2′s hand on [Travolta's] scrotum. Then, Travolta started to grab, rub and caress Doe Plaintiff No. 2′s upper thighs and buttocks… [Travolta] still had an erection and wanted his abdominals done, but [Travolta's] erection was in the way, and he refused to have his penis covered by a sheet or a pillow case cover… [Travolta] started masturbating with about 15 minutes left in the session, and Doe Plaintiff No.2, said he had to go.

Well, four immediate thoughts come to mind (consider it foreplay…):

1. To all of my female readers who are now recoiling with faux squeamishness and can’t wait to bitch at me for publishing such prurient details, I have only four words for you: Fifty Shades of Grey;
2. I have to think that the only reason Travolta behaved as alleged is that he’s accustomed to getting (and evidently giving) happy endings when he pays for massages;
3. For some reason I kept thinking of Tom Cruise instead of John Travolta as I read this; and
4. Travolta’s lawyer has released persuasive information showing that the actor was in NYC on the day (January 16, 2012) when Plaintiff Doe No. 1 claims his incident occurred in LA. But would it matter to anyone if the female victim of an alleged rape claims that it occurred on January 16 when, in fact, it occurred on January 15?  Travolta was in LA on January 15. Not to mention that this alibi, for what it’s worth, pertains only to one accuser.

Ironically, there seems to be an open media conspiracy to cast doubt on these truly sensational claims. Only this explains the absurdity of news organizations retaining TV lawyers to propagate the specious notion that, unless these plaintiffs have eyewitnesses to corroborate their stories, they have no case.

But they know full well that, except in rare cases (like Jerry Sandusky raping that boy in the shower at Penn State), sexual assaults are usually committed only when perpetrators are sure there are no eyewitnesses. Which is why such cases invariably turn on the credibility of he-said, she-said testimony (or, in this case, he-said, he-said).

Meanwhile, the media are also doing all they can to provide a platform for Travolta’s lawyer to trash the victims and threaten to sue them for defamation. But how often have you heard celebrities threatening to sue in situations like this but never doing so? Remember the public spectacle Ashton and Demi made of their threats to sue Star for reporting on his brazen extramarital affairs? Yet the only legal action they actually took was to file for divorce.

I am convinced that Travolta’s lawyer is acting pursuant more to a PR strategy than a legal one. Not least because I suspect Travolta would rather put a bullet through his head than appear in court - either to defend himself against these claims or to assert that he has been defamed by them. All he really wants now is to settle this lawsuit … on the down low.

The problem however is that just as many masseurs/men are now likely to come out of the woodwork with similar claims as the countless number of men who have come out to accuse Sandusky of molesting them too when they were kids. Lord knows there have been enough reports about Travolta cruising in this fashion.

More to the point, here is what the congenitally unfiltered Carrie Fisher (Princess Lea of Star Wars fame) said in a December 10, 2010 interview with Advocate.com about the gay rumors that have dogged him throughout his career :

Wow! I mean, my feeling about John has always been that we know and we don’t care. Look, I’m sorry that he’s uncomfortable with it, and that’s all I can say. It only draws more attention to it when you make that kind of legal fuss. Just leave it be.

To which I will only add this invariably true cliché: where there’s smoke there’s fire.

Related commentaries:
Tragic death of Travolta’s son…

* This commentary was originally published yesterday, May 10, at 1 pm

All of Washington waited with bated breath after word began to circulate around noon today that President Obama would soon be “making news” on same-sex marriage in a hastily arranged interview with ABC News.

Well, here’s the headline-making excerpt ABC released immediately:

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

Once he completed that very long, evolving sentence, one could hear the Hallelujahs all over city: with progressives hailing his statement as an historic step in favor of civil rights for gays and lesbians, and conservative hailing it as a godsend that will galvanize social conservatives who were heretofore expressing merely lukewarm support for Mitt Romney – who, despite his notorious flip-flopping on issues, at least opposes gay marriage with the “conviction” of a born-again Christian.

Except that I’m an avowed progressive and I heard little to cheer about. Instead, I was a little bothered when Obama stressed the words “for me personally.” And this feeling was only compounded later when I read the following in ABC’s online report on the interview:

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

I am extremely bothered because just imagine how Blacks would have felt if JFK had said, ”for me personally, Blacks should have full civil rights, but the (Southern) states [with their laws of racist interposition and nullification] should decide the issue on their own.”

Frankly, Obama’s statement reeks of cynicism. After all, unlike JFK, he is a Constitutional professor who knows that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the right to choose whom to love is a fundamental right with which no state can interfere.  (See Loving v. Virginia – in which the Court ruled way back in 1967 that it is a fundamental right to marry inter-racially.) Which rather undermines the assertion his statement constitutes a bold historic step. Not to mention that former Republican VP Dick Cheney took this political step years ago….

What’s more, apropos of interposition and nullification, Obama surely knows that more than 30 states have already passed laws banning this civil right for gays.  Hell, North Carolina did so just yesterday.

This is why I profoundly regret that he did not show a real profile in courage by declaring his intent to champion federal legislation to guarantee gays and lesbians the fundamental right to marry – just as JFK (and LBJ) did to guarantee Blacks the fundamental right to vote.

No doubt when other progressives, including gays and lesbians, get over the understandable euphoria Obama’s carefully calibrated words inspired, they will realize that his statement was more about electoral politics than civil rights. In this regard, he clearly stated his position in a way to avoid alienating conservative (Reagan) Democrats for whom even homosexual acts are an abomination. Which is why they think sanctioning such acts in holy matrimony amount to defiling the sanctity of marriage.

On the other hand, some will argue that this statement will cost him votes among Black Evangelicals and Hispanic Catholics. Not least because of the way they reacted to the simple ordination of America’s first gay bishop:

The dark little secret is that far too many Blacks (and Hispanics) are every bit as homophobic as right-wing Christian zealots. They demonstrated this in brazen fashion four years ago by voicing moral opposition to the ordination of gay bishop Gene Robinson…

What is ironic and, frankly, disappointing about this row [over the ordination of gay bishops] is that Blacks are using the same perverse religious and cultural rationalizations to discriminate against gays that Whites used to rationalize their discrimination against Blacks not so long ago.

(“California … Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage,” The iPINIONS Journal, May 28, 2009)

But, with good reason, Obama takes for granted that Blacks and Hispanics will vote for him no matter what position he takes on issues that matter to them (like inner-city crime, high  unemployment, chronic poverty, and illegal immigration).  So the only reason he could have for half-stepping on this issue is to curry favor with White Democratic and Independent voters….

Like Obama, I have many gay and lesbian friends. But here is why, unlike him, my support for same-sex marriage is Constitutional, not conditional:

I believe it is a self-evident truth that not allowing gays to marry is an even greater violation of the fundamental civil/equal rights all citizens should enjoy than not allowing Blacks to vote.

(“Same-Sex Marriage Now Legal in New York,” The iPINIONS Journal, June 27, 2011)

Related commentaries:
California … Upholds Ban…
Same-sex marriage now legal…

This commentary was originally published yesterday, May 9, at 3:56 pm

Here, in part, is the contrarian note I sounded last year when so many were celebrating the marriage of Prince Albert of Monaco and Olympic swimmer Charlene Wittstock of South Africa:

Reports are that she tried to flee three times to avoid having to go through with her three-day royal wedding…

Naturally, one wonders what could possibly have caused Charlene to flee. After all, she not only waited years for this big day, but knew all about his two illegitimate children and could not have had any illusions about his love for, or fidelity to, her…

I can’t help thinking that she could have avoided this patently loveless marriage if she really wanted. Are we to believe, for example, that her country’s Parisian embassy simply refused to give her refuge and safe passage back home … to South Africa? [Granted] Charlene’s family members have already become so vested in the perks and privileges that will redound to them by this marriage that running home would probably be  tantamount to facing a firing squad…

It hardly reflects well on her that the only thing her attempts to escape reportedly accomplished was to force Albert to renegotiate the financial terms of their prenuptial agreement; i.e., to make them more lucrative for her…

No doubt part of their arrangement is that she will produce a male heir ASAP; since Albert has already ruled out any chance of the illegitimate son he had with a black woman ascending Monaco’s Monegasque throne.

If there’s a God, Charlene will turn out to be barren.

(“Monaco’s Prince Albert Captures His Runaway Bride,” The iPINIONS Journal, July 5, 2011)

After reading the above, you can probably imagine the hate mail I got from people damning me: on the one hand, for pointing out what a royal racist Prince Albert is; and on the other, for praying that his reluctant bride would be unable to bear him a more suitable heir.

I found it ironic that so many of my critics defended Albert against my charge of racism by hurling racial epithets at me. I was particularly amused by their Eurocentric view that I was “just some nigger from America who knows nothing about European royalty.” But what royally pissed them off was my not-so-subtle insinuation that Albert was forced to offer a last-minute inducement (aka a bribe) to get Charlene to the altar.

Well, now comes my inevitable vindication. Because here, in part, is what the London Daily Mail reported on Friday about this arranged marriage:

Prince Albert of Monaco’s new wife Charlene Wittstock has become ‘depressed’ at her failure to provide her husband with a legitimate heir, it was claimed today. Princess Charlene is said to have struck a ‘deal’ with the principality’s playboy ruler to bear him a child after she tried to flee before their wedding last summer.

But the 33-year-old South African is now unable to get pregnant, France’s Voici magazine reported…

Charlene was said to have bolted for Nice airport two days before they married after hearing Albert had had a third love-child during their relationship. Monaco officials were said to have coaxed her back by brokering a deal between the Prince and his reluctant bride that she provide him with a legitimate heir.

After that she would be free to leave of her own free will.

Enough said?

Except that I should clarify: I don’t really want Charlene to be barren; I just don’t want her to help that venal husband of hers get away with foisting this crude marriage of convenience upon the people of Monaco as a legitimate royal family.

Related commentaries:
Monaco’s Prince Albert captures…

Even though we did not have the benefit of the type of scientific polling that made Sunday’s election results in France anticlimactic, the triumph of Hon. Perry Christie (left) and his Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) over Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham and his Free National Movement (FNM) in parliamentary elections yesterday came as no surprise. Preliminary results have the PLP winning 29 seats, the PLP only 9: a bona fide ass whopping!

No doubt a confluence of kitchen-table/pocket-book issues doomed the ruling FNM in The Bahamas just as it doomed the ruling party in France. But it’s interesting to note that Bahamian voters seemed just as motivated to get rid of the bombastic and arrogant Ingraham as French voters were to get rid of the bombastic and arrogant Sarkozy.

Ingraham wasted no time in announcing his ignominious retirement:

I shall return to the private life from whence I came.

(Nassau Guardian, May 7, 2012)

All the same, there’s no denying that the pandemic wrath of angry, dissatisfied and impatient voters played a decisive role. Which means that the PLP would do well to take heed lest it ends up after the next general election where the FNM is today.

For personal reasons I refrained from commenting on the campaigns that led up to Election Day and shall refrain now from commenting any further on the results.

Except that I feel constrained to lament the way Bahamian politicians are aping the behavior of their American counterparts. Because not so long ago electioneering in The Bahamas was a relatively genteel affair that seemed more like a series of festive (even if sometimes rowdy) family picnics than the polarizing, us-against-them spectacle it became this year.

For example, I don’t think any Bahamian could ever have imagined a day when FNM voters would become seized with such contempt and disrespect for the PLP that they would attack PLP leader Perry Christie and his wife by calling him a “sissy” to his face and spitting on her.

By the same token, I don’t think any Bahamian could ever have imagined a day when the preternaturally serene Lady Marguerite Pindling would instigate a public spat with PM Ingraham by insinuating that his mistreatment of Sir Lynden Pindling, her late husband and the father of our nation, was the proximate cause of Sir Lynden’s death. Hell, even in the United States former first ladies consider it beneath their dignity to wade into the rough-and-tumble of dirty politics.

Not surprisingly, Ingraham responded just as you’d expect a political snake who thrives in the gutter would: he dismissed her insinuation as coming from a disgruntled old woman who is upset over “losing the life of privilege she believes she’s entitled to live at the expense of the Bahamian people.” Ouch! But Lady Pindling will probably get the last laugh because she will undoubtedly prevail upon Christie (whom she treats like an adopted son) to do to Ingraham now what she claims Ingraham did to Sir Lynden upon his retirement….

I appreciate that we won independence almost 40 years ago. But we would do well to retain the polite legacy the British left us when it comes to political campaigns instead of adopting the mean-spirited spectacle that characterizes political campaigns in the United States.

Anyway, congratulations to the PM-Elect Perry Christie and the PLP.

NOTE: Members of the new Democratic National Alliance (DNA) party can be forgiven for wanting to pack it in after failing to win a single seat … not even that of its leader, Branville McCartney. But after licking their wounds, I hope they regroup and continue the yeoman work of building their party. Not least because the same fickle electorate that threw out the FNM could well decide at the next election that it’s time to end the two-party monopoly the FNM and PLP have enjoyed throughout our history.

Virtually every poll this year had Socialist Francois Hollande defeating conservative (incumbent) Nicolas Sarkozy. And those polls were vindicated when Hollande came out on top in the first round of elections for the Elysée two weeks ago. This is why it came as no surprise when he handily defeated Sarkozy in a runoff yesterday (52 to 48 percent).

Now, to enhance his story, the media (even in France) are propagating a narrative about Hollande rising up from virtual obscurity to become only the second socialist president in French history. (His mentor François Mitterrand was the first to be elected in 1981.)  But Hollande is not nearly as unknown as reports suggest. Not least because he presided as Socialist Party leader for over a decade and was involved in one of the most intimate and scandalous political power struggles in French history.

Here, in part, is why his rise to power was more accidental than obscure:

Every French newspaper is emblazoned with headlines about the intriguing split between Segolene Royal, the Socialist candidate I endorsed in last month’s French presidential election, and Francois Hollande, the leader of the Socialist Party… [T]hese two have been ‘partners’ forever (30 years) and have four children, but never bothered to marry….

(Royal claims that she ended their relationship because Hollande was having an affair with journalist Valerie Trierweiler. Never mind reports that she has been a consenting, though frigid, party to this ménage a trois for years.) But what intrigues me about this split is not the announcement of it… Instead, I’m intrigued by the apparent fact that Royal’s resounding defeat precipitated not only the dissolution of her and Hollande’s personal relationship but also the termination of their political partnership.

Moreover, as if this split were not already sensational enough, the French are salivating with prurient anticipation now that Royal has declared her (woman-scorned) intent to challenge Hollande for leadership of the Socialist Party – a position he has held like political Svengali for 10 years.

(“Segolene Royal and Francois Hollande divorce French Style,” The iPINIONS Journal, June 19, 2007)

Incidentally, the woman standing next to Hollande during his victory celebration last night was his former mistress, now acknowledged “companion,” Valerie — which must make his former companion Segolene doubly green with envy. (Sarkozy’s supermodel wife Carla Bruni might have been a pushy, self-absorbed shrew, but at least he had the decency to make an honest woman of her. It remains to be seen if Hollande will do the same for Valerie – who by all accounts is an equally pushy, self-absorbed shrew.)  But his patently unconventional private life, coupled with his bona fide status as a member of  the French elite, clearly makes a mockery of his claim that he is “Mr. Normal.”

At any rate, it was hardly surprising that everyone wrote Hollande’s political obituary after his embarrassing split with Royal forced him to resign as party leader. Likewise, after her disastrous performance against Sarkozy in 2007, nobody thought Royal stood a snowballs chance in hell of upsetting an incumbent Sarkozy in 2012.  But there’s no denying that they were being written off in each case because IMF head Dominique Strauss-Khan (DSK) was waiting in the wings like a deus ex machina to lead the Socialist Party against Sarkozy.

Which brings me to the accidental aspect of Hollande’s rise. Because here, in short, is how DSK destroyed what seemed to be the hope of all of France for his candidacy:

DSK … was yanked from his first-class seat on board an Air France flight last night just as it was about to depart New York bound for Paris. Detectives from New York’s Special Victims Unit arrested and charged him with a criminal sex act, attempted rape, and unlawful imprisonment.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is probably just as gratified as DSK’s silent victims by this arrest. After all, the consensus opinion among political pundits in France was that he was the only person who could deny Sarkozy’s bid to get re-elected next year.

(“The Arrest of IMF Head Dominique Strauss-Khan,” The iPINIONS Journal, May 16, 2011)

Even though Hollande and Royal’s personal relationship was clearly over, DSK’s arrest provided the opportunity for them to settle the unfinished business of their political relationship. And since they were still among the most popular members of the socialist party, they threw their hats into last fall’s Socialist Party presidential primary, which was also contested by four others. Alas, Royal did not even make the runoff, which Hollande easily won against Martine Aubry.

Meanwhile, disaffected and disillusioned voters were throwing out nine European leaders who prescribed austerity measures as the bitter pill to cure their ailing economies and manage their  debt crisis . Nowhere was this demonstrated in more foreboding fashion for Sarkozy than in Greece with the unceremonious fall of Prime Minister George Papandreou last November.

After all, Sarkozy was not just Europe’s poster boy for the cocktail of austerity measures (most notably cutting public benefits and government services) that have become so universally unpopular, he and Chancellor Angel Merkel of Germany effectively concocted them.

On the other hand, Hollande predicated his candidacy on a completely different panacea, focusing more on increasing government spending and raising taxes (on the filthy rich) to stimulate economic growth than on cutting services (to the chronically poor) to lower government debt. He even pledged to renegotiate the Sarkozy-Merkel debt-reduction “fiscal pact,” mocking it by offering a government-spending “growth pact” instead.

I am sure that when the result was announced, in many European countries there was relief, hope and the notion that finally austerity can no longer be the only option. And this is the mission that is now mine — to give the European project a dimension of growth, employment, prosperity, in short, a future.

(Hollande, Associated Press, May 6, 2012)

Given voter anger and frustration with austerity measures that are doing little to improve the economy but lots to make their lives more miserable, I predict Hollande will have far greater success in this mission than most pundits are predicting. He will be championing the economic stimulus philosophy made famous by John Maynard Keynes while Merkel will continue to champion the economic austerity philosophy made famous by Friedrich Hayek.

I applaud Obama for finally proposing a Keynesian jobs bill that focuses more on government spending to rebuild the country’s infrastructure and improve other areas (like education and law enforcement).

(“Rational Markets vs. Keynesian economics,” The iPINIONS Journal, September 23, 2011)

More to the point, notwithstanding the cogency of his economic philosophy, Hollande will win his battle of wits with Merkel because – as Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman said of now presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney – most politicians are little more than perfectly lubricated weathervanes on all important issues.

Accordingly, there’s no doubt that national leaders will be doing all they can to avoid Sarkozy’s fate by espousing (even implementing) as many of Hollande’s policies as possible. And those hoping to defeat incumbents will be doing all they can to emulate Hollande.

Interestingly enough, this latter prospect is already on display. Because Romney wasted no time in trying to spin Hollande’s victory as the triumph of a challenger over an incumbent whose economic policies have failed. Except that Romney has spent the last year promising to implement many of the same economic policies (i.e., austerity measures) that led to Sarkozy’s demise. Whereas, President Obama has been battling a doctrinaire Republican Congress throughout his entire presidency (to no avail) to implement the very measures Hollande hopes to implement pursuant to his growth pact.

Therefore, despite Romney’s attempts to put the curse of incumbency on Obama, I have no doubt that Sarkozy’s defeat is a bad omen for him, not the president.

That said, his defeat in France and the defeat of the two main political parties in Greece (all for backing the Sarkozy-Merkel austerity measures) will undoubtedly trigger upheaval in the financial markets worldwide … in the short term.  After all, Sarkozy and Merkel effectively imposed these measures upon the Greeks not just as a condition to receive a financial package to ward off economic default, but also to prevent their contagion from infecting the rest of Europe. Now all bets are off….

Apropos of bets, this is bound to be a down day on Wall Street since traders in the United States invariably react to every sign of economic uncertainty in Europe as if it were the beginning of a new Great Depression. This is the domino effect globalization – with its interconnectedness and interdependence – has wrought.

Related commentaries:
Segolene and Hollande…
Arrest of DSK…
Rational Markets vs. Keynesian economics

Cinco de Mayo is a holiday that purportedly celebrates the victory of a ragtag band of some 4,000 Mexicans fighters over 8,000 French soldiers on May 5, 1862.

But this historic feat seems lost on most people of Mexican heritage in the United States who mark the occasion by celebrating their culture — much in the drunken and carousing way people of Irish heritage celebrate St Patrick’s Day.

Alas, in recent years, the debate on illegal immigration  (complete with street protests) has overshadowed all that Mexican Americans have to celebrate; not least because it invariably conjures up menacing images of swarms of poor Mexicans crossing the border.

Interestingly enough, according to a 23 April report in the Washington Post, for the first time since the Great Depression, more Mexicans are leaving the United States voluntarily than entering illegally.

So instead of continuing their indignant protests in support of their illegal brothers and sisters, perhaps my Mexican-American friends will now channel more of that energy towards celebrating their culture. And there’s no better way to do that than to use this holiday to remind Anglos of the things we all love about Mexico: tequila, Acapulco, tequila, Chichen Itza, tequila, los mariachis, tequila, Diego Rivera, tequila, Cancun, tequila, fajitas, and much more….

Now the United States must decide whether to hand him over (as China is demanding), grant him indefinite refuge (as every human rights organization is urging), or negotiate a mutually face-saving compromise worthy of King Solomon (as both countries are undoubtedly trying to do)…

(“Dissident leaves U.S. Embassy in China,” The iPINIONS Journal, May 3, 2012)

It’s an indication of how conceited and myopic Americans are that the media here are hailing a “breakthrough” deal between the United States and China to allow Chen Guangcheng, the blind human rights activist at the center of what has become an international incident, to apply for a fellowship at New York University.  And we all know that once in the United States he will never set foot in China again.

This might be the Solomon-like, face-saving compromise both countries need to put this incident behind them, but I don’t see how it advances the cause of human rights in China.

Frankly, this is rather like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. seeking asylum in the Soviet Union for himself and his family at the height of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, and having the Soviet Union and the United States broker a deal for him to be granted a fellowship at Moscow University.

Does anyone believe this would have advanced the cause of black civil rights in America?  And just imagine how the self-righteous Americans would have felt if the Soviets were trumpeting this as a grand gesture to advance the cause of human rights over here?

More to the point, though, what message does this Chen deal send to all of the other dissidents now living under daily threats of even greater reprisals in China…? Is the United States going to provide asylum/fellowships for all of them; and if so, what will become of the human rights movement there if all China has to do is roundup troublemakers like Chen and ship them off to America – the way Cuba did with its troublemakers decades ago?

Far from a human rights deal to be hailed, this is a diplomatic farce to be condemned !

Related commentaries:
Dissident leaves…

I usually reserve updates to my commentaries for the annual compilation I publish in book form. Therefore, it is rather ironic that this is my second update this week. Here, in part, is what I wrote about this still-unfolding saga two days ago:

Why continue the trade embargo against Cuba but trade with China? The answer of course is obvious. But the United States is now being hoisted by its own petard over the moral hypocrisy inherent in its relationship with China. Because just last week one of China’s most famous dissidents, Chen Guangcheng, sought refuge in the U.S. embassy in Beijing.

[I]nstead of asylum, Chen is merely seeking U.S. guarantees of safety and freedom of movement as he continues his human rights crusade in China. But he is naive and sadly misguided if he thinks the United States can honor such guarantees… Now the United States must decide whether to hand him over (as China is demanding), grant him indefinite refuge (as every human rights organization is urging), or negotiate a mutually face-saving compromise worthy of King Solomon (as both countries are undoubtedly trying to do)…

[A]nalysts are also predicting a full-scale diplomatic freeze between the United States and China when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives in Beijing tomorrow for previously scheduled meetings. I disagree; not least because China has always proselytized the pragmatic philosophy that human rights issues should never interfere with the conduct of business between nations.

(“Blind Dissident Seeks Refuge at U.S. Embassy in China,” The iPINIONS Journal, May 1, 2012)

Well, reports are that, after six days, Chen left the embassy today “of his own volition” to seek medical treatment at a local hospital.

Since he allegedly declared that he had no interest in seeking asylum his presence there must have been just a pain in the ass for the United States. Indeed, I have no doubt that embassy officials were far more eager to hand him over for treatment than Chen was to receive whatever treatment he may have needed.

Therefore, I suspect this hospital compromise, although hardly worthy of King Solomon, is just a way for both sides to save face. For it beggars belief that the United States did not have the means to provide comprehensive treatment at the embassy.

But everybody knows how sensitive, defensive, and reactionary China is on human rights. Therefore, it would be foolish and ironic (i.e., hypocritical given its embargo against Cuba) for the United States to jeopardize their long-established economic ties and budding geostrategic alliances (especially with respect to North Korea and Iran) just to protect or rescue this one quixotic dissident.

Accordingly, the United States is claiming that it did not betray Chen or its values by handing him over to China, and that it will “remain engaged with Mr. Chen and his family in the days, weeks and years to come.” Whereas China is claiming that it prevailed upon the United States to hand him over and it is demanding an apology from the United States for its “interference in China’s internal affairs.”

In reality, the United States will avoid any further contact with Chen like the plague (and made a point of warning that even the temporary refuge it granted him was “exceptional” to discourage other dissidents). And China will settle for just looking tough by demanding the apology; which it knows it will never get, but this incident gives it an opportunity to shove its pro-forma defense to all claims of human rights abuses by foreigners in the face of the most powerful nation on earth.

Most important for both countries, however, is that this well-orchestrated handover allowed today’s business meetings between Secretary of State Clinton and Chinese officials to begin as scheduled without the distraction of this human rights issue.

But it’s only a matter of time before this dissident becomes a cause celebre for human rights activists around the world. And no matter attempts by the United States to wash its hands of him, his fate will continue to serve as Exhibit A for the hypocritical, transactional values that govern its relationship with China.

In fact, Chen – who, according to late-breaking reports, now wants asylum not just for himself but his whole family – is now accusing the United States of betraying not just him but  its professed values: talk about being hoisted by its own petard.

Alas, pigs will fly before China allows this poor, misguided (perhaps even misled) crusader out of its sights … again; so asylum now is just a pipe dream. Moreover, here is why no country, not even the United States, will risk bilateral fallout with China over Chen:

The United States and Europe [not to mention developing countries from Asia to Latin America] are now becoming as dependent on China’s cash as they are on Mideast oil.

(“Countries Queuing Up to Become As Indebted  to China As the U.S. Is,” The iPINIONS Journal, September 15, 2011)

He who pays the piper….

Related commentaries:
Blind Dissident Seeks Refuge…
Countries queuing up…

This commentary was originally published yesterday, May 2, at 6:18 pm

I’m on record not just opposing President Obama’s decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, but calling for an end to it long before he became president. But the only thing I consider worse than his efforts to exploit the killing of Osama bin Laden for political gain is the patently disingenuous and hypocritical way Republicans are criticizing him for similar gain.

More to the point, though, since nothing surrounding the perverse marking of this anniversary is worthy of comment, I shall suffice to mark it by reprising What Now is the Best Way to Fight the War on Terrorism? - the commentary I wrote about the actual event a year ago (May 3, 2011).  

————————-

 

The killing of Osama bin Laden has policy makers in the United States finally debating in earnest about what is the best way to fight the war on terrorism. And, in a similar vein, they are wondering whether this pivotal development provides an expedient pretext for President Obama to accelerate the timetable he has laid out for withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

On this second point, I took a friendly wager with an old friend who was persuaded by all he was hearing from high-profile politicians and pundits about Obama seizing this moment to declare victory and bring the troops home. I knew better.

Among other things, I argued that doing so would force Obama to concede that he was wrong when he ordered a troop surge in 2009. And, sure enough, within 24 hours of making our wager, White House spokesman Jay Carney announced that there would be no change in Obama’s timetable. Obama himself then made a definitive declaration in this respect during an interview on 60 Minutes last night.

But, frankly, it has been patently clear to me from day one that killing not just bin Laden, but every member of al-Qaeda would have no material impact on America’s ill-fated mission-creep to build an Afghanistan that can “govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself” (against a resurgent Taliban).

Apropos of this, here are a few excerpts from previous commentaries which confirm the dissenting voice I sounded when, instead of changing course when he became president, Obama doubled down on Bush’s misguided strategy:

Accordingly, the U.S. legacy there will be distinguished either by a terminally wounded national pride – as American forces beat a hasty retreat in defeat (following the Russian precedent in Afghanistan), or by tens of thousands of American soldiers being lost in Afghanistan’s “graveyard of empires” – as they continue fighting this unwinnable war (following America’s own precedent in Vietnam)… More troops only mean more sitting ducks for Taliban fighters.

Not to mention the prevailing fallacy that America must wage war in Afghanistan because it (still) constitutes the central front in the war against al-Qaeda. After all, for the past six years the Bush administration prosecuted the war in Iraq as if it were the central front in this war.

Moreover, there’s no denying that the last vestiges of al-Qaeda are now so splintered that they are just as likely to be found in Pakistan, Somalia or, indeed, in the United States, which makes the strategy for taking them on in Afghanistan patently misguided.

Therefore, Obama would be well-advised to cut America’s losses and run ASAP; to let the Afghans govern themselves however they like; and to rely on Special Forces and aerial drones to “disrupt and dismantle” Taliban and al-Qaeda operations there [and elsewhere].

(“Without (or even with) more forces, failure in Afghanistan is likely,” The iPINIONS Journal, September 23, 2009)

Unfortunately, this means that troops are bound to be returning home in body bags throughout his entire presidency. Because, given the military quagmire Afghanistan has become, sending 20 (or even 40) thousand additional troops amounts to the proverbial tossing of a 50-foot life line to a man drowning 100 feet away.

(“Picture of Obama saluting war dead the defining image of his presidency?” The iPINIONS Journal, October 30, 2009)

Now, on the first point (i.e., about the most effective way to fight the war on terrorism going forward), Obama using Special Forces to take out bin Laden, as well as using drones with even greater frequency than Bush to attack other terrorists where they live, actually vindicates the following:

Instead of a surge in troops to emulate Bush’s strategy in Iraq, his new strategy [should] call for withdrawing most troops and relying on Special Forces and aerial drones to continue the hunt.

(“With or even without more forces, failure in Afghanistan is likely,” The iPINIONS Journal, September 23, 2009)

I hereby reiterate this as the best strategy for Obama to follow: let Special Forces go in and get the terrorists wherever they live and “then get the hell out” – as CIA Director Leon Panetta reportedly told the Navy Seals who went into Pakistan to get bin Laden to do. And it is not lost on me that – in as much as Obama is duly concerned about doing anything that might be used as a recruiting tool for terrorists – the sensational killing of bin Laden will be used as a terrific recruiting tool for U.S. Special Forces.

NOTE: This is one of those rare events that is actually deserving of all of the coverage it has gotten. As my related commentaries will attest, I have written quite a bit on the war on terrorism. Particularly noteworthy is a commentary I wrote entitled, Please spare us the al-Qaeda obituaries. In any event, this is my last commentary on this war … until (a reelected) Obama declares victory as scheduled in 2014.

Related commentaries:
Please spare us the al-Qaeda obits…
Afghanistan: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
Support the Draft to prevent stupid wars
Picture of Obama saluting war dead…
Without (or even with) more forces…
Karzai submits to runoff election

My only concern is that China acts like a parent who seems to think her only duty is to feed and clothe her child – all guidance about and regard for right and wrong be damned…

The one thing every brutal dictator who fell during the Arab Spring could count on was China’s tacit, and sometimes overt, support… It behooves the black countries of Africa and the Caribbean that are sucking up to China these days as a more generous Sugar Daddy than the United States to appreciate that if the Apartheid government of South Africa were still in power China would have no qualms about doing business with it too.

(“China’s Deficit: No Moral Authority to Lead,” The iPINIONS Journal, November 16, 2011)

I wrote the above as part of a commentary warning (developed and undeveloped) countries about blithely entering into loan-sharking relationships with China.  But China’s amoral conduct in foreign relations is salutary compared to its conduct in domestic relations – as Tiananmen Square and a litany of other civil and human rights abuses will attest.

Which begs the question: why continue the trade embargo against Cuba but trade with China? The answer of course is obvious. But the United States is now being hoisted by its own petard over the moral hypocrisy inherent in its relationship with China.

Because just last week one of China’s most famous dissidents, Chen Guangcheng, sought refuge in the U.S. embassy in Beijing. Chen is a lawyer who had been under house arrest for exposing the horrors of forced abortions and sterilizations pursuant to the government’s notorious one-child policy.

Now the United States must decide whether to hand him over (as China is demanding), grant him indefinite refuge (as every human rights organization is urging), or negotiate a mutually face-saving compromise worthy of King Solomon (as both countries are undoubtedly trying to do).

Apropos of a compromise, reports are that, instead of asylum, Chen is merely seeking U.S. guarantees of safety and freedom of movement as he continues his human rights crusade in China. But he is naive and sadly misguided if he thinks the United States can honor such guarantees. Because the only thing it has the power to do is pay lip service and offer paper guarantees in this respect.

So if Chen insists on staying in China, the United States will have no choice but to hand him over to China’s own devices. His blindness clearly elevates not only the moral imperative but also the humanitarian pathos inherent in this standoff. This is why resolving it to his satisfaction will be so difficult, if not impossible.

Of course, one can be forgiven for thinking that the United States will simply hand Chen over the way it did the Chongqing police chief who sought asylum just a few months ago. But the United States can fairly distinguish that case by arguing that, far from being a political prisoner or dissident, this chief was actually trying to avoid the political and legal consequences of his role in the still-unfolding corruption scandal and murder mystery involving the erstwhile most popular politician in China, Bo Xilai.

Some Western analysts are proffering that if former President Reagan could negotiate the release of political prisoner Natan Sharansky from a gulag in the Soviet Union, surely President Obama can negotiate refuge for this political dissident.

Except that Reagan had Soviet spies in U.S. custody to trade for Sharansky. By contrast, there’s probably nothing Obama can offer to help China save face after allowing this internationally acclaimed blind man to escape house arrest in Shandong province and make it 300 miles to the U.S. embassy in Beijing….

These analysts are also predicting a full-scale diplomatic freeze between the United States and China when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives in Beijing tomorrow for previously scheduled meetings. I disagree; not least because China has always proselytized the pragmatic philosophy that human rights issues should never interfere with the conduct of business between nations.

All the same, it speaks volumes about what China as a superpower portends that the United States is having to go back to the future to deal with it today the way it dealt with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Related commentaries:
China deficit…
China’s purging of Bo Xilai

President Obama kicked off his re-election campaign yesterday with a fundraiser in my neck of the woods featuring none other than Bill Clinton. And why not; after all, the public rapport and repartee between these two have been such lately that one could be forgiven for thinking that Clinton had replaced Biden as Obama’s running mate.

All indications are that Clinton will be the VIP member of team Obama this year. But I feel constrained to pooh-pooh any impression that the two have kissed and made up since their nasty political death match during the 2008 presidential campaign, during which Clinton (as Hillary’s campaigner-in-chief) essentially called Obama an uppity Negro and Obama essentially called Clinton a red-neck racist.  Because nothing could be further from the truth.

Instead what is playing out between them is a political marriage of convenience:

Obama needs Clinton to woo (Reagan) Democrats who favored Hillary and only voted for him begrudgingly, but whose disgruntlement with the slow economic recovery and escalating debt crisis has them thinking that Romney might be preferable to Obama for the same reasons they thought Reagan was preferable to Carter.  Not to mention being able to use Clinton to access all of the donors who have made the Clinton Global Initiative a multi-billion dollar cash cow.

Clinton needs Obama because he knows that his re-election would give Hillary the best chance at being elected president in 2016.  Because it’s far better to run on the coattails of an incumbent Obama than to run against an incumbent Mitt Romney.  And I have no doubt that, despite her coy denials, Hillary plans to run again….

Beyond this, I feel constrained to also pooh-pooh the narrative being propagated by (white) Democratic pundits about Clinton spoon feeding talking points to Obama to help him make his case for re-election.

This was demonstrated in brazen fashion last week when former Clinton press secretary (and die-hard Hillary supporter) Dee Dee Meyers asserted that Obama’s line about a chasm growing between ordinary Republicans and the Republican Party was “vintage Bill Clinton.”  For this is belied by the argument Obama has been making for over a year now about the Republican Party lurching so far to the right that Ronald Reagan himself could not win a Republican primary today.

As for needing Clinton to feed him talking points, this narrative is ironic to the point of being laughable when one remembers that Clinton could not come up with enough talking points to help his own wife defeat Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Clearly Obama does not need to be spoon fed words to make his case.

Then there’s this annoying attempt to squeeze more cash out of me by inviting me to attend this fundraiser for the “opportunity” to meet Obama and Clinton:

Anthony –

This Sunday, President Obama and former President Bill Clinton will be in McLean, Virginia, for a reception and an opportunity to meet with dedicated supporters like you.

Time is running out to reserve your seat at this event. We don’t want you to miss it, so consider this a nudge….

The problem is that I did not need a nudge because I have already donated all I intend to give to help re-elect Obama. You’d think team Obama would have some way of tracking long-established donors like me to avoid nickel and diming us with e-mail solicitations every week.

Hell, it’s only April and I’m already treating every e-mail from Obama-Biden as SPAM. I don’t see how they expect to rekindle that 2008 fire by throwing a wet blanket on the enthusiasm of supporters like me.

As for the invitation itself, ever since working on the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign in 1996 – with all of the pre-Monica disillusionment that entailed, I’ve wanted to attend an open campaign event about as much as I’ve wanted to roll around in the mud with pigs.

The event is being hosted at the McLean, Va., home of Terry McAuliffe, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and personal friend of the Clinton family.

Reflecting a fundraising arms race among the candidates, price tags for the venue are hefty. Five hundred supporters are expected to attend the reception, with tickets starting at $1,000 a person. The Obama campaign says 80 will be present for the banquet, with individual donations of $20,000 donation necessary for that event

McAuliffe tells ABC News the evening will bring in over $3 million combined

(ABC News, April 29, 2012)

Ironically enough, I attended a similar event in 1996 at this same home when McAuliffe was my boss, serving as the National Finance Director for the Clinton-Gore re-election team.

UPDATE (11 am)

Adding insult to my growing disaffection, none other than Barack himself just sent me this solicitation that, frankly, I would have expected more from Ed MaMahon pitching his patently rigged Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes than from a president raising money to fund his re-election campaign:

Anthony –

In a few days, I’ll be hitting the trail for my last campaign.

Everything we’ve accomplished in the past three years — and our chance to do so much more — is on the line.

What we do today will be a measure of whether or not we’re ready to fight for it.

Donate $190 or whatever you can before tonight’s fundraising deadline.

By pitching in before midnight, you’ll automatically be in the running to join me and George Clooney at his place on May 10th. It’s not often I can get away from work, so I look forward to spending a fun evening in L.A. with a couple supporters like you.

In the meantime, let’s close out this deadline strong:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Midnight-Deadline

Thanks,

Barack

I can’t make this stuff up folks….

UPDATE II (9:06 pm)

This is now bordering on harassment:  After Barack’s e-mail at 11, I received another solicitation from Ann Marie Habershaw, Chief Operating Officer - Obama for America, at 4:46 pm. Now this:

Anthony –

There are two ways to look at it: This is yet another email from the campaign in your inbox. Or this email is making our organization stronger.

Grassroots support, especially online, is how we compete with our opponents. And we won’t win without it.

If you’ve got a few bucks to spare, mind chipping in before midnight?

https://donate.barackobama.com/Midnight-Deadline

THANK YOU.

Rufus

Rufus Gifford
National Finance Director
Obama for America

P.S. — Last call for the chance to fly to L.A. to meet President Obama at George Clooney’s house. Enter here — deadline is midnight.

Don’t these campaign finance people have better things to do than sit around all day writing and sending out demonstrably useless e-mail solicitations? Does this obvious disorganization/carelessness reflect badly on Obama, or is it just me?

Whatever the case, it seems not only desperate but also clueless that these nincompoops would think that, after ignoring their pleas to participate in a sweepstakes for a chance to meet Obama and Bill Clinton in his own neighborhood,  any (heterosexual) man would jump at the chance to participate in one to fly way the hell to California for a chance to meet Obama and George Clooney. Insulting is not the word….

Yesterday the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone in The Hague convicted former Liberian President Charles Taylor of 11 counts of aiding and abetting all manner of crimes against humanity, including murder and rape.  This conviction practically guarantees that he will spend the rest of his life in prison.

But I predicted his fate would be thus:

As a warlord, Taylor commanded rebel forces who raped, tortured, and killed indiscriminately on their march to power. And as president of Liberia, he aided, abetted, and traded (guns for diamonds) with warlords in Sierra Leone whose rebel forces did there what his did in Liberia…

So here’s to the fate that awaits Charles Taylor (think Slobodan, not Saddam). And let’s hope that his capture puts all despots (like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe) on notice that their day of reckoning is drawing nigh. Because Taylor today, Kony tomorrow? Who knows for whom the bell will toll in due course?

(“Good News: Charles Taylor captured,” The iPINIONS Journal, March 31, 2006)

This second paragraph on the precedent Taylor’s capture would/should set is particularly noteworthy. Because here is how the BBC parroted this notion yesterday in its report on Taylor’s conviction:

The indictment of Charles Taylor took war crimes jurisprudence to a new level, establishing the principle that a serving head of state was not immune from prosecution.

The later indictments by the International Criminal Court of Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir and former Ivory Coast leader Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast are a testament to the significance of the Taylor precedent.

I take exception, however, to reports (like the BBC’s) which suggest that this precedent only applies to African despots.  Indeed, you’ll note that I cited the precedent set by the prosecution of the European despot Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia when I wrote about the good news of Taylor’s indictment and capture. (The only reason Taylor now has the unenviable distinction of being the first head of state to be convicted by an international war crimes tribunal is that Milosevic died during his trial before the inevitable guilty verdict could be rendered.)

Frankly, it seems an egregious oversight that the BBC did not even mention Vladimir Putin of Russia. After all, this news organization has been in the vanguard of those reporting on how Putin is aiding and abetting all manner of crimes against humanity in Syria today just as Taylor did in Sierra Leone:

On 10 January, a Russian cargo ship loaded with containers from the country’s main arms exporter made an unscheduled stop at the port of Limassol in Cyprus…

A well-placed source has confirmed to the BBC that it was carrying tons of ammunition destined for the Syrian security forces which stand accused of committing atrocities against their own people, killing and torturing thousands since the uprising began last year.

(BBC, January 30, 2012)

Which clearly begs the question: if Taylor of Liberia can be hauled to The Hague and tried for aiding and abetting atrocities that were committed in Sierra Leone, why shouldn’t Putin of Russia face the same fate for aiding and abetting similar atrocities now being committed in Syria?

Of course, the UN has a dubious record of sanctioning the relatively powerless for things the powerful do with impunity. (Consider, for example, the way Obama of the United States has gotten away with violating Pakistan’s sovereignty for years by launching drone missiles into its territory at will, killing suspected terrorists and innocent civilians alike.) This is why I have no doubt that Putin will get a pass; whereas it’s only a matter of time before Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ends up in The Hague.

Related commentaries:
Charles Taylor captured