"The Mellowing of William Jefferson Clinton"

An amazing article in the NYTimes Magazine by Peter Baker, I recommend everyone to give it a look. It really gives you a look inside Clinton's life and mind as he is further and further from his time as President. Check it out.

And just for fun, here is a favorite photo of the man himself:

A new approach to Israel-Palestine doomed to fail?

A very important shift is occurring under the Obama Administration in America's approach to the everlasting Israel-Palesetine peace/conflict process. To a degree unseen in recent history, the President is taking a forceful line on Israel, demanding it to adhere to its various commitments under international agreements such as the Road Map. Hillary Clinton's comment that Americans intend to "press the point" that Israel must halt all settlement activity is definitely a radical departure from the Bush Administration's unwavering acceptance of Israeli politices. It wil be interesting to see if Obama will be able to sustain this approach in the face of the pro-Israel lobby, which surely will be motivated to act in response to what the Guardian calls the lowest point in US-Israel relations in two decades.

The ironic aspect of the new, and in my opinion, superior, United States approach is that in terms of the peace process, both Israel and Palestine are in the worst shape in recent history. Netanyahu's new government is heavily influenced by the far-right policies of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, as seen by their recent moves to impose a loyalty oath on Israeli Arabs and punish commemoration of the Nakba (mourning over the Palestinian displacement in 1948) with a three-year jail term. It is difficult to see how Palestinians would be willing to negotiate with an Israeli side that has still not expressed support for a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel, not to mention potentially engaging in discrimination against Arabs in violation of their Basic Laws.

Palestinians are also severely weakened in their ability to work towards peace. The difficulties arising from the division between Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in West Bank are well-known and at this time seem intractable. A Hamas-Fatah unity government is unlikely to materialize, and even if it were created, would cause Israel to immediately leave the negotiating table. Furthermore, Abbas' own movement has voiced no confidence in his current government, causing friction within the West Bank. An unstable and fractious Palestinian leadership will be unable to gather the support to even begin substantive negotiations, let alone present a set of coherent and persuasive demands towards a "final status" deal.

Whether Obama's more engaged approach will yield peace dividends requires time, patience and bold ideas between Israel and Palestine--things that both sides don't seem to have these days.

Tweet tweet?

So I have to admit, I have been curious and a bit dumbfounded by the Twitter craze over the last couple months. I had heard a lot about it, but never really checked it out...until now. I must admit that I had been very confused by Twitter: is it a place to share unimportant details of one's everyday lives (e.g. AIM away messages and G-chat status), a source of pithy insight and inspiring (or cliche) quotes, or merely a venue where extensive use of online short-form ("lol ill brb b4 u no it tweet tweet tweet") is not only appropriate but encouraged. I really don't know, it's probably so popular because it's all of the above.

I guess I'm still confused. I'm pretty sure that the rise of Twitter signifies the end of complex thinking and writing, a massive increase in people's attention-deficit, a further movement towards a media system that displaces facts with opinions, and perhaps the downfall of intelligent and informed society. But it's also very cool to me, at least for now.

So here you go: http://www.twitter.com/flonard

Bachmann Strikes Again!

Representative Michele Bachmann is back with some more delving insight, commenting on how she found it an "interesting coincidence" that the last outbreak of swine flu happened under another Democratic president, Jimmy Carter. The Republican representative from Minnesota is perhaps the darling of blogs, and the source of many late-night TV jokes, from calling Barack Obama and other Congressmen anti-American to naming the expanded AmeriCorps as "youth re-education camps".

As Jon Stewart notes below (around 2 minutes in), the last outbreak of swine flu actually occurred during Gerald Ford's term as President.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Snoutbreak '09 - What to Call Swine Flu
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

More on Specter

The NYTimes has a good little discussion on its website about what type of Democrat Arlen Specter will turn out to be. A couple quotes that indicate to me that this move by Specter is a potential gamechanger, and really exemplifies the current declining state of the GOP.

"The sclerotic far-right has a death-grip on the Republican Party. Meanwhile, a third party has emerged within the Democratic party. Moderate “Rockefeller Republicans” in the North, like Senator Specter and, arguably, Joseph Lieberman, Democrats like Bobby Bright in the South and Jon Tester and Max Baucus in the Rocky Mountains have brought independents into the Democratic Big Tent...Senator Specter’s switch is based on shrewd politics, on unique voting factors in Pennsylvania. But his move is good for America." (Rachel Kleinfeld)

"Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele today mocked what he called Mr. Specter’s “left-wing record.” But the claim that Senator Specter is “liberal,” “left-wing” or even “moderate” reflects how far to the right both the G.O.P. and our overall political spectrum has shifted." (Glenn Greenwald)

"Senator Specter’s statement noted that he has been a Republican since 1966. If he were just starting out his political career today, does anyone doubt that he would be a Democrat? In 1966, Republicans were the more socially liberal of the two parties and the G.O.P. had plenty of room for politicians who were skeptical of tax cuts and friendly to new government programs." (Ramesh Ponnuru)

Specter's Big Move

Needless to say, Senator Arlen Specter's announcement that he will be switching to the Democratic party for the 2010 Pennsylvania primary elections and beyond is HUGE news. Coupled with Al Franken's likely victory in Minnesota, the Democrats would have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Of course, Specter makes clear in a statement today (below) that he will be no more of a "party-line" voter for the Democrats than the Republicans.

What's even more important about Specter's decision than the shift of power in the Senate is that this is perhaps the highest figure within the Republican party to offer public and even harsh criticism of the GOP. While Specter has always been "mavericky" and moderate, it is hard to write off comments like "the Republican Party has moved far to the right" by a 29-year Republican lawmaker. I guess we'll see the real impact of this decision in the days to come.

------
Specter's statement:

"I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank especially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America."

Celebrate Earth Day, GOP-style!

So as further proof that the Republican party is in very real danger of becoming an irrelevant, outdated political entity, we need to only look at recent comments by important GOPers on the environment. Recently, Republican House Leader John Boehner claimed that the idea that carbon dioxide is bad for the environment as "almost comical" (video is below). He supported this claim by explaining that not only do humans exhale CO2, but cows fart it out.

While Boehner's fact-deprived argument seems ridiculous enough, check out what two of the leading ideologues of the conservative movement did to celebrate Earth Day yesterday. Rush Limbaugh decided to celebrate the coal industry and the inventor of the dense plastic bag. Glen Beck, our favorite prophet of apocalypse, decided to honor the Earth by attempting to cut down a forest. You can't make these stories up people! Of course, there are perfectly rational reasons to disagree about environmental policy (that will arise in the upcoming debate over the climate change bill), and there are numerous Republicans (Senator Voinovich among others) who are providing alternative perspectives with the ultimate goal of improving the environment and correcting the damage of global warming. But too many of the leading conservative figures are, like Boehner, simply abdicating any responsibility to urgently work on environmental policy; others, led by the Rushter and Beck, are in fact resolutely anti-environmental. While this type of political stance may have had considerable support in the past, I think the Republicans have to realize that Americans, while perhaps in disagreement over exact policies, are increasingly sympathetic to finding solutions to the environmental crisis. Cutting down forests won't help with that.