Walter Cronkite, RIP (November 4, 1916 - July 17, 2009)

I have to admit that to me, Walter Cronkite wasn't the anchor I grew up watching. Having left the CBS news desk in 1981, he actually was a little before my time as an actual newsman. However, he was a legend and a byword for excellent news journalism. The name "Walter Cronkite" had become synonymous with "news you can trust."

Lyndon Johnson once lamented, after Cronkite gave a devastating editorial on the Tet offensive, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America." And because there were only three networks in those days, and Cronkite represented solid reporting since WWII and its aftermath in the Nuremberg Trials, his reporting had long come to not just be heard by--but matter to, a great many people.

In terms of the news media, things might have seemed simpler with fewer outlets and fewer contending voices on the scene, but the world itself was not simpler. What Cronkite represented was not just professionalism and honesty, but also an ability to respond to the need to call things as he saw them when he felt it was needed. His was a steady, clear voice, laying out the events of the day. He had a great impact.

He was one to learn from.

Friday prayers--after the sermon.

Ayatollah Rafsanjani did not say anything especially radical, but called for conciliation. But the method through which he did so involved speaking of the Khomeini revolution and sometimes emotionally, and how the vote of the people was the basis of the Republic-- (Via Juan Cole:)

He went on to add that Imam Khomeyni accorded great value to the participation of the people. He read out a note that he had prepared earlier, quoting Shiite Imam Ali.

He stressed Imam Khomeyni's insistence on the people's role at the beginning of the Revolution. He insisted that according to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, the vote of the people, including the leadership, is determined by the people.

Again huge chants were heard at 0935 GMT, when Rafsanjani insisted that he had been asked to keep his sermon short. In what can only be described as Rafsanjani speaking hurriedly, he insisted on the republicanism of the system.

He went on to add that when campaigning came to an end, a great lack of trust came about. He said that this may have been due to the bad performance of the state broadcaster, calling it a very bitter experience. He insisted that everyone was damaged by the post-election events.

I'm not an expert and I'm getting it third-hand. There seems to be a reminder of why there was a revolution, how people lost trust after this election, and that also, the state media's reporting shares a part of the blame for the bitterness (I would say because of the, um, apparent propaganda). In mentioning that he was asked to keep it short--? Sometimes mentioning such things means one has more one could say, but I don't know.

I lack the expertise to jist what impact the sermon was meant to have (for a good take on it, you want Reza Aslan.) But this demonstration followed:



And also notably, Mousavi was at the prayers. An eventful day, definitely.

Pat Buchanan--WTF?

He's nuts. I know. Picking on Uncle Pat for his peculiar version of racism is like a canned hunt, but you have to give Rachael Maddow points for marksmanship just given that many people in the mainstream media have not actually considered him a game animal before. But here, he just looks like what he is--an artifact of a bygone era in American ethnocentricity.

I think the thing I like best is his implausible assertion that not only is Sonia Sotomayor an affirmative action choice for Ivy League studies, which might be plausible given that she entered Princeton with a full scholarship, but that her success, such as graduating from Princeton summa cum laude and winning the Pryne prize, stem from some insane liberalism that must have infected every single professor she had.

Think about that. In Uncle Pat's world--she was reading the equivalent of The Hungry Caterpillar just to be able to keep up with Ivy League college-level work. (As opposed to reading young adult fiction to get a better grasp of idiomatic English usage and style, which is how I understand her story). And aaaalllllll of her professors had to be militant liberals who said, "Ah, well, this is 'C-' work--but it's a Latina 'A+'!" And all the accomplishments she's had since--"affirmative action."

That paragon of "affirmative action", George H.W. Bush, selected her for the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York--and somehow she served for 17 years in that and other capacities with no one noticing she was just not all that competent; in Buchanan's world, that could happen. When she was approved for the 2nd District Court of appeals, once again--affirmative action.

He complains that the field from which Obama chose was narrowed down to four women, from which he chose the Latina. Although diversity is perhaps one aim Obama had (age, undoubtedly, is more important, from the POV of longevity in the court), it rankles Buchanan to suppose that the choice did not include a white male. Because in his eyes--an exemplary education and court experience aside, a white male would be--

Right. If a white male had a distinguished education from an Ivy League University and 17 years on the bench, why, that's the natural order of things, just like the leadership of white guys in founding this country, writing our Constitution, and fighting in so many of our wars. He'd never have disparaged those achievements in a white male. There is no reason to believe that an Hispanic woman isn't just as good. But Buchanan just says--"No she isn't." His reason is no reason at all. If she was out of her depth at Princeton, she'd have sank. If she was unqualified for the bench, she'd have disgraced herself. His argument is stupid and patently bigoted. Even the arguments of minor-league bigots like Jeff Sessions, who want to paint her as racist, pale in comparison to the naked assumption of "unworthiness because of" race and gender, which is where Buchanan is tending. If he wants to point to "what has she written", he's pulling criteria out of his ass. What has any justice written? What creativity does he expect from the bench--indeed, isn't that kind of what conservatives grouse about? Too much diversion from stated case law?

What I think has disturbed the right about Sotomayor is that she actually kind of is proof that affirmative action can work--that it can assist people of intellect and drive to accomplish a great deal and seize upon opportunities that their background would not have afforded them otherwise. But the existence of programs to offer a hand up is no hand out--they represent a stepping stone, not a ladder. Buchanan's view is "dated" in that he can not imagine a woman, let alone a woman of a minority group, standing toe-to-toe in a white male's world without stilts.

And once again I ask--how is it that when race becomes an issue, we hear from Buchanan? Because I never felt he had the "intellectual candlepower" to discuss matters of race.

Well, yeah--assassinations--

Everyone has read the WSJ story about the CIA assassination squads. And the NYT story about the assassination squads. And perhaps had time to wonder. Like I do. I sit on my heels and I wonder.

But not for long, because my knees get really stiff. This story provokes a lot of questions:

Okay--Panetta was not immediately briefed about this? Why, since he was the new boss?

Congress wasn't briefed--ever.

Panetta had to cancel it, even though it was never really implemented? Why wasn't it already scrapped, if there were logistical, moral and legal flaws? (Like--going into countries we weren't at war with? And maybe--ops in our own country? Also, given the errors that we discovered in our rendition program, we should have recognized we lacked capability to really do anything effective with it?)

Obviously, since 9/11, everybody in the entire country really did (we did! we did!) want to see al-Qaeda leaders get blasted, but this particular program was hush-hush?

It seems like there should be more to this story. Was there a little list of people who would never be missed? And more disconcerting, if they thought this was okay for taking out al-Qaeda--who was on the back-up list? Because I wouldn't be surprised if the Bush Administration had something of an "enemies list". Only going beyond mere rat-fucking.


I'm not a paranoid IRL--I just play one on my blog.

I knew I was being too optimistic--

From Juan Cole:

The blogosphere is also making far to much of a fatwa or religious ruling by Grand Ayatollah Hosain Ali Montazeri in answer to the questions of reformist theologian Mohsen Kadivar. ( English text here.

It is being alleged that Montazeri is saying that the Iranian regime is illegitimate, which he is not. He is implying that if Ahmadinejad stole the election by foul means, then his presidency is illegitimate. That is just a self-evident conclusion.

Also, it is being alleged that Montazeri is foremost among the grand ayatollahs, which he is not. On the Iranian scene he has been effectively marginalized by the regime. It is well known that he is on the outs with Khamenei, who put him under house arrest for five years in response to his questioning of the Khomeinist doctrine that the clerics must rule. His fatwa is therefore to be expected and will not cause any surprise or make any special waves in Iran. (It may result in a renewal of his house arrest).

(Note to self--don't romanticize other countries' movements because you....aren't them.)

I'm still interested in what Rafsanjani has to say, however, at Friday prayers. I'm looking to see who, besides Mousavi, but within the clerical establishment, provides a dissenting voice.

I didn't say I was going to stop being optimistic.

Less optimism--more anger: Afghan Rape Law is Back

A law that was not too long ago submitted to the Afghan parliament until it was held up has been sent back to parliament with a modification, and it's an ugly one:

The women's rights activist Wazhma Frough, who was involved in the review, said that conservative religious leaders had pressured the Justice Ministry to keep many of the most controversial clauses.

"There have been a few little changes, but they are not enough," she said. "For example, if the wife doesn't accept her husband's sexual requirements then he can deny her food."

According to civil society groups, the law, which regulates the personal affairs of Afghanistan's minority Shia community, still includes clauses which allow rapists to marry their victims as a way of absolving their crime and it tacitly approves child marriage. The law sparked riots in Kabul. Hundreds of Shia women took to the streets in protest. They were attacked by mobs of angry men who launched counter demonstrations outside the capital's largest Shia madrassa.

It's astonishing. It's legislating immorality, cruelty, murder, rape, and all manner of ungood things--and they purport it's for religion's sake.

Bull.

It's about domination of women for convenience's sake. Is it Islam--or is it just barbarity? I'd say the latter. It is beneath a woman's dignity for her to sell herself to her own husband for a meal. It should be beneath the dignity of a man to deny any human being, let alone his wife, the basic need of food, in exchange for gratification of a temporary urge. This law grants an inequality between the sexes--but why? Because it is genuinely believed women exist as objects to be sold into marriage as if slavery to a rapist just so he can be absolved his crime? Because husbands contribute so much more to society by mounting their women, than their women ever could without submission?

It's a shame this is back. It's horribly unjust.

Can I be positive about a fatwa?

Grand Ayatollah Ali Montazeri has issued the most critical clerical statement against the current regime in Iran I think we've heard. While I don't really have a grasp of how much of an impact this should make for the Green Revolution, I am impressed by what he has said:

Reply: "...Clearly, it is not possible to preserve or strengthen the Islamic regime via oppression – which contravenes [the precepts of] Islam. This is because the need for a regime stems [in the first place from the need] to dispense justice and to protect [the people's] rights – that is, to implement the directives of Islam. So how can injustice, oppression and [other] contraventions of Islam possibly [serve to] strengthen or preserve a just Islamic regime?

"A regime that uses clubs, oppression, aggression against [the people's] rights, injustice, rigged elections, murder, arrests, and medieval or Stalin-era torture, [a regime that] gags and censors the press, obstructs the media, imprisons intellectuals and elected leaders on false allegations or forced confessions... – [such a regime] is despicable and has no religious merit...

"The proud people of Iran know very well exactly how authentic [the detainees'] confessions are; they are like [confessions obtained] by fascist and communist regimes. The nation knows that the false confessions and televised interviews were obtained from its imprisoned sons with threats and torture, and that their aim is to cover up the oppression and injustice, and to [present a] distorted [image] of the people's peaceful and legal protest...

"The state belongs to the people. It is neither my property nor yours... When the Shah heard the voice of the people's revolution, it was already too late [for him]. It is to be hoped that the people in charge [today] will not let [themselves] reach the same situation, but will become more amenable to the nation's demands, and as soon as possible...

If one could just pick out the bits about Islam, he's describing real democracy as westerners understand it. The government should exist for the people to serve their needs and belongs to them. If it doesn't do that--they deserve better and have a right to demand it. The government has no right to suppress the people in expressing their legitimate grievance. It's the government that should fear the people, not the other way about. What has done the most to delegitimize the Ahmadinejad regime isn't the "rumor" of a rigged election, nor the protest against it, so much as a response to the outcry about the same that has basically verified that there was something very wrong going on.

This fatwa is issued as a response to the queries from another cleric, Mohsen Kadivar. One of his queries reads as follows:

Query: "Do the great sins listed below, and the [position holders'] insistence on committing them, contravene the 'principle of justice' and lead to the implementation of the 'principle of tyranny?'

"1. Ordering innocent people killed and causing their death;

"2. Ordering and being involved in an armed [campaign] of threats and intimidation, and of beating and wounding innocent people in the streets;

"3. The de facto prevention of senior ayatollahs from fulfilling their religious duty of 'commanding good and prohibiting evil,' by obstructing all reasonable and legal means of non-violent protest;

"4. Denying freedom and imprisoning anyone who acts or advises [others] to act [according to the religious precept of] 'commanding good and prohibiting evil,' and extorting false confessions through pressure;

"5. Censoring media and information…;

"6. Smearing all those who protested [following the elections]... and all those who opposed the position holders, [by calling them] 'mercenaries' and 'spies of foreign [forces]';

"7. [Spreading] lies, false testimony, and false reports on all matters concerning the rights of the public;

"8. Betraying the people's trust;

"9. [Practicing] tyranny, ignoring [the people's] opinion, and disregarding the clerics' counsel and warnings;

"10. Preventing rightful owners [i.e. the people] from taking possession of the common property – [that is,] the nation's destiny;

"11. Insulting Islam and demeaning religion by presenting Islam and the Shi'ia to the world as crude, illogical, aggressive, superstitious, and despotic."

which reminds me of the American Declaration of Independence, with its list of grievances against King George III. Maybe I'm too eager to see parallels, I don't know. But it would really give me satisfaction to find that there is a self-evident truth in the rightness of democracy, whether viewed through the eyes of Enlightenment-era mostly deistic New-Worlders, or the eyes of present-day intellectual Muslims. I just want a reason to be optimistic, even though we've all seen how oppressive the current Iran regime is.