A thousand calories can sure sneak up on you

The New Neo Posted on by

For anyone trying to lose weight, this is sobering.

It’s an illustration of how easy it is to eat a thousand calories. Here’s an example you might have had for lunch today—a ham and cheese sandwich, a soda, and some chips:

Bread = 200 calories
Mayo = 115 calories
Cheese = 212 calories
Ham = 183 calories
Soda = 150 calories
Chips = 155 calories

It’s one thing if you’re a lumberjack, or a 6’4″ athlete—then it’s a mere snack, a small portion of the fuel needed for a normal day. For the rest of us it’s trouble.

I don’t eat that way, of course (of course!). But it’s not at all hard to rack up the calories nevertheless.

But don’t despair. Never despair. It turns out that being skinny isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. At least, if you’re Japanese.

Listen up, Obama

The New Neo Posted on by

Despite growing opposition, President Obama hasn’t given up on his plans for sweeping reforms—including a public option—in health care and health insurance. But if Obama would slow down and work on Medicare first, and actually succeed in cutting costs there, he could actually garner some bipartisan support for his plan as well as some perception that he might really know what he’s doing.

Of course, that would mean actually showing some concrete results in tackling a very knotty problem, not Obama’s strong suit.

I first found a good statement of the idea in the comments section here:

[The] President is mixing increase in coverage with cost reduction. Controlling Medicare cost is the fiscal reform imperative for Fed and that should be done independently of coverage increase. Go there, save some solid bundles for Government, earn the ”˜chips and credibility for fiscal management’ and then commit those saved resources for coverage increase. At that time public can accept some taxes to complete the funding of increased coverage. True, these two parts (controlling costs and increasing the coverage) can be tied together and the omnibus bill can be passed for legislative efficiency purposes as well as political expediency. But what is happening is [the] President is waving the candy first before earning necessary political capital by way of controlling the daemon of Health Care Costs.

Makes sense. But not to a president who’s never had to prove he can do anything before assuming he can do everything, and do it better than anyone else who’s gone before him—and having the world nod in agreement.

Here’s the same idea about fixing Medicare, this time expressed in article form.

The problem, of course, is that Obama has no more idea how to actually “fix” Medicare than he has to fix health insurance, or health care in general. What he wants is to pass a bill that appeals to his constituents, and to do it as fast as possible, before the opposition gets too powerful and the American people too aware of what’s happening and what its ramifications are.

The recent cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office was a nightmare for Obama. It slowed down the juggernaut and made some people—even some Democrats—reflect and pull back. The CBO has a long-held reputation for objectivity, and that’s why Nancy Pelosi is now trying her hardest to discredit their projections of the cost of her (and Obama’s) pet project. Of course, few people (even among my liberal, female friends) think much of Pelosi and her own objectivity.

This revolution will be Twittered

The New Neo Posted on by

Yes, I know—the unrest in Iran right now can hardly be called a revolution, and there’s a good chance it may never rise to that level, although one can hope.

But there is no question that the widespread protests that have gone on there were facilitated at the start by modern communications such as cell phones and especially the internet, including such ordinarily light and entertaining modes as You Tube and Twitter. They’ve taken on a new—and deadly—seriousness, and although the Iranian government has now blocked a great many of these avenues for communication, some of the protesters have found a way around such barricades, particularly through Twitter.

I doubt that the originators of these networking tools ever envisioned this particular use of their bright idea. What’s more, the internet was at least partly responsible for the ability of the younger generation of Iranians to comprehend exactly how repressed their country is compared to the outside world reaching them on their computers.

In fact, one could set up a hierarchy of countries on the basis of how completely they attempt to block communication technology in general, and it would roughly resemble the relative cruelty and harshness of the regimes involved—with North Korea being by far the most Draconian, nearly complete in its sealing-off of the populace. Tyrants well know that this is what they must do (or at least try to do; there are often ways around it) in this day and age to keep their people from what neocons like me would call the universal yearning for liberty and a say in choosing a government that fosters it.

Of course, technology is a double-edged sword; it makes the protesters in Iran vulnerable, as well. Their attempts at coordinating the protests have been hampered by the government’s blocking of the normal avenues of internet and cell phone communication, as well as press coverage. But although the mullahs have not been completely successful in doing so, you can see the fruits of their efforts today as journalists in the West maintain that the information they’re getting is spotty, fragmented, and unreliable. Twitter, however, is alive with reports and photos indicating that the demonstrating crowds are bigger than officially reported, and that the police (mostly Baseji?) have been shooting and killing as well as using tear gas and water cannons.

There is no question that today’s protesters are uncommonly brave; they went to the streets knowing there was a good chance they might be murdered. There is also no question that no one knows whether the official repression and violence against them will have its desired effect and cause the crowds to thin and finally dissipate, or whether it will inspire a widespread backlash and perhaps even a general strike.

Boris Yeltsin said, ““You can make a throne of bayonets, but you can’t sit on it for long.” But the example of Russia before him, and of Iraq for many years, as well as North Korea—belie his words. You can sit on that throne for quite a while, as the mullahs have, although it depends on what the meaning of “long” is.

Thirty years is a long time, enough to allow a new generation to grow up under this regime and to become impatient and dissatisfied with it. The bigger question is how many bayonets surround the mullahs’ throne, how willing those who hold them are to use them to intimidate the Iranian people, and for how long.

Mousavi the changer?—Part II

The New Neo Posted on by

Two days ago I wrote a post speculating on whether Mousavi was a “changer.” I didn’t know the answer, and I still don’t know. But I wrote:

…the reasons for Mousavi’s retirement from the public scene in 1989 are mysterious (at least, I haven’t found anything yet that sheds light on them), and twenty years is a long time. Was he undergoing a metamorphosis and biding his time? Or was he just biding his time?…

But if Mousavi has really reformed (as opposed to just being a “reformist candidate”), he is not alone. Many revolutionaries who are gung-ho in the first flush of a movement’s victory later become disgusted with the wretched excesses that ensue. If Mousavi goes that way, he wouldn’t be the first Iranian to do so…

In yesterday’s Guardian there is an article by Mohsen Makhmalbaf, the official spokesperson for Mousavi. Makhmalbaf writes:

People say that Mousavi won’t change anything as he is part of the establishment. That is correct to a degree because they wouldn’t let anyone who is not in their circle rise to seniority. But not all members of a family are alike, and for Mousavi it is useful to understand how he has changed over time.

Before the revolution, Mousavi was a religious intellectual and an artist, who supported radical change but did not support the mullahs. After the revolution, when all religious intellectuals and even leftists backed Khomeini, he served as prime minister for eight years. The economy was stable, and he did not order the killings of opponents, or become corrupt.

In order to neuralise his power, the position of prime minister was eliminated from the constitution and he was pushed out of politics. So Mousavi returned to the world of artists because in a country where there are no real political parties, artists can act as a party. The artists supported Khatami and now they support Mousavi.

Previously, he was revolutionary, because everyone inside the system was a revolutionary. But now he’s a reformer. Now he knows Gandhi ”“ before he knew only Che Guevara.

Well, I still don’t know; under Mousavi as Prime Minister there was certainly a lot of killing, although I’m inclined to credit Makhmalbaf’s assertion that Mousavi didn’t order the deaths. As Prime Minister he probably didn’t have that sort of power because the mullahs were in charge back then as well (this is in agreement with me, although it’s hard to know whether the information there is correct or not).

At the very least, however, we know that Mousavi remained as Prime Minister for many years while repression was happening. But his retirement from public life afterwards indicates the strong possibility of the sort of disillusionment I referred to in my previous post.

Mousavi has now said he’s ready to be a martyr. For a man in his position, these words are not mere hyperbole. And it’s hard to believe he would be willing to die merely to gain personal power, especially since his absence from politics all these years seems to have been at least partly voluntary.

Makhmalbaf is a fascinating figure himself, and another “changer.” A few years before the 1979 revolution, he was arrested and imprisoned for activity as a seventeen-year-old revolutionary in an underground Islamic militia group. After 1979 he was released from prison. But instead of entering official political life he became one of Iran’s premier film personalities, a director, writer, and producer, and some of his films have been banned in Iran. Therefore when he talks of artists as a form of underground political power and protest he knows whereof he speaks.

Besides his characterization of Mousavi as a changer, Makhmalbaf offers other interesting observations in his Guardian piece. Speaking of the 1979 revolution, he writes:

The people of Iran have a culture that elevates martyrdom. In the period running up to the revolution, when people were killed at demonstrations, others would gather again in the days following the death. This cycle carried on for six months, and culminated in the revolution. Today they are gathering in Tehran for those who were shot on Tuesday, and if there are more killings, this will continue…

Thirty years ago we supported each other. When police used tear gas, fires would be lit to neutralise its effects. People would set their own cars on fire to save others. Since then, the government has tried to separate people from one other. What we lost was our togetherness, and in the past month we have found that again. All the armed forces in Iran are only enough to repress one city, not the whole country. The people are like drops of water coming together in a sea.

No doubt Makhmalbaf wishes very hard that that sea—like the waters that engulfed and drowned Pharaoh’s armies—would overwhelm the hated mullahs of Iran. I believe that this is what Mousavi wants, as well—not just his own election under them.

Exactly what sort of government Mousavi would attempt to form if he were to succeed against so many odds is hard to tell. In what direction did his change go? Is he a man of the Left now? Makhmalbaf speaks admiringly of Obama and disparagingly of Bush, but that is so common these days that it’s hard to know whether it has any particular meaning, especially in terms of Mousavi. Perhaps we’ll get a chance to find out.

I can’t resist this one

The New Neo Posted on by

The title of the video is “are women born this way?”

Answer: beats me. But it’s awfully cute, isn’t it? Maybe she’ll grow up to be a blogger.

[NOTE: For some reason I can’t get the video to play if I use Mozilla, but it works just fine in Explorer.]

Iran: “it wasn’t supposed to happen this way”

The New Neo Posted on by

Well worth reading, this NY Times op-ed purports to be by a young Iranian. Writer “Shane” describes the evolution of public opinion in the Iranian election and how the subsequent demonstrations got going, as well as noting the changed demographics of Iran during the thirty years since the Khomeini revolution.

Along the way, he castigates those in the US press and politics who muse that Ahmadinejad was actually the true winner of the election. He calls them ignorant of the changes that have occurred in Iran during the last thirty years, including increased urbanization and education. He also floats the curious notion that Ahmadinejad would be better for Iranian foreign (as opposed to domestic) policy because he would be able to make concessions to the West, since he is already viewed as such a hardliner, a sort of “Nixon opens up China” figure. Although I certainly don’t have my finger on the pulse of Iran, I beg to differ; Ahmadinejad could theoretically do that if Ahmadinejad showed a single indication of wanting to do that, which he most decidedly has not.

“Shane” doesn’t mention another factor about which I’ve read a great deal, one that seems to be a big part of the mix: the population of Iran is overwhelmingly young. This seems to be an example of the principle of “be careful what you wish for,” because it’s a result of campaigns by the rulers after the revolution and during the war against Iraq to increase the birth rate:

[T]he leaders of the new Islamic republic drew attention to a tenet of the Quran that encourages early marriage and large families. Population growth became part of the national agenda, with incentives to reward families for each additional child. Everything from TVs to cars to food was distributed on a per capita basis through a rationing system, making it advantageous to have many children. These incentives remained in place through the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, when population growth was viewed as a strategic advantage: more children, more future soldiers.

The government-spurred baby boom came to an abrupt end toward the end of the war. In 1988, the Ministry of Health and Medical Education held a three-day seminar in Mashad on development, which determined that the rapidly increasing population would soon exceed Iran’s infrastructure and natural resources.

The huge baby boom slowed down after 1988, but this left Iran with its current bubble of people under 30, variously estimated as being either 60% or 70% of the current population. That’s an awful lot of young people. This is most definitely a part of what’s happening in the revolt in Iran today; as “Shane” says, these people are finding strength in each other and experiencing a new sense of shared community and purpose. “It wasn’t supposed to happen this way” is a refrain of his essay, and it could also be applied to the mullahs’ encouragement of childbearing for the revolutionary generation, which created this problematic (for them) bubble of young people today.

At the moment the news appears grim for the demonstrators, however. Khameini just addressed crowds of supporters and laid down the law, as expected. Mousavi was not at his side,although he was told to be. The West, in particular Britain, was vilified (although Obama, despite all his carefully calibrated mealymouthed blather, was also panned).

Mousavi’s supporters plan to continue demonstrations tomorrow, as do a group of clerics on the same side. However, the real questions are (1) how far the demonstrators are willing to go, and how much violence against them are they willing to absorb; (2) how far the mullahs are willing to go, and how much violence they are willing to perpetrate; and (3) will the police, the Guards, and other forces called in by the mullahs to quell the crowds be willing to fire on them, or will they stay their hands?

That last question may be the most important of all. Like all tyrants, the mullahs can do little without the help of the vast numbers of henchmen they employ, and without the exercise of fear. Sometimes there is a great deal of opposition and unrest under the radar screen even within the groups assisting tyrants, and once dissatisfaction as a whole reaches a critical mass and events transpire to release it, there can be a sudden change and a refusal to defend the regime.

I am most definitely not saying this will happen in Iran right now. I am merely saying it is a possibility, although I don’t think it’s likely. The mullahs have the firepower, and if they also have the will to suppress the demonstrators, and the loyal police with which to accomplish it, they will almost undoubtedly succeed in doing so—even if “the whole world is watching.”

But no matter what happens, the seeds of unrest have been sowed, and they may bear fruit in later years. This will be scant comfort to those in Iran who want freedom now. But at least Obama will then have his much-anticipated talks with Ahmadinejad, for what that’s worth (which in my opinion is absolutely nothing).

Let’s stick it to the gas-frugal

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s another case where the conscientious lose out: people who have old gas-guzzlers get to trade them in for government incentives of $3,500 to $4,500 when they get more energy efficient cars.

That’s not chump change, even if you figure into the calculations the fact that the sum is instead of (rather than in addition to) any trade-in value the car might have.

For example, I drive a rather old car: a 1998 (or is it 1997? I never can remember) Toyota Corolla. When I look up my car (assuming it’s a ’98 in good condition) at the Kelley Blue Book site, I find that its trade-in value is a whopping $2,175. If I could qualify for the new program, that would mean I’d get somewhere between $1325 and $2325 extra to go towards my new purchase.

But alas and alack, my little Toyota already gets good mileage, well over the 18 miles per gallon necessary to qualify. I never forgot the gas shortages of the Carter years, and it seemed silly not to get a vehicle that conserved fuel.

And so I’ll have to do without my government largesse. This is a familiar experience for me—I keep waiting and waiting for my piece of the Obama pie. I didn’t get a sub-prime mortgage, nor did I max out on my credit cards, so I’m stuck supporting those who did.

Dummy me.

Is Mousavi a “changer?”

The New Neo Posted on by

Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the candidate for President of Iran who is at the center of the current Iranian storm, is an enigma.

Mousavi’s Wiki entry sheds little light on the subject; it deals with the bare bones of his history, which indicate that he was an early mover and shaker in Iranian government—its last Prime Minister before the office was abolished, for example. But Mousavi has been laying low, in the public office sense, for well-nigh twenty years. He has not held any major state office since 1989, and although one could conclude that this indicates his disapproval of the course Iran has taken since then one cannot be sure, or know how deep or how far such disagreement might go.

A late-April 2009 interview in Spiegel isn’t much more informative. The picture Mousavi paints of himself is that of a man who plays his cards very close to the vest (as one might imagine; it probably aids survival in Iran). However, from whatever evidence the interview does provide, he seems mostly interested in economic and cultural reform rather than any change in international policy.

Michael Ledeen thinks otherwise, at least now that events have unfolded that raise the stakes:

…at this point, Mousavi either brings down the Islamic Republic or he hangs. If he wins, and the Islamic Republic comes down, we may well see the whole world change, from an end of the theocratic fascist system, to a cutoff of money, arms, technology, training camps and intelligence to the world’s leading terrorist organizations, and yes, even to a termination of the nuclear weapons program.

I think that, whatever or whoever Mir Hossein Mousavi was five days ago, he is now the leader of a mass movement that demands the creation of a free Iran that will rejoin the Western world…

That seems tremendously optimistic to me. However, I’m always especially interested in the topic of political change, and I know for a fact that such a transformation is possible. This particular one just seems too large a leap for me to imagine, and doesn’t fit in very well with the Spiegel interview. But it’s also not outside the realm of possibility that Mousavi has had some sort of epiphany—or whatever the equivalent is in Moslem terms—that has outraged him and caused him to be more of a reformer than he was before.

There is no question, however, that Mousavi’s earlier public incarnation was in the mold of the mullahs he now appears to be opposing. As Prime Minister, he called for the annihilation of Israel and the death of Salman Rushdie. But the reasons for Mousavi’s retirement from the public scene in 1989 are mysterious (at least, I haven’t found anything yet that sheds light on them), and twenty years is a long time. Was he undergoing a metamorphosis and biding his time? Or was he just biding his time?

We may or may not get a chance to find out, depending on how events go in Iran. As Ledeen says, if Mousavi doesn’t succeed he’s probably in a huge heap of trouble. And at the moment there’s no reason to suppose he will succeed.

But if Mousavi has really reformed (as opposed to just being a “reformist candidate”), he is not alone. Many revolutionaries who are gung-ho in the first flush of a movement’s victory later become disgusted with the wretched excesses that ensue. If Mousavi goes that way, he wouldn’t be the first Iranian to do so—read about Azar Nafisi, as well as the sad and cautionary tale of Sadegh Ghotbzadeh.

[ADDENDUM: Commenter Tim P. alerts me to the fact that Michael Totten is speculating on much the same question.]

More on the Walpin case—and more about Sacramento Mayor Johnson

The New Neo Posted on by

There are two interesting developments in the Walpin case.

The first is that a possible obstruction of justice charge is being investigated by the FBI—against Johnson, the Sacramento mayor whom IG Walpin implicated in misuse of AmeriCorps funds. There’s a lot more on the story in the local paper, the Sacramento Bee.

It’s always instructive to read what those who are closer to the characters involved have to say. Here are some excerpts from a column in the Bee by Marcos Breton:

There is seemingly always a skeleton poised to fly out of Johnson’s closet. Johnson ”“ or his posse ”“ have been accused of a range of misdeeds, from inappropriate behavior with girls to misuse of hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grants.

Now the FBI is looking into obstruction of justice allegations stemming from the earlier investigation into misuse of grant money by St. HOPE Academy. Former bank executive Rick Maya, who replaced Johnson as executive director of St. HOPE Public Schools, made the allegations that triggered the FBI probe.

In a damning eight-page letter he submitted when resigning from the St. HOPE board of directors, Maya alleged that while the organization was under federal subpoena in that earlier investigation, a St. HOPE board member deleted some of Johnson’s e-mails.

Maya claimed in the letter that he alerted the St. HOPE board, and that members did nothing except notify St. HOPE legal counsel Kevin Hiestand. Hiestand is also Johnson’s longtime friend, business partner and personal attorney. And he was the lawyer embroiled in a scalding controversy from last year’s mud-splattered mayoral election:

When Johnson was accused of inappropriately touching a student at Sacramento High, Hiestand questioned the girl before anyone at the school contacted police. The girl recanted, and police ”“ contacted a week later ”“ found no merit to the allegation. But Hiestand’s behavior was disturbing.

That’s the story of St. HOPE: great intentions, some progress, inner turmoil.

There’s more; keep reading at the link.

I have no idea whether anything will come of this—there are certainly innocuous explanations for the deletions. But it is interesting that things like this keep popping up with Johnson.

The comments to Breton’s piece make fascinating reading as well. From perusing them, I get the not-surprising impression of a fight between those who think Johnson’s a crook (including those who claim to have personal knowledge of such) and those who think it’s all smoke and no fire. It also emerged, as I read the comments, that writer Breton was originally a Johnson supporter. I’m always interested in people who change their opinions—and it seems as though a lot of this smoke has convinced Breton that there might be a fire around Johnson after all.

But back to Walpin. I mentioned two interesting developments. The second is outlined in the Village Voice, of all papers, which discusses another controversy, this time involving Walpin’s investigation of CUNY’s (the City University of New York) AmeriCorps funding. There is an even more in-depth discussion of the CUNY case here, as well.

From reading both articles (and I strongly suggest that you do) a picture begins to emerge: Walpin took very seriously “Barack Obama’s admonition to ‘scour’ federal budgets to determine if ‘taxpayers are getting their money’s worth.'” Unfortunately for Walpin, he wasn’t listening to Obama on the second channel. He was listening to Obama’s words instead, and he ruffled an awful lot of feathers.

[ADDENDUM: In another development, Senator Grassley wonders whether there is a pattern of suspicious IG firings emerging.]

[ADDENDUM II: Someone asked who replaced Walpin. There’s been no official appointment yet, and in the meantime his place is being taken at least temporarily by this man. He seems to be a criminal investigator rather than a lawyer, and a specialist in tech problems.]

[ADDENDUM III: White House lawyer Eisen—the person who actually gave Walpin the news that he had an hour to quit or be fired—claims the Walpin firing was “an act of political courage.” On the White House’s part.

Well, I guess it was ballsy, all right.]

Watch Walpin for yourself: does this man seem confused?

The New Neo Posted on by

On Monday, Gerald Walpin was a guest on the Glenn Beck show (his segment begins at around 3:30). As you watch the clip, see whether you think Walpin seems “confused, disoriented, and unable to answer questions.” For extra credit, compare his abilities on that score to those exhibited by Vice President Joe Biden and President Obama minus teleprompter.

Ah, the evidence is there after all! At the end of the clip, see how Walpin takes a moment to remember the last word in the quote from FDR. Surely a sign of dementia.

[NOTE: And speaking of seeming unable to answer questions, take a look at this.]

[ADDENDUM: Here’s Walpin’s description of the meeting where he was supposedly “confused and disoriented”:

“There was no confusion in my opening remarks at the meeting, in which I chastised the board for what appeared to be the board’s refusal to perform its duty, independent of management, in overseeing what management was doing, particularly as it regards determining the merits of the two reports I had issued,” Walpin says.

“I started out by chastising the board and telling them their duty was not just to accept what management says, but to make their independent analysis of those reports,” Walpin continues. He says board members were “clearly angry at my temerity in telling them they should not be acting in the manner of many for-profit boards, which have been recently criticized.” Walpin says there was “no confusion whatsoever about our two reports, and our clear findings, which were a major part of the meeting.”

So where did the White House allegation of confusion come from? Walpin says that he was not feeling well that day, and that he was repeatedly interrupted as he gave a prepared presentation. “Then at one point, they broke in and said I had to leave the room while they handled something else,” he recalls. “I left my papers there. When I came back, they were in disorder. I attempted to reorganize them and be certain that I was not repeating what I had already discussed. But I was quickly denied time to review my notes and told that I had to leave because the board was too busy.”

Walpin says no one at the Corporation ever said anything to him about allegedly being confused or disoriented, at the time or any time later. The first he heard the charge was Tuesday night, in Eisen’s letter. “The only confusion exhibited was the board members’ confusion as to their responsibilities,” he says.

Read the whole thing.]

[ADDENDUM II: Another witness backs up Walpin’s claim.]