International Ire, Please

In January, while the Israeli military was ravaging Gaza, and much of the world was engaged in its favorite past-time, condemning Israel (though not without cause), I was focused on a parallel war going on across the continent. The Sri Lankan military was in the final stages of once-and-for-all wiping out the Tamil Tigers, a minority insurgent group that had been battling the island nation's majority for more than two decades

Civilians were dying by the truckload, both sides were to blame, but the outrage was confined to polite diplospeak in the backrooms of the world's peacekeeping institutions. No massive demonstrations at the UN, no heated exchanges at emergency community meetings, no angry Facebook posts, nor biting tweets and no nonsensical petitions making their way to my inbox.

The Sri Lankan military now has the last holdouts to deal with, slowed down only by the rudimentary booby traps they come across. Two hundred thousand civilians have escaped; 13,500 didn't. More will die in the days and weeks ahead.

Given the global reaction to the 1,000 civilian deaths caused by Israel's myopic act of political expedience, with how much force should the world respond to Sri Lanka's lack of concern for the civilians caught in their war zone? It's hard to imagine what 13.5 times more anger might look like. Or do 13,500 people on an island off the Indian subcontinent not mean as much as 1,000 people in the Fertile Crescent?

If we are to deal with Israel in a more "even handed" fashion, as the many critics of U.S. policy call for, it means more than just removing the sacrosanct political cover that policy affords Israel. It also means ending the equivalent special treatment afforded to Palestinian nationhood, which for more than six decades has been put ahead of others' dreams of a place to call their own.

Such a reassessment, of course, is highly unlikely. On the geopolitcal level, the Israel-Palestinian conflict contains a global dynamic that compels prioritization. On the popular level, it would require the enablers of victimization, who from the extremes whip up the irrational rage of the masses of ill informed, to recognize the hypocrisy in their logic.

Disney Becomes Earth Friendly (= $$)

Disney releases its documentary, "Earth," this week to coincide with Earth Day, an oxymoronic event that, not unlike Black History Month, allows us to feel good about ourselves through the spewing into the atmosphere of politicians' and policymakers' hot air, worsening an already grotesque carbon footprint.

By this measure, "Earth," a sanitized version of the BBC's compelling "Planet Earth" series, is a perfect match for our annual day of lip service to the ecosystem. The other 364 days we spend undoing with action the pledges we make today with words; any real changes are, at present, coming too slowly and on too small a scale to make much of a difference.

Disney claims it wants to cut its carbon footprint in half over the next four years. A noble statement, but one I'm not sure can be achieved by a sprawling company defined by excess.

"Earth," therefore, comes in the same contrary vein as last year's hit, the brilliant "Wall-E" -- a sweet but cautionary tale about the perils of consumption and dependence on material goods and services. No matter that the Walt Disney Company subsists on the very gluttonous, unthinking, gotta-have-it characters that Pixar's storytellers deride until the movie's climax.

Does the Axiom -- the luxury space cruise ship where most of the story takes place -- remind you of anything? Perhaps a resemblance to the all-inclusive sterility of Walt Disney World.

Ahead of the Times

Hmm, where have I heard this before:

Far from Iran, and the tired Nazi analogies misleadingly attached to it, there is another threat. As Gary Sick, the prominent Middle East scholar and author, suggested to me recently: “The biggest risk to Israel is Israel.”

I think here:

Dealing with Israeli identity – or the lack of one – could in itself tear the country apart, and it's why no Israeli leader has seriously gone down that path. Attacking external extremists has always been preferable to confronting its own citizens.

Yet securing Israeli nationhood is essential if it is to speak in one voice with a nation of Palestinians and save itself from either being swallowed by the regional majority or taking drastic and immoral measures to prevent that from happening.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Don't believe it for a second. Here's why:

The most immediate expense will come in the next several weeks, when federal bank regulators complete “stress tests” on the nation’s 19 biggest banks. The tests are expected to show that at least several major institutions, probably including Bank of America, need to increase their capital cushions by billions of dollars each.

It's the Guns, Stupid

The nice thing about letting problems fester is that eventually they grow so big and complicated they can't be ignored. That's where we are with Mexico.

Even though George W. Bush was governor of a border state (and what was once itself Mexico), his administration did little to address the downward spiral of the Mexican government's war against drug cartels raging just miles from Texas cities. Previous administrations have also neglected U.S. relations with our southern neighbor -- and massive trading partner -- leaving the Obama people to deal with yet one more issue already in crisis mode.

President Obama arrived in Mexico today to lend support to his counterpart's campaign, one that has called on more than 45,000 soldiers to buttress or replace local police forces either too frightened or corrupted to take on the cartels themselves. Obama would be more helpful, however, if he instead paid a visit to Congress, to push through real, tough and long-delayed gun control legislation.

Though the national media's attention to this disquieting, backyard war has finally swung to its made-in-America causes, the problem, we're told, is confined to the border. If only we had enough ATF and Customs agents, we could stop the trafficking.

(Though the statistic is disputed, 90 percent, or at least a "vast majority," of the drug cartels' guns come from legal purchases in the United States. The National Rifle Association responds with a so-what defense, that the cartels could get guns from anywhere, so why bother changing U.S. law. Answer: Probably for the same reason we prohibit uranium sales to Iran, even though Iran can get it from other sources, too.)

Better border security is needed, sure, but it doesn't get at the root of the problem. With 1,500 licensed gun dealers in the Houston area alone, and 6,000 along the entire border, inadaquate, inconsistent, obsolete and loophole-heavy regulation of dealers, traders, buyers and gun-show enthusiasts is what's murdered nearly 7,000 Mexicans since early last year (not to mention more than 30,000 Americans in 2005, equivalent to 10-9/11s).

Gun-rights activists say tightening firearm rules violates the Second Amendment, which they claim allows Americans unfettered ownership of anything from a six-shooter revolver to a SAW machine gun. If only that were correct.

Let's review the full text of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Right. So "the people" are entitled to bear arms not as individuals, but as members of a "well regulated militia" that is "necessary to the security of a free state." Not for personal protection, not because you just don't like -- don't trust -- the guy next door, and not because you get off on the sense of godly omnipotence squeezing the trigger affords you.

For the NRA to be protected by the Second Amendment it must be compelled to prove to a court that its members and its lobbying power are essential to the protection of whole states or the entire union. Kudos to the attorney who can make that case.

Hunters, collectors, range-goers and, yes (to an extent), even paranoid homeowners should continue to have access to certain kinds of firearms, albeit with a more rigorous background check and a system that can keep track of guns and ammo sold. Military-grade weaponry, however, should simply be illegal, for the same sensible reasons you can't buy an Abrams tank or a Stinger missile at your local Walmart. (If you really must have an assault rifle, you can take up retired Gen. Wesley Clark's suggestion and join the army.)

One sentence in the Bill of Rights does not outweigh values expressed elsewhere in American law that are far more intrinsic to the country's foundation. Namely, the right to live in peace, the right to live free from fear and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Second Amendment may provide certain protections for gunowners, but it does not permit Mexican drug cartels to hold half a country hostage. To oppose legislation halting the southerly flow of guns based on the Second Amendment is to use the Constitution to subvert law and order. That in itself should be inherently unconstitutional.

But Sometimes He's Wrong

I'm a big fan of The Daily Show, for the same obvious reasons so many else are. But last night Jon Stewart was off the mark.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
The Buc Stops Here
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

In an uncharacteristic move, the opening commentary on last week's pirate showdown came down on the side of the mainstream, even though the media coverage of the event left much to be desired -- heavy on the flag waving, light on the nuance.

Surely at least part of the ransoms go to illicit activities and promote further hostage-taking, but the pirates who collect them are hardly the hustlers for "genocidal warlords in charge or child armies" that Stewart claimed.

Also, the adjective form of Somalia is "Somali," not "Somalian," as Stewart said at least three times.

Quick: Someone Call John Paul Jones!

Somalia's pirates have been receiving steadily denser press coverage over the last several months, making a splash big enough to summon a global naval armada to patrol the Gulf of Aden. Even China got on board, and China never gets on board with these kinds of things (respect for national sovereignty and whatnot).

Attention was plateauing, but these aqua-crooks are savvy. Or maybe really dumb. In going after a U.S.-manned ship, they sailed headlong into America's military-media complex. Suddenly, this minor maritime dilemma is on track to become a major national security threat to the United States of America, her citizens, her interests and her allies. Uncle Sam is pissed.

A 9,200 ton guided missile cruiser is keeping tabs on the Somali speedboat. The FBI has been called in to negotiate. Hillary Clinton is talking more like secretary of defense than secretary of state, and the national media have all the angles covered.

It's Tehran-1979 Redux: High Seas Edition. With Fox News pushing for military action and AP equating this scuffle-of-the-week to the now-famous "3 a.m. phone call," North Korea could send an ICBM over San Francisco and still not get our attention.

Before we get our Stars and Stripes any more in a twist, let's remember that these marine marauders aren't terrorists, nor do they have the means or the will to threaten the United States; in all their acts of piracy, they have yet to arm a single person.

They're just a bunch of guys without jobs and without a home who are pretty ticked that they're on the losing end of the globalization game.

G.M. Still Doesn't Get It

Like addiction, news stories go through several stages. There are the early rumblings of something gone awry; the shock and chagrin of breaking news; the cacophony of questions that feed frantic, front-page banners; the peripheral angles and human-interest spin offs; and, finally, the retrospective and post mortem.

For America's imploding auto industry, we're somewhere amid the last two (no doubt auto reporters already have their G.M. obits typed up and tucked away in a folder somewhere for impending publication, assuming, that is, their publications are themselves still in business at that time). The media are all but finished telling us why they suck, to move onto telling us why we should care.

Apparently, it's because they are us. Nostolgic drivel, like what appeared in last week's New York Times Magazine, would have us believe that as goes General Motors so goes the American Dream. "G.M. is bound up with our collective identity, both national and personal," writes reporter Matt Bai.

Maybe, though perhaps it's not such a bad thing if we go down with the ship (SUV?). The American Dream is, after all, totally unsustainable. Promoting 300 million people to make enough money (or build enough credit) to move to a big house with a big lawn with an oversized car in a sprawling suburb ... it's lunatic.

General Motors may be an American icon, but it long ago ceased to be an American company -- no more American than are Toyota and Honda, anyway. And that's what we can't seem to wrap our heads around: There is no such thing anymore as an American job or an American company.

We didn't get it when a Dubai-based company bought a British-based company that had already been controlling U.S. ports; we didn't get it when Halliburton moved its headquarters from Houston to Dubai; and we still don't get it now, despite years of G.M. and Ford hacking away America's working class in a futile effort to save themselves from themselves.

In fact, just about the only American thing left of these "American" companies is the American tax dollars we've pumped into them. (In a related development, the Times has the audacity to mock on today's front page Russia's effort to bailout its automakers, arguing that "economists see little point in propping up such an aging giant.")

Call it coincidence, but G.M. has been steadily ratcheting up its sales pitch since the government swooped in to save it. Watch closely and you'll see G.M. trying to turn our criticism of it back on us: You don't get it.

Who does the fading auto giant get to deliver its message that we're the stupid ones? None other than fading football giant Howie Long.

It's a tired, and sleazy, marketing trick -- a page out of the Republican playbook. Don't fess up to missteps. Don't tell us how you're going to change your ways. Don't apologize for the damage and shame you have wrought. Just push through, stay the course, tell us why you think you're great and why we're crazy not to believe you, and distract us from your blunders with a pretty, recognizable face.

It's arrogant, out of touch and stupid, not unlike the overall behavior of the country that got us here. As Fred Kaplan quotes in his Slate piece on North Korea, G.M.'s unwavering delusion of grandier is the mark of a weak enterprise, not a strong one.

Now compare G.M.'s self-aggrandizing approach to how Japanese automaker Hyundai is handling the market downturn. Narrated by Jeff Bridges, the ads are simple, humble and personal. They show appreciation for their customers and empathy for those struggling in these difficult times. And they make Hyundai look way more American than General Motors.

Makes you want to go out and buy one right now, doesn't it?

It's astounding G.M. could squander such a vast amount of consumer capital, though perhaps it's that very amount of consumer capital that convinced the company it would always be beloved no matter what they put out for us to buy.

What General Motors missed was that there is a difference between having a personal relationship with their product, as the Times Magazine column suggests, and that product forming a part of our collective identity.

The first car I drove regularly was a Buick Regal. It got terrible gas mileage but I loved it anyway because it was a good car -- not because it was a G.M.

The Regal isn't around anymore, relegated to the junkyard of G.M. history. It's where all of General Motors is heading if it doesn't give us a better reason, and quick, to turn around our car-buying habits, and that reason has to be more than the "Total Confidence" shell game talking-head Howie is hawking.

The Dark Underbelly of Southport, Conn.

Right under our noses.

Special Offer From Commentary Magazine

Who doesn't want to hang this on their wall?

Ahead of the Times

Right, play to strengths.

Playing to Strengths

The only way the one-day G-20 summit could have tangibly contributed to stanching economic meltdown is if world leaders found a way to convert anarchist anger into jobs, regulation and stimulus. Otherwise, it wasn't more than a predestined meet-and-greet -- like all grand global get-togethers, the anticipation made the event itself superfluous.

The dividing lines had been drawn weeks ahead of time: the United States wanted more, and more integrated, government spending; the Europeans wanted tougher regulation (and a chance to finally lecture the U.S. on economic prudence); and the smaller powers wanted guarantees for development aid.

The fundamental question: How much cake could any one country get away with eating?

For transatlantic relations -- full of warm embraces now that the Bush years are behind us -- that question came down to how much power the United States was prepared to share with Europe versus how much responsibility Europe was prepared to share with the United States. Agreement to that balance, in real terms, remains to be seen.

It's the moment Europe has long been waiting for, when slower but steadier growth coupled with harder-to-finger social gains can finally compete for bragging rights with America's hypercapitalist model, boosted by a world war that decimated every other industrialized economy.

Europe is right to resist American desires to up its stimulus ante. Internally, France, Germany and the like don't need to violently intervene to protect their societies from their economies because they already do:

... They have no need for further stimulus right now because their social safety nets, derided in good times by free market disciples as sclerotic impediments to growth, are automatically providing the spending programs that the United States Congress has to legislate.

Still, something's gotta give. The EU can't preach to the United States that the days of hegemony are over without offering to step up, and the United States can't expect Europeans to do more without shedding some of its world-dominating attitude.

Instead of both sides of the Atlantic asking the other to commit to what they can't, it's time to ask for each to commit to what they can.

The United States has the means and the manpower, while Europe has the modest fiscal models and domestic welfare more or less taken care of.

Ergo, let the United States oversee economic stimulus for the industrialized world, something it's better positioned for, anyway (if only because America is used to borrowing -- full faith and credit blah-blah-blah), and let Europe use the funds it doesn't need to bailout its own economies to support those of developing countries, which even in good times it does more of than the United States.

The same approach works for defense and military policy. No amount of U.S. moralizing of NATO's responsibility to Afghanistan is going to put a substantial number of Anglo-Franco-Germanic boots on the ground there. Even if Europe were inclined to do so, its military capabilities can only project so much strength (unlike American forces, despite stretched dangerously thin, that can maintain at least the perception of limitless power).

That's no excuse for Europe to shrink from its global role, however. If it can't dedicate the big guns, it can commit greater financial and civilian resources to build schools, roads, train judges and civil servants, and do all the other nationbuilding things essential to stabilizing Afghanistan that America is traditionally loath to do. Meanwhile, the United States can keep doing what it's always done best: find ways to employ its half-trillion dollar defense budget.

This is transatlantic relations moving forward. America is the bad cop to Europe's good cop, and that won't change significantly because a smarter voice now occupies the Oval Office.

What can change, however, is how that dynamic functions. Getting Europe and the United States to work in a more sensible and fluid way, one that accepts each other's strengths and weaknesses for what they are, should be the goal. Trying to teach Europe to wield a stick and America to grow carrots is just a big waste of time.

Off-Season Road Trip

The weather is nicer in the summer, but the country is cheaper in the late winter, and more interesting. No traffic, quiet beaches, empty amusement parks and nature as it should be -- America's negative space brings its own kind of attraction, one that reveals how things are before getting spruced up for the summer crowds.