Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), and an impressively bipartisan group of Capitol Hill signatories, just sent a letter to President Obama asking him to urge the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) to “immediately conduct on-site ‘special inspections’ in Syria.” They point out that since an Israeli air strike took out the Dair Alzour nuclear reactor in 2007, the Syrians’ cooperation with the IAEA has been “alarmingly inadequate.” The organization’s director general, Yukia Amano claims that “with the passage of time, some of the necessary information concerning the Dair Alzour site is further deteriorating or has been lost entirely.” There are also unanswered question concerning three other related locations.
This should be a no-brainer for the administration. First, it has bipartisan support—something that’s become so rare it’s almost touchingly quaint. The signatories include Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman, Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand and Edward Markey, and Republicans Jon Kyl and John Ensign. Obama should move ahead on this and then talk it up as evidence of critical cooperation. Second, urging IAEA special inspections fits in perfectly with Obama’s dream of a nuke-free world via international cooperation. Syria is, after all, a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Either international agreements mean something or they do not. In October, the Departments of State and Treasury decided to sanction North Korean parties that provided nuclear-weapons assistance to Syria. (It is believed that North Korea assisted the Syrians with the Dair Alzour project.) The letter is merely asking for enforcement on the other end of that equation. Most important, with a non-deterrable nuclear North Korea antagonizing American allies and an Iran poised to do the same, the administration cannot afford to have another bad actor go nuclear on its watch.
You miss the rest of the article entirely.
Ummm, isn’t this guy from England?
Am I the only one fatigued by folks from other countries telling us what makes us tick?
What a mutt.
After spending my first six years in Oklahoma, I was astounded at how segregated Philadelphia was when we moved there (in the 1960s). As a little kid, I had trouble understanding why my parents, and the other white people, as well as Puerto Ricans, Indians, and Lebanese who lived in our area, were suddenly all scared of the black people. Then we moved to San Diego and the segregation pathologies disappeared, although we knew of rioting and “barrios” up the road in LA. In Chesapeake, VA, the segregation was there, but not in the sense of hostile, armed camps that had been the case in Philly. Black kids were bused to the school I attended. In Corpus Christi, TX, Anglos were in a minority anyway, and it was the ’70s: from the small minority of black citizens, some were starting to buy in traditionally Anglo/Tex-Mex neighborhoods, many of which were the same. A number of black kids were put by their parents in my mostly-Tex-Mex Catholic school. From high school and college years back in Oklahoma through Navy assignments in Alaska, southeast Virginia, Leavenworth, KS, Tampa, and San Diego, year by year I saw more natural integration of the middle-class neighborhoods I moved into. Not once in my adult life — except when stationed overseas — have I lived in a neighborhood that was “non-integrated.” (I was the minority integration factor in Japan.) The least-integrated neighborhood I lived in as an adult was the one in Tampa. My current neighborhood, in exurban southern California, is about half Hispanic, with white “Anglo” as the next largest ethnic group, then African American, then Indian, Chinese, and Korean.
I don’t know where Peter Hitchens parks his butt at night, but maybe he needs to get out more. Some people are just never happy. We used to all watch the same thing on TV because there was only one thing to watch. Now there’s a wide variety, featuring people of different ethnicities and catering to every interest, and Hitchens can’t stand it that people take advantage of that to watch… different TV shows? What did he think was going to happen? And does he seriously think that black Americans don’t ever watch “House,” or that “Fresh Prince of BelAir” became a hit without attracting white viewership?
OK, rant off. This guy has not one single clue what he is talking about.
Abe, I think it’s a rhetorical flourish of sorts. Since I, too, am guilty of taking things out of context, let me read into it this way: people are free to segregate on their own. If that freedom were threatened, through forced integration, they would have gone out for McCain. I wonder if that reading makes sense.
I think his point wasn’t that people were voting to keep things the way they are, but rather that they would have rejected him if he were seriously talking about seriously bridging the racial divides in so much of the country.
It’s an interesting point, and related to the one about low support for school vouchers because so many suburban parents have already exercised choice in their schools by moving into neighborhoods in good educational districts.
I do think that it’s true regarding a lot of his support from more traditional inner-city organizations (city councils, teachers unions and the rest). I can’t imagine any of them having supported him so vocally (or at all, really) if they actually believed he would upset their apple carts of cushy union jobs and earmark-based graft. One day I wish we’d have a conservative candidate tough enough to use the old George Will line about how Democrats are content to leave inner city black kids “shackled to the plantation of public education.”
In short, let’s not expect any real improvement in the lives or lifestyles of so many millions of black people who voted for Obama. It’s just not in his interest to do so.
Regadless of the point of the article the segregation point is not true.
We are not nearly as segregated as we were.
Especially when it comes to interacting together.
In Dallas there is no black or white movie theaters, restaurants or malls.
I can see what he is saying when it comes to homes but that is more of an economic issue than anything else.
Racism will never go away but it will become less of an issue with each succeeding generation.
For the most part I agreed with the Hitchens’ piece, but he did say some things that were ridiculous. This for instance referring to DC:
It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world,
with 15th Street – which runs due north from the White House –
the unofficial frontier between black and white.
I lived in Boston before moving to DC. Boston is far more segregated, de facto, than DC or most Southern cities.
the segregation point is not true
It is in Milwaukee. When I first moved here, white liberals would moan about how sad it is that Milwaukee is so segregated. I asked them when they were going to move to the crime-ridden black neighborhood where I work. Oh, they have no intention of leaving their mostly-white suburb; they meant OTHER white people should be forced to live in the city, and black people should be forced out of their homes into different communities.
Turns out black people don’t like white liberals telling them where to live, either; most of those who could afford to move out to a white suburb choose to stay where they grew up and know everyone.
If they would follow the orders of their white liberal betters…
little brother Hitchens is an out of date idiot, but American Blacks definitely tend to segregate themselves–and they do so out of racist hatred. Don’t delude yourselves.
I suppose I’m racist for noticing something that is irrefutable and obvious.
Abe, it’s you, NOT Hitch who is in denial!
I mean, you MUST know the the difference between de facto and de jure! That’s Hitch’s point! And yes, that 95% of blacks voting for Obama IS a scream in favour of segregation! Obama is, de jure, POTUS, and, de facto, the POTAA (African-American)
THAT’s why anyone who nay-says him is a racist!