Rambie, DLS: I salute your efforts to defend Obama from the charge of an about-face or a flip-flop. But for several days he has nothing to day about freedom and rights, then suddenly, after a wave of criticism, he's full of indignation.

Elrod, let me clarify my point about Iran and the Soviet Union. I was addressing the broad question of how it is possible to both speak out on behalf of human rights while avoiding any sort of intervention in the violator country's internal politics. Sure, there was less freedom in the Soviet Union. But Carter and Obama are trying to thread the same needle.

Agreed DLS.

There was no “about face.” It was the same message he sent in all previous statements, just in a different forum.

Different tonality, same statement. But if it's enough to amuse the children while Mr. Obama plays his grown-up chess game, fine.

Obama has a tough balance to strike and is doing a superb job of it at this point. His Cairo speech gives a nice backdrop to his overall “unclenched fist” approach to the Middle East. And his references to MLK and “bearing witness” show the US in a far better light to the Islamic world (including Iran) than some of the bellicose rhetoric of Republican critics.

I think you've got a lot of experience here, so please focus upon what you think the right thing to do is and argue for it, instead.

“On the one hand, liberals cherish non-intervention. On the other hand, they cherish human rights. Is there any way to reconcile the two?”

In Iran, liberals have “adopted” the demonstrations as their own (though in the West and especially in the USA it is conservatives that actually have a far stronger claim to association with it, with freedom and against government excess and oppression, in principle and past practice). More to the point and more than that, liberals often now want “regime change” or at least a prompt end to government misconduct. But short of invasion and “regime change” or at least suppression (at least temporary conquest and occupation), what can liberals really expect their nations and their governments (including their militaries, not just their diplomats and officials here at home) to do? I've mentioned this before as it (also) applies to Sudan and the strife in Darfur (which has actually happened for decades).

As it is, we're howling about and hyping this event way too much, as well as taking cheap shots at Obama. On this liberal site alone, there are several overlapping or effectively duplicative threads about this Iranian situation (about events in Iran and about how we're affected or choosing to be affected here), and nothing about the “fiscal reforms,” and nothing about a more newsworthy thing here in the USA at all, namely the Metro crash in DC. (Was it error? If old rolling stock and track, why wasn't stimulus money used for this as well as for something to help NYC such as the long-wanted Second Avenue Subway?)

Oh, well. Let us return to what the Tribe here has effectively voted in favor of favoring…

* * *

“I'm not really sure when or why we became the World Babysitter.”

We're not, but instead are simply Nation #1 and it's unsurprising that liberals who detest anything that threatens to make us seem the World's Policeman (or a Big Bully if you're mentally ill about Bush) would not hesitate to (hypocritically) want us to Do Something! [tm] when it's for a cause liberals support. (How many have wanted the USA to Do Something! [tm] about Darfur? Many, loudly, many times so far.)

“Our 'morality' or lack of it always seems to revolve around oil these days.”

Not true, though in the Middle East oil is our most vital national interest. (Israel is definitely number two.)

As I wrote elsewhere, many libs will love Obama if we improve relations with Iran and import gas and oil from Iran, lowering fuel prices. (Team Obama wouldn't mind lower prices to provide more room for fuel tax increases.)

* * *

“Drive smaller more efficient cars, less and less.”

I've always owned and driven smaller vehicles (though almost always with larger than the smallest or “base” engine in the case of non-rotary-engine vehicles), and even have reduced my distance and speed.

The key is that this should be voluntary, not compulsory. You and the federal government all other governments or persons have no business telling me I _should_ reduce my standard of living or disrupt it in any way. Sadly, I fear that in the future, if the lefties in Washington and those egging them on get their way, we'll depart from normality and decency and people _will_ be forced to do what they don't always want to do and don't need to do, and should never be directed to do. The same is true for requiring an arbitrary fraction of electrical generation by “alternative” “green” sources, which will raise costs and even may not necessarily be achieveable. People shouldn't have to pay for a minority's (often wrong) dreams.

My current vehicle is a little Ford Ranger. Its old-fashioned V6 (not a base four as in my previous Ranger) is reliable and will last long, but I'd prefer better performance. The new Eco[-]Star V6 engine being worked on by Ford would be great. With HP and torque in the 300s it is ideal for the Ranger as an upgrade from a modern base four-cylinder engine. The V6 should become a base engine for the F-150. Nobody has any business telling me I _should_ only have the base four-cylinder engine if I want the V6 or even (the third logical engine for a Ranger, for engine-performance enthusiasts) a still-larger V8, and nobody has any business saying I should have to pay higher taxes on this engine or be subjected to anything else meant as a disincentive or to make silly people feel smug and superior about “punishing” those who want to do nothing wrong.

The latter is what we fear from what we're already seeing from government and the little green fascists.

But who knows, Obama and the loonier guys who might push him to do this may not care. If elections are near, in particular, we could see oil and gas from Iran as well as from our friend Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (nationwide, more openly through Citgo, not merely as heating-oil gifts to the poor in cities).

Our pocketbooks dictate our morality. We should stay the hell out of it like we do with other countries undergoing similar or worse scenarios. We should put our hypocrisy out to pasture.

Here, we should not be forced or even merely induced through “gentle nudges” to buy and drive smaller, more expensive, unnecessarily complex vehicles than we wush to buy and drive. The same goes for our sources of electrical power generation.

Let's hope he practices at home later what he preaches now.