Excellent speech. The team of Hillary and Barack (or Barack and Hillary?) is the right team to move this forward, and the President did an excellent job of framing the issues and providing the solutions. He deftly pointed to Iran, Yemen and Bahrain, putting everyone on notice that fundamental and democratic change was not going to stop. Also, he reminded that Israel – in order to maintain its democratic heritage – could not maintain dominance over another group. Mr. Obama let them all know that there is a peaceful and successful path. Great work!
Like George H.W. Bush and his team which handled the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Mr. Obama and his team are steering a very smart, steady and forward-looking path. From his speech in Cairo, to his subsequent actions, and to this speech and beyond, it is simply refreshing to hear a team speak about these things. These are momentous times, and we must tread carefully. This speech was a good start; now the team must successfully navigate some very tricky waters.
The title of this post……it describes the ideal country, right? Modern infrastructure and economy. Moderate politics and foreign policy. Democratic institutions that help the people. In an interview with Anderson Cooper of CNN, the leader-in-waiting, Mohamed ElBaradei, proclaimed these to be his goals if he were to lead the country.
What a refreshing take on what is important to a country and what its leaders should fight to achieve. Is this Egypt today? Hardly. While Hosni Mubarak has brought security and limited economic progress, he has left a cesspool of discontent, economic malaise, and political upheaval in his wake.
For that reason, he must go. As of this writing, Mr. Mubarak seems to have received the message and does not plan on running for office again in September. Good riddance, say many in Egypt, but not fast enough. They want him gone now. On the other hand, there is a core group of constituents in Egypt which proclaims strong allegiance to Mr. Mubarak and will not be happy to see him go. Their voices have not been loudly heard, but expect to hear them shortly.
So will we see an Egypt which portrays ElBaradei’s hope? Will Egypt continue to remain a member of the list of stable countries throughout the world? Might this be another Iran? Might it be a Turkey? Do we really know?
We in the United States have a very particular vision of how this should evolve, and we likely share Mr. ElBaradei’s vision. However, are we ready for something that is different? Will we get a modern, moderate and democratic country?
What’s great about all of this? American political junkies now have a September 2011 election upon which to focus. Good practice for 2012!
When someone places Fareed Zakaria and Henry Kissinger in the same room and turns on the video recorder, you are bound to hear something unique and intriguing. Anyone paying attention to the news lately heard that China’s President Hu Jintao recently visited the United States, making stops in Washington, DC, and the great City of Chicago.
With all of the news coverage (and endless comments about Michelle Obama’s striking red dress) we heard much about the strained relations between both countries. China has grown increasingly active in their neck-of-the-woods, and has been more vocal about their criticisms towards the United States. This more assertive posture has caught many a diplomat’s attention, and has certainly raised a few eyebrows over at the Pentagon. Making news with a fighter jet with purported stealth capabilities will do that, especially when our defense chief is visiting. Although we know very little about its technical specifications, China merely exposing the potential for stealth warfare gets everyone excited. Coupled with their actions across Asia, many are worried and concerned about China’s intentions.
On top of that, of course, are the never-ending stories about how much smarter the Chinese students supposedly are when compared to the American educated class. No doubt, with 1.1+ billion humans in China, there are going to be quite a few smart people. It should be noted that many of those Chinese students still travel to the United States for higher education.
Now, let’s not even get started on the economy – with the U.S. suffering its worst economic downturn in 70 years, and China continuing to outperform many countries, some commentators would have you believe that we will soon be speaking Chinese and buying our Starbucks lattes in yuans.
But really, this post is not about the strained relations, the economic comparisons, and the educational demise of anyone. It’s about a step towards possibly understanding the Chinese, rather than thinking that they are out to get you at every turn.
So, what about Kissinger? And what about chess? When asked by Mr. Zakaria if the Chinese were decidedly “better” than the United States, Mr. Kissinger simply said they are “different.” How so?
In the United States, we favor chess; in China they favor an ancient game called Go. Huh? According to Mr. Kissinger – an esteemed China scholar and someone who has studied China most of his adult life – it comes down to board games?
Of course, not exactly just about board games, but he raises an interesting perspective. It’s one opinion for sure, but Mr. Kissinger’s comparison does give you something to think about, and potentially to better understand the Chinese when it comes to foreign affairs. He is not suggesting that Go is better than chess, or that Go players are smarter than chess players. He is just simply saying that they are different games, and those differences help elucidate an aspect of Chinese relations.
Both games are clearly higher-level thinking games (unlike, say, beer-pong), and rely on some specific rules for game play, but there are some stark differences to which Mr. Kissinger refers when using Go to explain Chinese diplomacy.
Chess: mainly tactical game, with fixed set of pieces defined by specific rules of movement. Object of the game is to beat down your opponent and destroy all of his (or her) pieces. You win by taking over and destroying.
Go: more strategic in nature, with thousands of more variations than a game of chess because the number of pieces is not fixed, and each turn introduces more pieces to the game board. Also, the object of the game is not to destroy, but to encircle your opponent and capture more territory. There is still a winner and a loser, but it is a more subtle and complex end-game.
Mr. Kissinger’s comparison gives some food for thought.
For some additional thoughts, albeit a little more dramatic in a History Channel sort-of-way, this video positions an interesting contrast between chess and Go in the context of the Vietnam War:
A bit ironic since it was Mr. Kissinger who – seeing no hope for the U.S. in Vietnam – negotiated the end-game with his Asian counterparts. Just some things to think about when eating your next batch of Chinese food!
So, let’s ask Ms. Bachmann how much she is spending of the government’s money to deliver this speech. The fact that the Republican majority in the House is allowing this to happen speaks to their complete and utter subservience to this fringe movement. This is just pathetic, and a complete show of disrespect to our President and her own party. Maybe Sarah Palin can write a rebuttal to Ms. Bachmann’s rebuttal?
Despite searching for ten minutes I could not locate any commentary on Ms. Bachmann’s speech on Fox News website (www.foxnews.com), only the video of the speech itself. Hmmm.
What is so refreshing about all of this is that those who want to have the discussions will….and it is interesting to note that a very similar provision was passed in 2008 with Republican support…..as the world turns……
So, this is just another great story. A thinner Dick Cheney out hunting and rousing up the Republican stalwarts to defeat all-things Obama. Although I do not wish any significant ill-will towards Mr. Cheney, maybe someone can regulate his blood flow with his heart pump so that he gets tired more easily and does not open his mouth as much. Just what we need – Dick Cheney – blathering about what is wrong with the current administration while trying to remind everyone what great things he (and Dubya) did all of those years. But of course, how easily we have forgotten those great things! Interestingly, he will soon visit Texas to enjoy a party hosted by the emir of Kuwait – a party that will celebrate the ousting of Saddam Hussein from the oil-rich emirate. That ousting was rather spectacular, but what did it gain the world?
Oh, and I would LOVE to hear about expansive insurance coverage that Mr. Cheney receives for all of this medical care – although I do realize that his great service to this nation affords him that more than others. Right?
So here we go again. The government, in trying to make some actual progress, is being hobbled by the potential negative influence of media outlets (namely, Fox News) and groups like the John Birch Society.
Appears as though the Obama Administration is trying to enact regulations in 2011 which will allow doctors and patients to engage in critical discussions regarding end-of-life decisions. The regulations will provide Medicare compensation to support these discussions, and the administration is taking the principled stand that these discussions are important.
However, according to one story, supporters of this move are trying to keep it somewhat quiet because they fear they will stoke the flames that raged when Mr. Obama tried to get this compensation into the health care legislation passed in 2009. What happened in 2009? Based on an initial statement by Sarah Palin and the immediate support she received, opponents of the health care law began to suggest that Mr. Obama and his “socialists” were trying to convene “death panels” which would decide who lives and who dies. Despite the fact that even Senator Grassley – no fan of Mr. Obama – admitted that such a concept was not part of the legislation (see video here), the rumors persisted. Mr. Obama had no choice but to remove this vital service from the legislation. Knowing what is right, however, has compelled the administration to execute a regulation that our legislators did not have the moxie to enact.
So why are supporters of the new regulations trying to fly under the radar on this?
Discussions like this or like this, on the so-called Fair-and-Balanced Fox News, will continue to distort the truth and confuse the people with the term “death panel.” Those same media outlets and related conservative organizations (and their puppet politicians) will continue to sow the insinuation that somehow the government will compel people to literally make choices between life and death. So much for reasoned and honorable debate.
My mom died on January 27, 2010. Her passing was certainly a very emotional event and a part of my life that I will never forget. Of course, you never forget the passing of your parent, and that is because it is traumatic, emotional and so final. All of the things she did for me come back in my memory and I realize (too late?) what a great influence she was on my development and progress in life. However, in this case, my mom’s passing was made more palatable by the fact that we (as a family) had discussed end-of-life options long before the final moment. In fact, between my parents, their doctors, and all of my siblings, we had a pretty good handle on my mom’s wishes, the medical options, and the alternative choices. Bottom line – we were well-informed.
That – in its essence – is what the Obama administration is trying to provide….a well-informed medical community and client population. We should all have the “luxury” of being able to walk through very gut-wrenching decisions and end-of-life discussions with this full knowledge and understanding. Such knowledge and understanding should be covered by medical insurance, whether Medicare, Medicaid or the best private insurance in the world. If we cannot have those discussions, or they can only be had by the ones who can afford them, we are doing a significant disservice to our human population and the values that hold this country together.
AMENDED Jan 5: unfortunately, politics, administrative process and an unwillingness of the Obama administration to stand up to the Republicans has pulled this regulation from the Medicare books. Too bad, really too bad. See here.
This is a great story – it shows that President Obama can set a course, develop a plan, and make it happen. The “Yes We Can” mantra is alive and well, and Mr. Obama is showing that he CAN work across the aisle, get Republicans to join him, and do it despite some resistance from members of his own party. The more we hear about Senator Reid, the less impressed I am. Since I was never that impressed to begin, then his stock is VERY low in my portfolio. On the other hand, former Senators Clinton and Biden, in their new roles in the administration, have shown that they can be worthy partners with the president – and they have the ability to pull some levers as well to make it happen. Nice job, team!
Good news! The Senate shows us that reasonable heads can prevail and that not all Republicans are out to get Obama. Maybe we cannot trust the Russians, but this treaty should allow us to keep a closer eye on nuclear weapons. We are safer because of it and because of the Democrats.
So, do we call it a compromise? Smart politics? Waffle? Sell-out? Cave-in? Breaking a campaign promise? Either way, it is a tough set of decisions for President Obama. Granted, he secured lower taxes for all of the people he wanted, he secured continued assistance to the unfortunate folks without jobs, and he made a deal on payroll taxes that will benefit many (including this writer). But was this the right deal for the country, for the people and for the Democrats? Not sure. In this age of deficit reduction and economic uncertainty, keeping the taxes the same for everyone and cutting payroll taxes was probably a bridge too far – the deal will mean another $900 B added to the debt just like that. The compromise to get this bill crafted feels too much like a thumping. As I stated earlier in a comment, President Obama should have threatened a veto and let the government ground to a halt in the name of standing up to key values, such as equity. How much have the truly wealthy compromised in the last two years?
As the article suggests, will this be a pattern? Let’s hope not.
Amended 12/13 – In retrospect, this was a pretty good step by Mr. Obama. The tax bill is a major compromise for the president, but he really needed to go this route in the face of Republican opposition. Besides, Republicans wanted permanent extensions of the wealthy, and they did not get it. Of course, we will see in 2012. The key for Mr. Obama is to make sure he stays in the driver’s seat rather than continually reacting to what the Republicans want. With ownership of the WH and the Senate, he should be able to do this.
Would you accept an inheritance today that would cripple you with taxes and debt next year? Or an inheritance that would constantly remind you about how bad things can get? Depends, I suppose, on your view of the ultimate value of that inheritance, but you would certainly not relish the idea. Any hesitation in accepting the inheritance would be understandable especially if those around you sought your failure to successfully re-invest the inheritance.
Such is Obama’s dilemma. This is not new news….it was clear in January 2009 (and before) that Mr. Obama was taking on a significant challenge. Any number of news articles articulated this challenge, and books were hot off the presses which enumerated the effort that would be required to turn things around. George W. Bush left President Obama a mess – the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, the budget, foreign policy…the list goes on.
But what is different in late 2010, now that Mr. Obama has had almost two years to fix things? If you focused your attention on the newsstands only, you would think that nothing has improved. The debt and deficits are out of control. Unemployment is still too high. We are struggling in terms of a respected foreign policy. We cannot even win the Olympics or the World Cup. Certainly there are positive highlights out there; the economy appears to be – ever so slowly – turning around, GM has re-issued its stock, Iraq is moving in the right direction, Afghanistan is still a possible success, health care is improving, etc.
However, what is really most notable is that – despite the challenges confronted, and Mr. Obama’s vigorous response to them – he really has very little chance to succeed. The very politicians who bequeathed him the American inheritance in the first place are the same people who are making it difficult for him to make the necessary improvements. Imagine that? The Republicans gave Mr. Obama a declining inheritance, but they actively are preventing Mr. Obama from taking the necessary steps to make the inheritance worthwhile. So, the giver continues to give!
The Bush inheritance has given Mr. Obama a United States of lower stature around the world, and yet the Republicans claim that the President is wrong to qualify “American exceptionalism.” Why must we say we are better than everyone else? It is time to realize that we are part of a broader and inter-connected world. Listen to the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.
The Bush inheritance has given Mr. Obama the worst deficits and debt in American history, and yet the Republicans are whining that the President is trying to “cut” the taxes of the upper-middle class in this country, the people who supposedly drive American growth. If taxes were the substantial engine that drove growth, then how is it that we lost so many jobs in the last five years with those taxes so low?? Give me and the rest of America a break. Make some economically conservative choices. Otherwise get the hell out of the way so that we can start to make tough choices.
The Bush inheritance gave Mr. Obama Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet the Republicans use Mr. Obama’s tough decisions in these arenas as a platform from which to question his moxie and commitment to US armed forces. Let the guy lead. Let him listen to the military. He is C-in-C. Deal with it.
Mr. Boehner, McConnell and the rest of you…..the country is a mess. Mr. Obama inherited the mess. He did not create it. Work with him to fix it or get out of the way. But, then again, that’s your plan, isn’t it? Use the very inheritance to bring him down – and let the Bush gift just keep on giving.
I do not have much time to lay into the Republicans on this one, but it seems like their recent attempts to scuttle the “New Start” treaty smack of the 1970s and 1980s. Remember then? The Republicans seemed to think that only they could properly defend the country, whereas (according to them) the Democrats were always ready to somehow degrade the military and imperil the security of the country. Democrats were weak, Republicans strong. They won elections sowing fear that a Democrat would make us all Communists.
Today, the world is vastly different, so it is time to think differently about the world. Having the US and Russia make a deal on nuclear arms would send a clear message that we are serious about controlling arms. This needs to be done in order to start to put some fences around the nuclear ambitions of Pakistan, India, China and Iran. How can we try to control those countries when we cannot even control ourselves? Republicans need to get out of the way. Despite their attempts to question the foreign policy credentials of the Obama administration, and to suggest that he is weak on defense, it is the Republicans who imperil our security. They even threaten to rebuke their own master.
Maybe I am getting too old, but the “transparency” that WikiLeaks supposedly promotes seems to be a bit traitorous. What kind of world does this promote? While we have always heard that the Internet is the forum for unfettered information and open democracy, simply leaking this information for the sake of leaking makes no sense. If there was criminal activity, that is one thing, but undermining legitimate attempts to use diplomacy throughout the world is unfairly damaging to US interests.
Now, should the NY Times cover this story? What part does the news media play in simply justifying the leaks in the first place? Here is some of a defense from the paper itself: Sharing Secrets. In response to that, here are some of the readers’ comments.
Mitch McConnell had to say it – after all he is the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, and they are positioned to win some electoral advances in the Senate and take over the House tomorrow. We will see how it goes on November 2nd, but as the Republican leader he needs to set the mood. Cannot blame him for that. So, what does he say?
“…the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president…”
Now, to be fair, McConnell is in election mode and he tempered his remarks by suggesting that if Obama were to do a “Clintonian backflip” he could meet the Republican senators “halfway.” The message to Obama – move towards us, and we will work with you; don’t, and we will not. Electoral politics? Bravado in the face of a certain victory?
On the contrary, what we see from McConnell, Kasich in Ohio, Barbour in Mississippi and other standard-bearing Republicans is a relentless push to not just defeat the president’s agenda, but scuttle any reasonable opportunity to achieve anything worthwhile. And to what purpose? Because the Republicans have the magic bullet to solve all of our problems? Clearly, no. No, simply put, they are bent on taking back the power and will do so by any means necessary…even courting and encouraging the growth of the frantic Tea Party legions. There are endless calls about budget measures, spending cuts, etc, etc. Just be sure, gentlemen, that when the budget cutting begins you start with a realistic approach to the so-called “Bush tax cuts” – in other words, rescind the tax cuts for those making more than $250K. While you are at it, be sure to carefully look at the budgets of your own pet projects before attacking noteworthy programs that actually help this country.
McConnell’s statement was what Jon Stewart was really talking about during his closing remarks at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear held this past weekend in Washington DC:
While analysts can criticize the rally as political in nature, the same criticism can be used against Glenn Beck’s rally earlier in the year. By their very nature the rallies were political since they involved people and the discussion of ideas and policy. So, let it be. While many criticisms have been directed towards the Rally, Stewart’s closing remarks exposed the “insanity” of McConnell’s comments. As Stewart suggested, certainly we ought to be able to debate, and debate we should. We all have our differences, and those differences are not small. But use the debates and the differences to build something better – do not just resist because the “other side” is different. That only brings out the worst in our society, and leaves the terrain for debate open to the most radical and destructive voices. That’s the message. Debate, don’t resist. Every day we see how this works outside of the Beltway. People do it every day. It’s the difference between developing policy and making progress, and driving us all insane with the bickering.
Posted by Matt S 
Status Mundi 