# 20 Jan 09: What the world wants from the new American president.



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2008)

I’m rather a fan of Chris Patten and there is much with which I agree in his world view. I though I would use his analysis, therefore, to start a new, post election thread.

That analysis is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081028.wcoamerica29/BNStory/specialComment/home


> What the world will want from a new American leader
> 
> CHRIS PATTEN
> 
> ...




Patten’s “wish list” includes:

1.	“Return America's economic competitiveness and self-confidence:”

2.	No return to protectionism – do not heed the siren song of the Lou Dobbs lunatic fringe;

3.	“Re-engage with the world community and international organizations, accepting that even a superpower should accept the rules that apply to others;”

4.	“Make a success of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty renewal conference in 2010 by scrapping more weapons, abandoning research into them, and challenging others to do the same;”

5.	“Unleash America's creative potential in boosting energy efficiency and developing clean technologies;”

6.	“Focus more attention on China, without ever pretending that China's record on human rights can be swept under the carpet;” and

7.	Make “a sustained drive for the sort of [Middle East peace] settlement that was almost achieved in the Clinton era.”


I think 1,2, 3, 6 and 7 are all vital. The top here are, almost certainly, Canada’s wish list, too.

The 4th and 5th points are important, but reflect a certain Eurocentric myopia:

•	Decommissioning more and more nuclear weapons is a good thing if, but only *IF* they are accompanied by reductions to other nuclear arsenals, especially the British, Chinese, French, Israeli and, above all, Russian stockpiles. But R&D should not be abandoned; in fact, I would argue, it cannot be abandoned – the genie cannot be forced back into the bottle. China and Israel and Russia will not stop their R&D, nor should America; and

•	Green technology development – *all* technology development – is important but it is really a sub-set of item 1, just given prominence to pacify the _eco-fascists_.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Oct 2008)

This is very interesting and I would tend to agree.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Oct 2008)

I guess I take a contrarian view. Who cares what the world wants ? The US cannot make policy based on what other nations want. Rather policy must be driven by what is best for our national interest. Sometimes it will find favor in world capitols and sometimes it wont.


----------



## CougarKing (30 Oct 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I’m rather a fan of Chris Patten and there is much with which I agree in his world view. I though I would use his analysis, therefore, to start a new, post election thread.



Oh wow. I didn't realize this was the same Chris Patten who was the last British governor/administrator of Hong Kong when I lived there.


----------



## Jed (30 Oct 2008)

T6, I understand your contrarian point of view, but would it not be better for the US to be a team player in a global context ? Even the biggest, fastest, best paid player on the team has to follow the same rules and adjust to the other player's capabilities.


----------



## CougarKing (30 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I guess I take a contrarian view. Who cares what the world wants ? The US cannot make policy based on what other nations want. Rather policy must be driven by what is best for our national interest. Sometimes it will find favor in world capitols and sometimes it wont.



Sir,

Yes, America must tend to its own self-interest, but tending to one's self-interest does not mean shirking the world leadership that Patten alluded to. In fact it may be within the interest of the United States to regain the global legitimacy and "moral authority" it lost during the Bush years. Otherwise, if it turns out most American voters agree with you at the polls, then perhaps it is time for the other Anglophone nations/the Commonwealth to step up? (e.g. Harper's speech on Canada and Australia when he visited Australia, although I am surprised he didn't include the UK) 

(and yes, I am aware that the Commonwealth is nothing more than an exclusive club of former British territories and Dominions now than an actual security alliance- unless somehow that could be changed in the future)


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I guess I take a contrarian view. Who cares what the world wants ? The US cannot make policy based on what other nations want. Rather policy must be driven by what is best for our national interest. Sometimes it will find favor in world capitols and sometimes it wont.




I think CougarDaddy is right.

America tells the world it is the ‘leader’ of the free world. That means, _ipso facto_, that we - *A*ustralia, *B*elgium, *C*hile and so on through to, presumably, *Z*ambia – are _clients_. Clients may not get to vote but they do have legitimate expectations for their leader’s actions. If the leader fails to deliver the clients can and will seek new leadership.

Please remember there is neither _"Gott mit uns"_ or _manifest destiny_ or even _special providence_. Great nations and great empires come and go - history is written in sand, not stone.


----------



## wannabe SF member (30 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I guess I take a contrarian view. Who cares what the world wants ? The US cannot make policy based on what other nations want. Rather policy must be driven by what is best for our national interest. Sometimes it will find favor in world capitols and sometimes it wont.



I agree,

I'ts naive of us to believe that the opinion of your average word "citizen" is going to be a major issue to the President of the US, it shouldn't be for any world leader since, last time I checked, their mandate was limited to their own country.

It always surprises me to see the almost child-like optimism that some of the people in my entourage exhibit by expressing thir belief that the election of the "messiah) will be the biggest damn change in their life. Incidentally, some of tem didn't vote at the last federal elections.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2008)

An interesting wish list, particularly if you compare that to the rather vague set of promises that Senator Obama has made during his campaign. In fact, the idea of raising taxes and adopting a redistributuive economic policy (about the only clear promise he has made) is destabilizing the markets now, and if implimented, will bring on an American recession and possibly a global one as well. For those of you who pooh pooh that notion, the evidence is pretty conclusive; these policies adopted by FDR in the 1930's prolonged the Great Depression by seven years, and similar policies such as LBJ's "Great Society" unleased rampant inflation, while President Carter's economic policies generated "Stagflation" (his foreign policies invited every thug and tinpot dictator to "come and get us" as well).

Senator Obama and the Democratic Congress share a "Progressive" worldview (often mislabled "liberal"). Here is a wider ranging analysis of what the "Progressive" worldview may end up doing to us instead, and perhaps how to get out of the trap (hint, this next President isn't going to be the one to do this):

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/forbes/2008/1117/023.html



> *Can We Afford Liberalism Now?*
> Paul Johnson 11.17.08, 12:00 AM ET
> 
> The financial crisis, detonated by greed and recklessness on Wall Street and in the City of London, is for the West a deep, self-inflicted wound. The beneficiary won't be Russia, which, with its fragile, energy-based economy, is likely to suffer more than we shall; it will be *India and China. They will move into any power vacuum left by the collapse of Western self-confidence.*
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Way_ is an interesting analysis of the next few years from Prof. Richard Florida:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081101.wflorida01/BNStory/Front/home


> The new politics of class war point to a frightening future
> 
> RICHARD FLORIDA
> 
> ...



It is important to note, first, that Prof. Florida has a *vested interest* in a _class divide_ because he proposes that there is a new ‘class’ – the creative class that goes beyond just _artistic_ creativity and embraces those people in _”centres of innovation such as San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, and Washington D.C.; finance, entertainment and media cities such as New York and Los Angeles; and university-anchored tech centres such as Austin, Tex., Boulder, Colo., and Raleigh-Durham, N.C.”_ He theorizes that ‘creativity,’ rather than wealth, _per se_, is the new dividing line between classes – the _old rich_ may be in the same class as the _“hockey moms,” “Joe Six-Pack” and “Joe the Plumber”_ while the _other_ class consists of the ‘creators’ – artists, financiers, scientists and so on – many of whom will be wealthy, too, but for whom wealth will not be the be-all and end-all.

Prof. Florida makes education and _urbanity_ important _markers_ for ‘creativity.’ Essentially he sees a _critical mass_ of well educated, engaged and, _ipso facto_ ‘creative’ living and working in large urban centres and, consequentially, _draining_ ‘creativity’ from small cities, towns and rural areas. This is much discussed by political analysts in both Canada and the USA regarding e.g. the Conservative Party’s strength in (over represented) rural and small town Canada and the Liberals’ stranglehold in the (underrepresented) major urban centres of Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. By definition the Liberals and NDP are ‘creative’ and the Tories are akin to those so often characterized as the poor, dim-witted denizens of the Red States.

That being said it is an analysis that is worth considering.


----------



## CougarKing (4 Nov 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I guess I take a contrarian view.* Who cares what the world wants ? * The US cannot make policy based on what other nations want. Rather policy must be driven by what is best for our national interest. Sometimes it will find favor in world capitols and sometimes it wont.



 : There's a difference between taking into account one nation's self-interest because you want to isolate yourself from everyone else and working with others to better achieve your common self-interests with others.

http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2008)

As I have said before, _Globe and Mail_ columnist Lawrence Martin hates George W Bush and all his works. This column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is, however, I suspect, reflective of much of the ‘world view:’

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081105.wcomartin06/BNStory/specialComment/home


> Exit the ugly American, enter a new Can-Am era
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...




Martin has, quite uncritically, bought into the Obama as “superman” myth; he is _”a leader of grace and brilliance and vision,”_ nothing less than a *saviour*. In this respect Martin seems to reflect the general world view. He, like the world, is in for a sad surprise when Obama turns out to be oh so very human.

He spews forth a veritable paroxysm of juvenile, knee-jerk, anti-American rage before he gets to a couple of sensible bits:

•	Obama -  his ‘team’ led by Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, anyway  - likely, sees American energy “independence” from “foreign” oil as being possible because most Americans *believe* Canada is not “foreign” – that’s what Emaneul meant when he said “Natural gas is 98 percent North American.” Our current petroleum based prosperity will continue to rest on a firm foundation of insatiable American demand; and

•	Obama will help Harper _”accelerate his course toward the moderate middle”_. Martin, grudgingly, recognizes that Harper is already on that course. The problem for the rest of the world is that too many countries – Russia amongst them – are on course for the “hard” extremes and Obama’s perceived personality and expected policies are likely to embolden them and “accelerate” their progress towards the dangerous extremes.

My guess is that most of the world will end up disappointed in Obama – how could they not be given their expectations of _perfection_? Canada may be the exception. Canadian companies have, broadly, done well during Democratic administrations – protectionist or not – by being able to exploit the opportunities created by big spending. Obama will have less to spend – Bush has left HUGE deficits – but spending will happen and Canadians should get a fair share.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of he Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a thoughtful column on “Obama and the world:”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081105.wcoash06/BNStory/specialComment/home


> 'Yes we can.' But can he?
> 
> TIMOTHY GARTON ASH
> 
> ...



There was a real, measurable shift away from the Republicans on Tuesday, but I was a bit surprised at how (relatively) small it was given all the election hype. The Red/Blue divide remains and it is deep. My reading is that the shift we saw had less to do with supporting Obama or disliking McCain than it did with a desire to punish George W Bush for his mismanagement of the economic file. When things do not, as they will not, get much better very quickly I think some of that ‘shift’ will disappear. In other words, while Timothy Garton-Ash is correct that this election represents the _”last lines of the last chapter_ [rather] _than the start of a new one,”_ the real, deep divisions between (badly misnamed) ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ are still there and will continue to drive the US political system for years to come – unless Obama can do something to bridge the gap, which I doubt is within his capabilities.


----------



## CougarKing (6 Nov 2008)

And Obama begins naming his cabinet...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/obama.transition/index.html



> *Obama eyes both sides of the aisle for transition team*
> 
> Story Highlights
> Rep. Rahm Emanuel considered front-runner for White House chief of staff
> ...


----------



## 2 Cdo (6 Nov 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As I have said before, _Globe and Mail_ columnist Lawrence Martin hates George W Bush and all his works. This column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is, however, I suspect, reflective of much of the ‘world view:’
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081105.wcomartin06/BNStory/specialComment/home
> 
> ...



I will file Mr Martens column in the usual spot. The garbage can by my desk. :


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Nov 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a look at the near future in _Obamaland_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081111.wobamavisit11/BNStory/International/home


> Erasing No. 43's legacy, one policy at a time
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




I hate to be repetitive, but the emerging _stimulus_ programmes, especially Krugman’s “add 50% ‘on spec’” ideas, run the very real risk of transiting, quickly, from proper ‘damage control’ into *illegal* programmes aimed at giving US companies an unfair and wholly improper _advantage_ over better managed foreign competitors – in other words, *illegal*, improper and destructive protectionism is already on the rise. That's exactly what the world, including the USA, neither wants nor needs.


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Nov 2008)

I find this stimulus to be destructive to the economy long term.Companies that fail shouldnt be rewarded.They should go the way of companies like Studebaker.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Nov 2008)

Friedrich A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises pronounce judgement on the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress. We *will* live in *interesting times* for the next four years:



> Should we really prolong the death struggle for those countries, whose ruling intellectual caste is dependent on the resources that the capitalist west provides for its socialist experiments?
> _Friedrich A. Hayek_
> 
> That which generates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes, trade -- and currency control, devaluing, etc. The philosophy of protectionism is the philosophy of war.
> _Ludwig von Mises_


----------



## a_majoor (20 Nov 2008)

He's still all about image:

http://jerrypournelle.com/view/2008/Q4/view545.html



> As to politics, I watched 60 Minutes Obama interview last night, and I learned:
> 
> 1. Neither Obama nor CBS knows the difference between President Elect and President Designate or Presumptive President Elect. Obama does not become President Elect until the Electoral College meets and casts ballots and those are opened and recorded in the Capitol.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Nov 2008)

They will want value for money, apparently:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/german-publishings-man-in-the-white-house/



> German Publishing’s Man in the White House
> 
> *Obama's ties to Bertelsmann are a massive conflict of interest yet to be fully disclosed*.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Dec 2008)

The threats of unconventional attacks will need to be addressed on an ongoing basis (the political hype in the article notwithstanding). More continuation of the Bush legacy:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/22207/?nlid=1554



> *Unconventional-Weapons Warnings from Obama Advisors*
> 
> Members of Obama's transition team warn that the United States has not taken seriously the threat of bioterrorism, and that some chemical plants are potential targets.
> Tuesday, December 02, 2008
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (3 Dec 2008)

Just more rhetoric? Or something to balance out the critics' doom and gloom predictions about the oncoming administration? 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR2008112901912.html?hpid=topnews



> *Joint Chiefs Chairman 'Very Positive' After Meeting With Obama*
> 
> Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went unarmed into his first meeting with the new commander in chief -- no aides, no PowerPoint presentation, no briefing books. Summoned nine days ago to President-elect Barack Obama's Chicago transition office, Mullen showed up with just a pad, a pen and a desire to take the measure of his incoming boss.
> *There was little talk of exiting Iraq or beefing up the U.S. force in Afghanistan; the one-on-one, 45-minute conversation ranged from the personal to the philosophical. Mullen came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman "felt very good, very positive," according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby.*
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Dec 2008)

Let's see how he reacts on his first major decision, domestic or foreign. Clinton caved into  everything. How will Obama react with Hillary in his cabinet?


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2008)

Remember, this is the political environment where President elect Obama learned the craft.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rod-blagojevich-1209,0,7997804.story



> *Illinois Gov. Blagojevich, chief of staff, arrested*
> Read about the latest developments
> 
> By Jeff Coen, David Kidwell and Monique Garcia | Tribune staff reporters
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2008)

It seems that Google's unofficial motto "do no evil" is situational. Perhaps it is time to migrate en mass to another search engine that does not attempt to censor the Internet:

http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/now-cached-pages-are-going-away/oddities



> *Now Cached Pages Are Going Away*
> December 11th, 2008 Posted in Oddities
> 
> It seems like web articles critical of Obama are disappearing faster than you can say Change.
> ...



Control of information is how dictatorships and authoritarians survive. The question we should be asking about Google is who is directing this activity, and what are the owners and managers of Google receiving in return? 

The real action we should take is to start changing our search pages away from Google and informing advertisers we will start boycotting anyone who appears on Google.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2008)

Chicago style politics in action: The new President will have to do a massive amount of housecleaning before getting started

http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/2008/12/rahm-emanuel-on-tape.html



> *Rahm Emanuel on Tape*
> 
> I have no idea why this is in a British paper first, but here it is: Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s chief of staff, has been caught on tape discussing the names of candidates for Obama’s Senate seat. This is like watching the fall of President Nixon (let's play that tape again), only it's before the Innauguration.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (6 Jan 2009)

> Gupta has told administration officials that he wants the job, and the final vetting process is under way.



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2009/01/06/obama_wants_journalist_for_sur.html?hpid=topnews

CNN's Medical Correspondent- Dr. Sanjay Gupta-for US Surgeon General?


----------



## CougarKing (8 Jan 2009)

Hopefully he'll deliver on this once he assumes office:



> *Obama To Revamp Counterterrorism Efforts - NYTimes*
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama will revamp the way the U.S. government coordinates counterterrorism efforts, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.
> 
> ...


----------



## sm1lodon (9 Jan 2009)

I agree with energy efficiency. I can't find any proof that global warming or CO2 is any threat to anything, anywhere, or has any scientific credence.

A "lasting peace" in the middle East will come when it quits being the goal of the relatively gigantic land areas of the Arab countries to take the 7850 square miles that is Israel's. This will not happen any time soon. Israel is roughly the size of New Jersey.

A plus for America, definitely, would be if it could actually keep its soldiers, government agencies, and others with power in check.

If the EPA actually allowed any manufacturing to be done in the USA it would be helpful, also. This comes back to the financially-motivated "carbon tax" idiocy that hs no basis in real science by basically penalizing energy usage, and any country that does more than raise livestock and gather herbs for sustenance of their economy.

In effect, the USA is bleeding, morally, financially, educationally, and in the manufacturing of stuff that actually has real value. Meanwhile, China et al are rocketing forward, drastically increasing their infrastructure (infrastructure incurs on the habitat of the lesser fart-faced nocturnal shrieking slime gecko [or whatever the victim-du-jour "discovered" by the EPA may be], and is thus is taboo in the USA, it seems)

When your people are being bombarded by media extolling the virtues of being a ho and/or gangsta, when your schools are breeding grounds for ignorance, prejudice, and sloth, when your financial institutions are run by self-aggrandizing large-scale thieves, and when your industry is being branded as the reason for the demise of the whole species of man because it produces CO2, which plants, on which we depend for oxygen, thrive, then in which direction will you head?

Downhill.

Exalting wanton excess gained by activities that are morally despicable instead of honoring constructive values such as honesty, hard work, self-sacrifice, and loyalty will lead to destruction.

There is something badly wrong when men place no value on women NOT acting in a way that would have shamed a prostitute 50 years ago, and when women place no value on men being faithful, morally upright (mongamous), and honest, but instead sell themselves to any scum that has enough money to finance the acquisition and display of trinkets, large and small, knowing that when the marriage ends, she can soak him for 50+% of anything he ever makes, ad infinitum.

The skin discoloration we are starting to see on the surface of the USA is a result of a far deeper cancer, and is not merely adolescent acne. When people, on a personal level, abandon values that are absolutely critical for a society to have if it is to continue to grow stronger, then the society fragments into petty, warring factions, (possibly rightly) fearful of being shanked by the other factions, and ceases to expend maximum energy on constructive activity.


----------



## sm1lodon (9 Jan 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> It seems that Google's unofficial motto "do no evil" is situational. Perhaps it is time to migrate en mass to another search engine that does not attempt to censor the Internet:
> 
> http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/now-cached-pages-are-going-away/oddities
> 
> ...



Does ANYONE here remember how Toshiba sold a giant three-story-tall seven-axis milling machine to the Soviet Union in, I believe, 1986, thus enabling the Soviets to have submarine propellors as quiet as the Americans?

When I was living in the USA, not one time did I ever find anyone who had heard of it.

In Canada, it was all over the news. At that time, I made up my mind to never purchase anything from Toshiba, and never will, it was that dramatic a piece of bad news. In the USA... no one heard of it.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2009)

It would be less embarrassing/questionable if they could wear their affiliations with pride rather than scrubbing websites and trying to hide "who they are". It's not like thinking and informed people didn't know and understand what was being offered by a putative Obama administration:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/



> *Obama climate czar has socialist ties*
> Stephen Dinan (Contact)
> 
> *Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jan 2009)

This, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is going to really come as a pitcher of piss poured into the cornflakes of Canada’s left leaning Liberals and the NDP faithful:
-------------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090115.wcogee16/BNStory/Business/columnists

 Notwithstanding Obamamania, the U.S. is fixated on terrorism

MARCUS GEE

From Friday's Globe and Mail
January 16, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST

"The gravest threat that America faces is the danger that weapons of mass destruction will fall into the hands of terrorists." Who said that? U.S. President George W. Bush before the Iraq war? Vice-President Dick Cheney? Perhaps Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice?

Sorry, none of the above. The answer is incoming secretary of state Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, at her Senate confirmation hearings this week.

The world is expecting big changes from Barack Obama and his new team when they take office next Tuesday. Before the Senate foreign relations committee, Ms. Clinton promised an era of "smart power" in which "diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy" and persuasion will come before coercion.

But before we get carried away with Obamamania, let's remember one thing: Let's remember what Americans remember. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, may be a fading memory in much of the world. American leaders, though, remain fixated on the double threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

This is not some paranoid obsession. The events of 9/11 made it clear to everyone that America faced a new enemy that had no compunction about massacring thousands of civilians. If this enemy could fly hijacked airliners into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, what would it do if it had nuclear, chemical or biological weapons?

There is a broad bipartisan consensus that the U.S. must use every means at its disposal - including military force if necessary - to prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group. Even a liberal Democrat such as Senator John Kerry says (as he put it at this week's hearing) this is "the age of catastrophic terrorism."

Mr. Obama swears he will do everything in his power to prevent Iran, a notorious backer of terrorists, from developing nuclear weapons. Ms. Clinton calls a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable" - the same formulation used by the Bush crew - and says the incoming administration will not rule out any option to solve the problem. On North Korea, similarly, Ms. Clinton says Washington will "embark upon a very aggressive effort" to take nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Kim Jong-il regime, which tested a bomb in 2006.

Naturally, Ms. Clinton says the new administration prefers to talk first, draw guns later. But who doesn't? The Bush White House spent years working through diplomatic channels to disarm North Korea, eventually securing its agreement to shut down a nuclear reactor in return for oil supplies. The administration even made the extraordinary concession of removing North Korea from its list of terrorist states, though it is still far from clear whether Pyongyang will follow through on its disarmament promises.

On Iran, too, Washington stood back for years while Europe tried to talk Tehran back from the nuclear brink. Mr. Obama says he will try diplomacy again and even talk directly to Iranian leaders if it offers hope of a settlement. But that doesn't make him any less determined to keep Iran from going nuclear.

Nor is he less hawkish on terrorism. He has made it clear he will use all of his country's intelligence assets and military prowess to track down terrorist chiefs wherever they hide.

Washington's continuing fixation with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction is bound to come between the U.S. and its allies. Much as they are looking forward to better relations, most of them don't see eye to eye with the Americans on this issue. In Europe, in particular, terrorism is seen in part as a struggle within, involving alienated Muslim immigrants and the extremists among them. The U.S. idea of a global "war on terror" strikes them as over the top, and even dangerous. That makes this era fundamentally different from the Cold War, when a common Soviet enemy bound Europe and the U.S. together.

With the departure of Tony Blair, Washington's staunchest ally, even the British are warning that a new approach is needed. In a speech in India yesterday, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the idea of a war on terror was mistaken and misleading.

Mr. Obama no doubt shares some of those misgivings, especially over how the war on terror was used to justify the war in Iraq. It does not mean he discounts the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Since 9/11, U.S. leaders have had a recurring nightmare of destruction that would make that September day pale by comparison. It is a threat that eclipses all others, and it will preoccupy them for years to come.
-------------------------

So, the big *change* will be that President Obama, in seeking an extension of the Afghanistan mission beyond 2011 or in seeking our support for an attack on Iran, will ask and cajole before he blusters at us.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jan 2009)

Here, on the _CTV News_ website is a useful 'ready reckoner' on Obama's _inner circle_ (cabinet secretaries and White House staff, etc).


----------



## CougarKing (20 Jan 2009)

I am just posting a copy of US PRESIDENT OBAMA's inauguration speech for everyone's benefit, including the usual naysayers.    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/obama_inauguration/7840646.stm



> Full text: Obama inauguration speech
> Barack Obama has been sworn in as the 44th US president. Here is his inauguration speech in full.
> 
> My fellow citizens:
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jan 2009)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> I am just posting a copy of US PRESIDENT OBAMA's inauguration speech for everyone's benefit, including the usual naysayers.



Naaaay.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2009)

So what sort of man is the new President? Inquiring minds have wanted to know for a long time:

Chicago Boyz - http://chicagoboyz.net -



> *Quote of the Day III*
> Posted By Lexington Green On January 20, 2009 @ 12:24 pm In Book Notes, Management, Politics, USA | Comments Disabled
> 
> Michiko Kakutani of the New York Times is much impressed by the [1] books Obama has read, or says he has read. I am almost in despair when I read the same list. Obama will be the commander in chief — but he appears to have read almost nothing on military history or strategy. And he does not seem to see that as a defect in his preparation for the presidency. There no books on science, technology, or economics in the list.
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Jan 2009)

My view of the inaugural address:

"We will not apologize for our way of life...
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/012557.html



> ...nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."
> http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1872715-3,00.html
> 
> No moral relativism from President Obama. No root causes. A clear triumphalism. How, er, un-Canadian. Not that our pundits will notice.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jan 2009)

Via Quote of the Day III and the NYT



> ...Mr. Obama tends to take a magpie approach to reading — ruminating upon writers’ ideas and picking and choosing those that flesh out his vision of the world or open promising new avenues of inquiry.
> 
> His predecessor, George W. Bush, in contrast, tended to race through books in competitions with Karl Rove (who recently boasted that he beat the president by reading 110 books to Mr. Bush’s 95 in 2006),



So now, the President who was too much of a Chimp to be able to read is accused of reading too much .... and too fast.   His successor reads occasionally and slowly.
Bush, who was accused of not listening to advice, now stands accused of taking the advice he was given.  His successor is not known for reading books that offer practical advice.  He prefers poetry and philosophy.
Bush stood accused of acting.  Apparently that is not Barack's way.  He ruminates (Ruminate: to chew the cud  as does the placid and docile cow).

But he does look good doing it and reads a speech very well.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2009)

“I WON.” In Bush, this would have been troubling hubris. In Obama, fortunately, it’s just manly self-assurance.

Posted at 6:45 pm by Glenn Reynolds  

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html



> Obama to GOP: 'I won'
> By JONATHAN MARTIN & CAROL E. LEE | 1/23/09 1:25 PM EST  Updated: 1/23/09 6:36 PM EST  Text Size:
> 
> President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.
> ...



I think the next four years will be very entertaining since I will constantly be able to point out the current administration "did it just like George W Bush". Cover from exploding heads is advised!


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2009)

Comparisons to FDR and the "New Deal" should be treated seriously, considering what _really_ happened then as opposed to the mythology:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/012606.html



> *A country in need of a dictator...*
> ...when Mussolini was a Good Thing. It's interesting what has been forgotten about attitudes when FDR assumed the presidency. From a review essay in the New York Review of Books:
> 
> [...]
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (4 Feb 2009)

Obama speaks out against trade protectionism; Harper is reportedly encouraged by these comments.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090204/national/cda_us_protectionism



> *Harper 'encouraged' by Obama comments *
> 
> Wed Feb 4, 4:18 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Feb 2009)

America and the world want what he can't deliver, and what he is delivering is so unpalatable that this prediction may come true:

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/MarkTapscott/Obama-is-headed-for-a-one-term-presidency-39461127.html



> *Obama is headed for a one-term presidency*
> 
> By Mark Tapscott
> Editorial Page Editor | 2/12/09 1:45 PM
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Feb 2009)

And the world wants earmarks; lots of earmarks....

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003061639&referrer=js



> Funny how items show up in spending bills without any notice — like an earmark for a president who promised not to seek any.
> 
> President Obama, who took a no-earmark pledge on the campaign trail, is listed as one of dozens of cosponsors of a $7.7 million set-aside in the fiscal 2009 omnibus spending bill (HR 1105) passed by the House on Wednesday.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (26 Feb 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> America and the world want what he can't deliver, and what he is delivering is so unpalatable that this prediction may come true:



The jury is still out on that. 

And in the meantime, he just *increased* military spending. A step to the police state you fear so much? I don't think so. 



> *U.S. DoD To Get $537B Annually For 10 Years*
> 
> By vago muradian
> Published: 25 Feb 19:28 EST (00:28 GMT)
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Feb 2009)

The problem with this administration and this congress is they are very adept at speaking out of all sides of their mouths. Will the Dems institute a Police State? The administration and the congress certainly show the desire for a vastly expanded role of the State in the social and economic life, and actions, of course speak volumes.

Large sectors of the Financial industry have been effectively nationalized, perhaps enough to make the private banks (especially the ones that were run in a prudent manner) uncompetative. Other sectors of the economy will go the same way as political rent seekers try to muscle out their competition, with lots of help from the "Stimulus" package. The White House is attempting to take over the US Census in direct defiance of the Constitution, and the only motive is to politicise the Census in order to send appropriations to favored (through "statistical sampling" and possibly ACORN like head counts) districts. Various Democrat congressmembers and Senators are now openly talking about re introducing the "Fairness" doctrine for radio and the Internet (coincidentally the only places where the Progressive message is seriously challenged), crippling free speech and the free passage of ideas.

Ideas that have been floated like nationalizing private IRA's and the civilian national security force are alarming in of themselves, but even more so since they fit so well into the already unfolding actions of the administration and the congress.

If the United States ever devolves into a police state, it will be to enforce the increase of State power against the efforts of citizens who object. (You might want to look at history. Even the United States had an episode of a proto "Brown Shirt" organization during WWI with the American Protective League)

If there is hope, it lies with the fact that only a slim majority of the population elected President Obama, and the rapidly growing "Tea Party" movement which could provide focus and tip enough people back to make the opposition the majority.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Feb 2009)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR2009022602908.html

Not a great speech, but extremely consequential. If Barack Obama succeeds, his joint address to Congress will be seen as historic -- indeed as the foundational document of Obamaism. As it stands, it constitutes the boldest social democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president. 

The first part of the speech, justifying his economic stabilization efforts, was mere housekeeping. The economic crisis is to Obama a technocratic puzzle that needs to be solved because otherwise he loses all popular support. 

Unlike most presidents, however, he doesn't covet popular support for its own sake. Some men become president to be someone, others to do something. This is what separates, say, a Bill Clinton from a Ronald Reagan. Obama, who once noted that Reagan altered the trajectory of America as Clinton had not, sees himself a Reagan. 

Reagan came to office to do something: shrink government, lower taxes, rebuild American defenses. Obama made clear Tuesday night that he intends to be equally transformative. His three goals: universal health care, universal education, and a new green energy economy highly funded and regulated by government. 

1) Obama wants to be to universal health care what Lyndon Johnson was to Medicare. Obama has publicly abandoned his once-stated preference for a single-payer system as in Canada and Britain. But that is for practical reasons. In America, you can't get there from here directly. 

Instead, Obama will create the middle step that will lead ultimately and inevitably to single-payer. The way to do it is to establish a reformed system that retains a private health-insurance sector but offers a new government-run plan (based on benefits open to members of Congress) so relatively attractive that people voluntarily move out of the private sector, thereby starving it. The ultimate result is a system of fully socialized medicine. This will probably not happen until long after Obama leaves office. But he will be rightly recognized as its father. 

(2) Beyond cradle-to-grave health care, Obama wants cradle-to-cubicle education. He wants far more government grants, tax credits and other financial guarantees for college education -- another way station to another universal federal entitlement. He lauded the country for establishing free high school education during the Industrial Revolution; he wants to put us on the road to doing the same for college during the Information Age. 

(3) Obama wants to be to green energy what John Kennedy was to the moon shot, its visionary and creator. It starts with the establishment of a government-guided, government-funded green energy sector into which the administration will pour billions of dollars from the stimulus package and billions more from budgets to come. 

But just picking winners and losers is hardly sufficient for a president who sees himself as world-historical. Hence the carbon cap-and-trade system he proposed Tuesday night that will massively restructure American industry and create a highly regulated energy sector. 

These revolutions in health care, education and energy are not just abstract hopes. They have already taken life in Obama's $787 billion stimulus package, a huge expansion of social spending constituting a down payment on Obama's plan for remaking the American social contract. 

Obama sees the current economic crisis as an opportunity. He has said so openly. And now we know what opportunity he wants to seize. Just as the Depression created the political and psychological conditions for Franklin Roosevelt's transformation of America from laissez-faireism to the beginnings of the welfare state, the current crisis gives Obama the political space to move the still (relatively) modest American welfare state toward European-style social democracy. 

In the European Union, government spending has declined slightly, from 48 percent to 47 percent of GDP during the past 10 years. In the United States, it has shot up from 34 percent to 40 percent. Part of this explosive growth in U.S. government spending reflects the emergency private-sector interventions of a Republican administration. But the clear intent was to make the massive intrusion into the private sector temporary and to retreat as quickly as possible. Obama has radically different ambitions. 

The spread between Europe and America in government-controlled GDP has already shrunk from 14 percent to 7 percent. Two terms of Obamaism and the difference will be zero. 

Conservatives take a dim view of the regulation-bound, economically sclerotic, socially stagnant, nanny state that is the European Union. Nonetheless, Obama is ascendant and has the personal mandate to take the country where he wishes. He has laid out boldly the Brussels-bound path he wants to take. 

Let the debate begin. 

letters@charleskrauthammer.com


----------



## a_majoor (28 Feb 2009)

The economy is coming for the Congress and Administration:


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2009)

Future historians will have a field day:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/03/wikipedia-scrubs-dear-leaders-page-of.html



> *Wikipedia Scrubs Dear Leader's Page Clean of Critical Entries*
> 
> Wikipedia scrubs Obama's entry clean of any critical information that may taint your view of Dear Leader.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2009)

Dissing foreign leaders is one thing, but this....

http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/to-care-for-him-who-shall-have-borne-the-battle/



> *“To Care For Him Who Shall Have Borne The Battle”*
> March 17, 2009 — Raphael Alexander
> 
> usarmy
> ...



_We hear that there are tumults and riots in Rome, and that voices are raised concerning the army and the quality of our soldiers. Make haste to reassure us that you love and support us as we love and support you, for if we find that we have left our bones to bleach in these sands in vain, *then beware the fury of the legions.*_


----------



## CougarKing (18 Mar 2009)

Words of support from one former POTUS to the current one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29743567/?gt1=43001




> *Bush says Obama 'deserves my silence'
> He says he won't criticize new president and he plans to write a book*
> 
> During his eighth week in office, President Barack Obama ventured into international matters, dealt with economic issues, saluted Abraham Lincoln and announced education reform efforts.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (19 Mar 2009)

So the POTUS gets help from an unexpected source....Gov. Schwarzenegger.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090319/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama



> *Schwarzenegger to help Obama answer GOP critics*
> By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Charles Babington, Associated Press Writer – Thu Mar 19, 7:47 am ET
> AP
> LOS ANGELES – *President Barack Obama is playing a bit of divide and conquer this week, pitting his Republican critics in Washington against GOP governors and mayors eager for the federal money that his hard-fought stimulus plan will bring. Next on the list of Republican notables to embrace the president is California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is to join Obama at a town hall meeting Thursday in Los Angeles.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Mar 2009)

Leadership, or just guest appearances? Rex Murphy wants to know:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090320.wcomurphy21/BNStory/specialComment/home



> *Faux outrage in a time of crisis*
> 
> REX MURPHY
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Mar 2009)

The latest Rasmussen poll shows Obama with a 32% approval rating and this is only the first 100 days.


----------



## CougarKing (22 Mar 2009)

Meanwhile, down under...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090322/world/australia_us_diplomacy_politics



> *Australian PM says he'll talk straight with Obama *
> 41 minutes ago
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (1 Apr 2009)

So will Putin *COUGH* Medvedev be ready when Obama comes to visit?  ;D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090401/ap_on_re_eu/eu_obama_china



> *Obama accepts invitations to visit China, Russia*
> 1 hr 20 mins ago
> 
> LONDON – *President Barack Obama has accepted an invitation to visit China later this year. The White House said Wednesday that Obama has accepted an invitation from President Hu Jintao. Obama and Hu met in London ahead of the G-20 economic summit.*
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (1 Apr 2009)

Read the last line of this article to see another example that show that Obama is also "reaching across the aisle" to Conservatives there, even in another country. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090401/ap_on_re_eu/eu_obama



> *Obama arrives at Buckingham Palace to meet queen
> 
> * 2 hrs 23 mins ago
> LONDON – President Barack Obama has arrived at Buckingham Palace for a private meeting with Queen Elizabeth II. Several thousand well-wishers crowded the traffic circle in front of the gated palace on Wednesday to cheer and wave as the limousine carrying Obama and first lady Michelle Obama rolled past.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Apr 2009)

CougarDaddy:

Nobody is denying that Obama is willing to gab with all-comers.

Two questions.

Does he know what he is talking about?

Does he givadam what the other side thinks?

My sense is that the answer to both questions is: NO.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Apr 2009)

I was watching the news and it seems the rest of the world (Turks and Czechs) aren't as enamored with the new President as we are. In fact, there were demonstrations in Turkey telling President Obama to go home.


----------



## wannabe SF member (8 Apr 2009)

> In the most dominant development, Obama and Medvedev announced talks to limit the number of nuclear warheads


I hear a lot of talks about reduction of nuclear arsenals these days.
While it "seems" a good thing that there are less nukes laying around, does it really make a difference if a country has 10 000 warheads or 2000?
Still enough to kill everyone on earth.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Apr 2009)

More "Hope'n'Change":

http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2009/04/krauthammer-on-obamessuahs.html



> *Krauthammer on obamessiah's...*
> 
> big trip. Dr Krauthammer points out it was not very successful. He also points out that obamessiah, like his wife doesn't seem to like America.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (13 Apr 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The SEALs were inserted by C-130 at night 36 hours before the conclusion of the incident. They and their boats dropped into the ocean and then made a stealth approach to the Bainbridge. I give the skipper all of the credit and little to Obama. Obama didnt order a rescue,*rather he authorized action if it was needed to preserve the life of Captain Phillips.*



Regardless, that authorization was enough for many in the MSM to say that he passed his first national security test.



> *Analysis: Obama beats first national security test*
> AP
> 
> By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP White House Correspondent Jennifer Loven, Ap White House Correspondent – 2 hrs 50 mins ago
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Apr 2009)

While 'dramatic' in the sense that there was Americans involved, I don't think, by any stretch of the imagination, this could be called 'a big win for his administration in its first critical national security test.'

Critical national security test? C'mon, that's just more Obama PR machine pandering to the morons. Next thing, it'll have been his plan and he was in the water co-ordinating it :


----------



## CougarKing (17 Apr 2009)

And Obama arrives at the summit of the Americas. Apparently Cuba will be a hot topic there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090417/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_obama_summit



> *Obama heads to Americas summit with Cuba focus*
> By MARK S. SMITH, Associated Press Writer Mark S. Smith, Associated Press Writer
> Fri Apr 17, 11:31 am ET
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Apr 2009)

Fact check time:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FACT_CHECK_OBAMA?SITE=TNKNN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT



> *FACT CHECK: Obama's job, deficit claims are iffy*
> 
> By CALVIN WOODWARD
> Associated Press Writer
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 May 2009)

VDH:

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/929/



> *Cracks in the Facade*
> 
> Posted By Victor Davis Hanson On May 14, 2009 @ 8:33 am In Uncategorized | 201 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (18 May 2009)

A controversial visit, that's for sure. 



> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090517/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_notre_dame
> 
> Obama calls for understanding in Notre Dame speech
> By JULIE PACE, Associated Press Writer Julie Pace, Associated Press Writer Sun May 17, 7:27 pm ET
> ...






> Nearly 40 protesters arrested at Notre Dame
> 
> 
> By TOM COYNE, Associated Press Writer – 42 mins ago
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 May 2009)

Robert Kaplan reminds us about the future:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905u/kaplan-obama-100-days



> A look ahead to the crises—from Russian power plays to Israeli military strikes—that could really show us what the president is made of.
> by Robert D. Kaplan
> 
> *Obama the Untested*
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (4 Jun 2009)

Another notable update:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/ap_on_re_mi_ea/obama



> *Obama seeks common cause with Muslim world*
> AP White House Correspondent Jennifer Loven, Ap White House Correspondent – 16 mins ago
> CAIRO – Stretching out a hand to the Islamic world, President Barack Hussein Obama on Thursday invoked the Quran, his middle name and an American evenhandedness he says too few Muslims see. Obama drew a respectful response from unlikely places — an Iranian cleric called it "an initial step for removing misconceptions."
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jun 2009)

A pox on the Great Apologist's thoughts on colonialism.  If I hear one more vacuous twit "apologize" to the world of Islam for colonialism and slavery I will spew. More keyboards will be required.

Why did we colonize Islamic ports?  They sheltered pirates.  They still flaming do.

We should apologise to the Arabs for buying the slaves they bought from blacks and transported to West African to sell to more black Africans and us?

Bugger them all - NO MORE APOLOGIES.   :rage: iper:


----------



## CougarKing (5 Jun 2009)

I'm just curious: does anyone here know the unit that his great uncle on his mother's side had belonged to, when they helped liberate one of these camps during WW2? Patton's US Third Army?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090605/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama



> *At death camp, Obama says evil must be confronted*
> 
> Mark S. Smith, Associated Press Writer – 22 mins ago
> WEIMAR, Germany –* President Barack Obama witnessed the Nazi ovens of the Buchenwald concentration camp Friday, its clock tower frozen at the time of liberation, and said the leaders of today must not rest against the spread of evil.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (27 Jun 2009)

And Obama scoffs at Ahmadinejad's demand for an apology for US criticism of Iran's recent actions against the protest movement and for meddling in Iranian domestic affairs.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5juui7didNwh_vzBmJyrbjxkeF-IgD992IRFO2



> Obama scoffs at Ahmadinejad's demand for apology
> By JENNIFER LOVEN – 1 day ago
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's criticism of Iran escalated Friday into an unusually personal war of words. To Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's demand he apologize for meddling, Obama shot back that the regime should "think carefully" about answers owed to protesters it has arrested, bludgeoned and killed.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (11 Jul 2009)

And Obama sends a strong message in his Africa visit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090711/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama



> Obama declares to Africa: End tyranny, corruption
> Mark S. Smith, Associated Press Writer – 55 mins ago
> ACCRA, Ghana – An American president who has "the blood of Africa within me" praised and scolded the continent of his ancestors Saturday, asserting forces of tyranny and corruption must yield if Africa is to achieve its promise.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jul 2009)

While I applaud the Presidents words, I can only contrast these words with the "Chicago" style politics that he worked his way up in, and the actions that have been taken to nationalize the Us financial and automotive industries (and proposed actions for the US health care industry).

Is this simply another case of "do as I say..."?


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Jul 2009)

Unfortunately Obama's words are just that. Its his actions that tell the real story. Slowly the American public is realizing that they elected a real honest to god statist. With majorities in the House and Senate Obama should be able to enact anything he wants. With 2010 looming he is having trouble keeping his legislative majority together because most politicians want to be re-elected. His climate change bill and healthcare bill are in deep trouble. For the good of the country I hope they dont get passed. Even the Europeans have come to realize that in the face of recession that they cannot afford climate change.

On the foreign policy front Obama has made common cause with fellow statists in south america and the middle east. Obama doesnt support democracy movements of any stripe. He will sell Israel out in a heartbeat. Everywhere he goes he apologizes for America's wrongs. He is supposed to be the President of the United States but it seems that he is aiming to be the world's first President.


----------



## CougarKing (31 Jul 2009)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/26/gates-crowley-expected-share-beer-obama-white-house-early-week/



> *President Obama's highly anticipated sit-down with Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley and Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. over some brews is expected to take place early this week, administration officials said Sunday.
> 
> Obama extended the invitation Friday in phone calls to the two men as he tried to calm a furor over racial profiling and his comments this week that the police "acted stupidly" in arresting Gates. He invited both to share a beer.*
> 
> ...



Pics below:


----------



## a_majoor (2 Aug 2009)

An interesting counterpoint to the Gates affair; a look at the President's body language afterwards and how the administration might behave on other issues:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/obamas_revealing_body_language.html



> Obama's revealing body language (updated and expanded))
> Thomas Lifson
> This picture truly is worth at least a thousand words.
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (2 Aug 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> An interesting counterpoint to the Gates affair; a look at the President's body language afterwards and how the administration might behave on other issues:



Talk about two pictures being worth two thousand words. Also, he couldn't even bother to wear his jacket, when his guests did their best to dress appropriately to meet their president. By all accounts, the police offiicer is a good man who was doing his ( thankless ) job.


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Aug 2009)

He did not wear his jacket in order to have the appearance of a man of the people while having a refreshment of the common people. The VPres followed the rule: don't wear an order of dress higher than the senior officer.

This is all orchestrated. Fortunately, the Obama White House is not as smart as it thinks.


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Aug 2009)

In my opinion, he should have organized the dress before hand, or acted presidential and worn his suit jacket. This way, not only does he demonstrate an 'it's all about me' attitude, but shows a lack of class.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Aug 2009)

My view?

This should never have happened. President Obama should have said it's a matter that must be thouroughly investigated and it would be improper of him to comment. Mind you, hindsight is 20/20.

The real "villain" in this case is the professor, who refused identify himself to a legitimate police officer.
He should have been taken to task for this....but instead is painted as a "Victim" of racial profiling.
He is a "victim" of his own arrogance and stupidity.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (6 Aug 2009)

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> My view?
> 
> This should never have happened. President Obama should have said it's a matter that must be thouroughly investigated and it would be improper of him to comment. Mind you, hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> ...



The neighbor and the police did everything good citizens should do.  If the prof would have simply explained the situation and pulled out his ID, everything would have been over.  Instead he chose to escalate the situation to become a martyr to supposed racism.  The ease with which Obama picked sides without any information is disturbing.

If anyone wants to do a B & E in Cambridge, I know a good target and no neighbor will be calling the police.  There's a big guarantee on that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, are a few well chosen words from Conrad Black:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=1cd94574-6c5f-4079-8c0f-6f44a54cc088


> Thanks to the U.S., Canada can shine
> *Conrad Black*, National Post
> 
> Saturday, September 12, 2009
> ...




Lord Black appears to believe the world – Australia, Brazil, Canada and a few other countries, anyway - is getting what it “needs” from America: stimulus and a _temporary_ respite from previously relentless American success.

The question is: will we exploit the opportunities?


----------



## CougarKing (14 Sep 2009)

Another update:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090914/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_financial_regulations



> Obama touts Wall St. changes on Lehman anniversary
> Associated Press Writer Ben Feller, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 12 mins ago
> 
> WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is going to Wall Street on the first anniversary of the Lehman Brothers collapse to outline financial changes to avert a future crisis like the one that sent the global economy into a tailspin.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (19 Sep 2009)

More reminders of what is at stake, globally.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090919/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_s_big_week



> *Obama rolling into week of high diplomatic stakes*
> Ben Feller, Associated Press Writer – 24 mins ago
> WASHINGTON – *The unrelenting global troubles confronting Barack Obama are about to converge on him all at once, providing a stern test of leadership for a first-year president who has pledged to "change the world."
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Sep 2009)

How long will the teflon last?

http://climbingoutofthedark.blogspot.com/2009/09/if-george-w-was-idiot.html



> *If George W. Was an Idiot...*
> 
> If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _American Thinker_ web site, is an article, about six months old, that compares Obama to Trudeau:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obama_and_trudeau.html


> Obama and Trudeau
> By Michael I. Krauss
> 
> March 11, 2009
> ...



Now, before I get jumped on, I know Krauss is blaming Trudeau for things he didn’t do and forgetting things he did, but the broad strokes are right and the comparison with Obama, _”in ways superficial and deep”_ is interesting.

(Prof. Krauss is a fairly well known “right of centre” thinker and commentator who has, of course, a “special” knowledge of Canada in relation to the USA, as seen here, in a cogent argument (until the penultimate paragraph where it turned just plain silly) against a proposed US drug pricing regime.)

I suspect that what Americans do not expect from Obama is 1970s Canada.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Oct 2009)

How about 1970's America?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Why-1978-was-a-very-bad-year-8437331-65944932.html



> *James Carafano: Why 1978 was a very bad year*
> By: James Carafano
> Examiner Columnist
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (13 Nov 2009)

And Obama begins his Asia trip on a positive note.

We'll see how this turns out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091113/ap_on_re_us/obama



> TOKYO – President Barack Obama is emphasizing cooperation on his first major trip to Asia, opening with a warning to North Korea that there will be tough, unified action by the U.S. and its Asian partners if the Koreans fail to abandon their nuclear weapons programs.
> 
> The hard line on North Korea was to be a prominent theme of a Friday night speech that also was intended to more broadly showcase a United States that, under Obama's leadership, seeks deeper and more equal engagement in Asia. It was to be the fifth major foreign address of Obama's 10-month presidency, this one geared toward setting a new tone for the sometimes-rocky U.S. relationship with the world's fastest-growing region.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (14 Nov 2009)

And details of Japan visit before he left for the APEC summit:




> *Barack Obama bows and talks of green tea icecream as he pushes US ties in Asia*
> 
> President Barack Obama has bowed to the Emperor of Japan and revealed his childhood affection for green tea icecream as he pushes stronger US ties with Asia.
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Nov 2009)

Didn't Nixon go to China?  It's near the Pacific, no?  And Truman and Eisenhower were involved in that "Korea-shindig", no?


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Nov 2009)

Seems to me TV that FDR had the USN intimately involved in the Pacific for a good four years or so.... but that was probably a mistake which is why Obama is bowing obsequiously to Hirohito's offspring.  That position is just one step above a full Chinese kowtow.  It is not the type of bow one exchanges with an equal.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Nov 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Seems to me TV that FDR had the USN intimately involved in the Pacific for a good four years or so.... but that was probably a mistake which is why Obama is bowing obsequiously to Hirohito's offspring.  That position is just one step above a full Chinese kowtow.  It is not the type of bow one exchanges with an equal.


;D

Naturally!  I was just trying to avoid the obvious reference to FDR.  I think of course the USA's involvement in the Pacific goes waaaaaaay back.  Hell, even to the whole Phillipines "thing".


----------



## CougarKing (15 Nov 2009)

And details of his 1st state visit to China:

Link



> SHANGHAI – President Barack Obama is walking a tightrope on his first trip to China, seeking to enlist help in tackling urgent global problems while weighing when and how — or if — he should raise traditional human rights concerns.
> 
> Obama arrived in Shanghai late at night, in a driving rain, hustling through a phalanx of umbrella-holding dignitaries to reach his limousine. On Monday, the president is holding talks with local politicians and, in one of the marquee events of his weeklong Asian trip, conducting an American-style town hall discussion with Chinese university students.
> Thirty years after the start of diplomatic relations between the two countries, the ties are growing — but remain mixed on virtually every front.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (16 Nov 2009)

Is it really wise to hold a "town hall-style" meeting as described below?

Does he not realize that the average Mainland Chinese person is scared sh**less about talking against their government when it comes to sensitive political issues?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091116/ap_on_bi_ge/obama



> SHANGHAI – *Pressing for freedoms on China's own turf, President Barack Obama said Monday that individual expression is not an American ideal but a universal right that should be available to all.
> 
> In his first presidential trip to Asia, Obama lauded cooperative relations with China but sought to send a clear message to his tightly controlled host country. Just as Obama said few problems can be solved unless U.S. and China work together, he prodded China to accept what he called "universal rights."*
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (16 Nov 2009)

"Outrage in Washington over Obama's Japan bow: WASHINGTON (AFP) - News photos of President Barack Obama bowing to Japan's emperor have incensed critics here, who said the US leader should stand tall when representing America overseas.":
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091116/usa/japan_us_diplomacy_asia_obama


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Nov 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "Outrage in Washington over Obama's Japan bow: WASHINGTON (AFP) - News photos of President Barack Obama bowing to Japan's emperor have incensed critics here, who said the US leader should stand tall when representing America overseas.":
> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091116/usa/japan_us_diplomacy_asia_obama


I can't recall the reference, but I believe it to be considered to be bad form for the President of the US to bow to anyone, especially monarchy.  If I recall things correctly, it harkens back to the US Revolution Rebellion of the 18th Century, and how the President was to be considered equal to the Monarch in England, and no longer a subject.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Nov 2009)

G.W. Bush vs. Obama:

From here

Some exerpts:


> If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
> 
> If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (16 Nov 2009)

I had a look at former American Presidents meeting the Emperor of Japan, and none ever bowed. 
It would be pretty hard to top when President Bush Sr., threw his his cookies all over the Prime Minister of Japan. For a while there, it looked like Bush Sr. was a goner, and Dan Quayle was going to get the Big Job.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnOnDatqENo

Almost as bizarre as when V.P. Dick Cheney accidentally shot a lawyer friend in the face.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I had a look at former American Presidents meeting the Emperor of Japan, and none ever bowed.



A deliberate act, caused either by incredible ignorance or malice (humiliate the United States in public)



> It would be pretty hard to top when President Bush Sr., threw his his cookies all over the Prime Minister of Japan. For a while there, it looked like Bush Sr. was a goner, and Dan Quayle was going to get the Big Job.:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnOnDatqENo



Got ill, like most people do sometimes



> Almost as bizarre as when V.P. Dick Cheney accidentally shot a lawyer friend in the face.



Firearms accident, all involved were very fortunate. No mens rea involved here.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2009)

And now to look at the payoff:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama-bows_-but-the-world-refuses-to-bow-back-8548597-70327287.html



> *Obama bows, but the world refuses to bow back*
> By: Michael Barone
> Senior Political Analyst
> November 18, 2009
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (19 Nov 2009)

And Obama concludes his Asia trip with a stop in South Korea:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama



> SEOUL, South Korea – *Treated to friendly roadside crowds and an elaborate welcome, President Barack Obama sped into the last round of his diplomacy tour in Asia on Thursday, a visit in South Korea.
> 
> Obama joined President Lee Myung-bak at the Blue House, South Korea's version of the White House, where the U.S. leader took in spectacular views of the hills of Seoul on a chilly, gray morning. Obama stood on red-carpeted steps and looked out on military regiments in colorful garb and flagwaving children.*
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (19 Nov 2009)

"Biblical anti-Obama slogan: Use of Psalm 109:8 funny or sinister?: Psalms 109:8 says, 'Let his days be few; and let another take his office.' The citation is being passed around the Internet as a rallying cry against President Obama.":
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/16/biblical-anti-obama-slogan-use-of-psalm-1098-funny-or-sinister/


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Nov 2009)

"Give me x years, and you will not recognize xxx"


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2009)

Well, he can be decicive and presidential if a _*real*_ problem arises:

http://www.julescrittenden.com/2009/11/28/no-dithering-around/



> *No Dithering Around*
> 
> Decisive presidential action as O leaps into action, orders a full review of how the reality TV crashers managed to take over his party, make him look silly. Politico:
> President Barack Obama has ordered a full review into how a Virginia couple managed to make their way into the White House for last week’s state dinner without an invitation, even getting so far as to meet the president in the official receiving line, according to a White House official.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (30 Nov 2009)

Obama is about to launch his plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/091130/us/politics_us_afghanistan_usa



> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Monday prepared to announce he will deploy about 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan as part of a new strategy that aims to lay the ground for an eventual withdrawal.
> 
> 
> After three months of deliberations, Obama will outline his plans in an address to war-weary Americans on Tuesday at 8 p.m. EST/0100 Wednesday GMT from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Nov 2009)

Meanwhile:  Does it really matter?

What the Arab Street thinks of Obama (per Fouad Ajami)-  "He talks too much"



> ....Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.
> 
> The crowd may have applauded the cavalier way the new steward of American power referred to his predecessor, but in the privacy of their own language they doubtless wondered about his character and his fidelity. "My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger," goes one of the Arab world's most honored maxims. The stranger who came into their midst and spoke badly of his own was destined to become an object of suspicion.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2009)

A mixed message. While the speech itself was fairly sound, some of the administration members characterising West Point as the "enemy camp" showed the true face of the administration under the mask:

http://newledger.com/2009/12/view-from-west-point-we-are-not-the-enemy/



> *View From West Point: We Are Not The Enemyby Ben Salvito*
> 
> On Tuesday night, President Obama addressed the world and announced his decision regarding the conflict in Afghanistan. The New York Times, preempting his remarks, declared that his speech here “may be one of the most defining decisions of his presidency.” Soon soldiers will be deployed overseas in pursuance of his new strategy, and the debate has begun throughout the media and political arenas as to whether this decision was the right one.
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (5 Dec 2009)

"Smile if you must, but please don't bow: How to be charming in China? A democratic leader having to visit a dictatorship is somewhat like a temperance preacher obliged to tour a distillery. He can't be too charming without compromising his principles (and offending his constituency) yet unless he's somewhat charming, there's no point in going at all.":
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=50fb2779-7321-4e97-aa65-14938954ae12


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2009)

Well, a large part of the world really does want this:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGU1YTExODkwOGE4ZjVlMTE3OWM3ZDNhODRhYzM3YTE=



> *The Unrealistic Realist*
> Leader of the free world? Not Obama’s bag.
> 
> By Mark Steyn
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2009)

VDH on what everyone sees in BHO:

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/why-are-we-tiring-of-obama/



> *Why Are We Tiring of Obama?*
> 
> Posted By Victor Davis Hanson On December 10, 2009 @ 10:28 am In Uncategorized | 104 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Dec 2009)

It  might be funny if it wasn't the truth.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Dec 2009)

I've never been accused of being a deep thinker but what I expect from a so called "world leader":

More time on national and international affairs and less time talking with the Queen Bee Oprah. How many hours were taken from POTUS because they want to appeal to the "celebrity" of the job and not the depth. And people think I'm shallow....

At least Stephen Harper told Bono to "buzz off" rather than meet with him, but I will save that rant for another time.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Dec 2009)

And that's not the only national TV show that he was on yesterday. Granted they were taped.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Dec 2009)

Yes it was taped but consider this:

For a 3- 5 minute spot on the National, the crew worked with us for three hours. How long would production take for an hour long special?

Not only that, but the production crew would have to have been cleared by the Secret Service, right? How many man hours ...sorry person hours would that have taken? Would that time been better spent on averting credible threats to POTUS?

As far as I'm concerned, this was as much about Oprah and her agenda as it was covering Christmas in the White House.


----------



## Redeye (14 Dec 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> It  might be funny if it wasn't the truth.



It's not the truth, though.  As much as those praying for Obama to fail want it to be, there's no substance to it.

What I don't get is this: do these people not see that Obama failing will impact them?  It's like, as someone I know said, hoping your landlord can't make his mortgage.  It makes no sense at all.

The guy's not a messiah, and cannot fix everything.  He's got four years to try to improve upon problems that were years in the making (and notice, I'm not blaming anyone or any party for anything).  America's economic and foreign policy challenges are not going to go away overnight, the very idea of that is ludicrous.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2009)

Sadly, the failures of the Obama Administration are happening right now, and the impact on Canada from such things as rapidly ballooning deficits and debt, protectionist economic policies either open (Buy American) or hidden (Cap and Trade), foreign policy which appeases aggressive authoritarian regimes etc. are going to have a huge negative impact on all of us and our standard of living.

Those wishing for Obama to fail are hoping that:

a. Most of the initiatives supported by the Administration (Health care, Cap and Trade, Stimulus spending) are stalled or defeated in the Congress and never get passed, or more realistically, are watered down so much no further damage is done; and,

b. The Democrat party looses it's majority in 2010 and he looses the 2012 election.

It might be OK to hope the landlord goes bankrupt if you then have a chance to buy the house. It might be disturbing to live in the rental if you think the owner might torch it to get the insurance money...


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Dec 2009)

Redeye, you should live in the US, talk to the people to open your eyes. It depends what State of course. You could take a summer trip and shoot the breeze with the people you meet in a couple of states.

If President Obama is successful in four years, well I posted this quote a few weeks ago: "Give me x years, and you will not recognize xxx" . If you know your history you will know who said that. And no I am not saying the two are alike.

Do you know what the US deficit is now?  Do you know what the US debt is now? Do you know what the estimate is of the deficit and debt will be if President Obama and Nasty Nancy get their way? Do you think this freight train will have an impact on Canada or not?


----------



## Redeye (15 Dec 2009)

Maybe I missed something - but when did any member of the adminstration make the "enemy camp" reference.  Last time I checked, MSNBC pundits are not members of the administration.  Did someone else say it?



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> A mixed message. While the speech itself was fairly sound, some of the administration members characterising West Point as the "enemy camp" showed the true face of the administration under the mask:
> 
> http://newledger.com/2009/12/view-from-west-point-we-are-not-the-enemy/


----------



## Redeye (15 Dec 2009)

Rifleman62,

Respectfully, I'm married to an American.  A southerner from a staunchly Southern Baptist family (except her, of course), no less.  I talk to friends and family of hers quite a bit.  I've travelled extensively in the US and I never shy away from a chance to discuss politics, and I recognize that the Weltanschauung of Americans is very different from that of Canadians.  I'm mostly shocked, however, of the way that the debate is so masterfully manipulated there, and most commonly it seems by the right, though the influence of lobbyists runs on both sides.

The same thing does happen here too - though it appears to be much worse there - particularly since legislative processes work so differently - you don't see debate on bills veer so far off the rails on the basis of unrelated or tangentially related debate (remember the stimulus plan in the US being almost derailed by arguments of subsidies for wooden arrows made in Oregon?!)

The American deficit is staggering though not the worst in the world, and it's why I don't get the right mantra of "tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts".  It's as though the right still wants the government to pay for things but doesn't want to raise the resources - tax cuts are stimulative - a bit - but when the public is drowning in debt all that money goes to is paying off debt (or just interest) and it's not very stimulative - witness the "stimulus cheques" fired out by Bush - they had basically zero impact.

Fundamentally reworking some of the ways that the US government spends money - including some manner of comprehensive health care reform the form of which I am presently ambivalent about, is critical.  Extracting the US military from the mess in Iraq and having a plan to get out of Afghanistan are important.  Trying to build security by engaging with old foes rather than threatening them is going to be key because it's cheaper, and I can't see it being any less effective than the strongarming approach that has accomplished basically nothing.

The net impact on deficit is still hotly debated but long term could improve.  Doing nothing is no longer an option, because it is a train wreck unfolding in slow motion.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Redeye, you should live in the US, talk to the people to open your eyes. It depends what State of course. You could take a summer trip and shoot the breeze with the people you meet in a couple of states.
> 
> If President Obama is successful in four years, well I posted this quote a few weeks ago: "Give me x years, and you will not recognize xxx" . If you know your history you will know who said that. And no I am not saying the two are alike.
> 
> Do you know what the US deficit is now?  Do you know what the US debt is now? Do you know what the estimate is of the deficit and debt will be if President Obama and Nasty Nancy get their way? Do you think this freight train will have an impact on Canada or not?


----------



## Redeye (15 Dec 2009)

That laundry list of sore points of VDH's is to me a lot of fluff and full of red herrings:

Constant apologies abroad for everything from slavery to Hiroshima  - I hear this all the time but most of what's been pointed out to me as "apologies" are better read as "acknowledgements of history" - I haven't really heard Obama apologize for anything, but a right winger I talk to all along somehow interpreted the Cairo speech as apologizing for American colonialism which never happened.  I read the text of the speech about a dozen times and never once did he attribute colonialism to anything more specific than "the West" and never was there anything apologetic abouit it.

Bows to Saudi royalty, the Japanese emperor, and Chinese autocrats - Signs of respect and customary greeting - though seems Obama was a little too enthusiastic - this is being blown totally out of proportion and context.

The on-again/off-again Guantanamo shut-down mess - Great idea to get the place closed up but it's not as easy as it sounds, there's lots of issues to try to reconcile.

The public show trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed  - Almost all trials in the US are public.  What does the right propose to do with him?  He has to face some manner of justice and be disposed of somehow, with some reasonable semblance of a fair trial and due process.

The reach out to Ahmadinejad Castro, Chavez, and assorted thugs - As I said before, attemting strongarming these people has so far done nothing but embolden them - trying to actually deal with them might actually soften their positions, and loosen their grip on their populations which will lead them to the dustbins of history.  American tourists in Cuba will undermine the Castro regime faster than rhetoric will.

The Honduras fiasco - This one is a whole thread onto itself, but Honduras' constitution has a process, and a coup isn't it.

Czars everywhere  - How many did Bush have?  47 I think?

The serial “Bush did it”/reset whine abroad  This is problematic - it's not enough to blame the past administrations, I agree.  Yes, Obama inherited a terrible mess from Bush (though the problems go back much further in some cases) but it's not enough to simply say "Hey, I didn't make the mess."  There has to be a clear plan to get out of it - and at least that's what Obama got elected on.  I don't totally disagree with this being a fault of Obama's because it doesn't always seem clear to me that there's the exit plan, but at the same time I don't see that he does nothing but whine.  POTUS doesn't get a magic wand to magically fix everything.

The end of the special relationship with the UK  - what "special relationship" and how'd it end?

Anita Dunn and her Mao worship - Red herring.  Dunn is a comms director not a policymaker for one thing - and secondly, how quickly the right forgets that many of their own also admired certain ideas of Mao.  He was an evil, murderous tyrant by the end but also had lots of broadly applicable ideas about politics.  Dunn didn't say she endorsed Maoism, but this was trumpted up into far more than it really should have been.

The Special Olympics silly quip - Minor, stupid, and very well handled in the end when Obama invited their bowlers to the White House.  A gaffe, yes.  They happen.

The get-Chicago-the-Olympics jaunt to Copenhagen - Okay, I'll give you this one.  That was a gong show and a half.

Cap-and-trade boondoggle - Again, this one I haven't firmed an opinion on and could warrant a thread of its own - too complex to over simplify.

“Millions of green jobs” - Were you expecting this overnight?! The demand for technologies is there, and either the US can get into the market, or wait while others do.


Cash-for-clunkers - shifting demand for automobiles to when manufacturers needed cash flow to get themselves financial stable - AND got a lot of old and more pollution heavy/fuel inefficient vehicles off the road?  Win.

Van Jones, the racist and truther  - Who refuted what he signed on to years ago.  I'm sure we could find some good dirt on anyone if we looked hard enough into their past - and if not, you can always make it up or take something out of context.

The White House party crashers plan to take the 5th Amendment  - And that has what to do with Obama, exactly?

The ‘bipartisanship’ con - Hard to be bipartisan when the other side doesn't want to play along.  Please, someone send me some information on the Republican plan for health care reform that they apparently agree is needed.  Rep Grayson called them out on this one beautifully, to the best of my knowledge they still do not have a cogent plan.  Of course, thanks to all the bickering and side tracking, it seems no one does, so I guess I can't only blame one side.

The pork-barrel stimulus spoils - a bipartisan mess.

The demonization of the Town-Hallers - in the case of the conduct of many of them and the way the whole concept was manipulated by lobbyists - not entirely undeserved.

The Acorn Mess - blown totally out of proportion by certain idiot pundits.  Most of what I've seen about Acorn is nonsense - but I'll concede I don't know the whole story.

The SEIU direct access to the White House  - Hasn't that been debunked?

The Emanuel “never let a serious crisis go to waste” boast - Anyone remember the Mike Harris era?  John Snobeln (sp?) and the urgent need to create a crisis to effect change?  That's a common political strategy, hardly restricted to any part of the spectrum.

I'd keep going but I've got other things to do - that's the problem I see in American politics right now - rather than debate legitimate important issues, it veers right off the rails to the kind of nonsense the makes for Glenn Beck's infotainment.


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Dec 2009)

Redeye, I stand corrected. I now seem to remember that you have previously posted your US relationship. 

We all have different points of view. Mine is different from yours at times, and that's what makes "Army.ca" a friendly discussion forum.


----------



## Redeye (15 Dec 2009)

A world where all agree is boring, and I'm glad that in general there seems to be a good exchange of ideas.  Democracy cannot function without a strong civil society that allows for discourse and that exchange, after all.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Dec 2009)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That laundry list of sore points of VDH's is to me a lot of fluff and full of red herrings:
> 
> *Bows to Saudi royalty, the Japanese emperor, and Chinese autocrats* - Signs of respect and customary greeting - though seems Obama was a little too enthusiastic - this is being blown totally out of proportion and context.


Actually, for Americans, it is a bit of a big deal, going back to their revolution.  Part of the "thing" about being POTUS is that you are subordinate to nobody, including Royalty.  As I understand it, it is rather bad form for the POTUS to bow to anyone.  (Yes, I've seen the pics of Dubya, but he wasn't bowing, he was lowering his head so that the Saudi dude could put a medallion around his neck).


----------



## observor 69 (15 Dec 2009)

>


----------



## Redeye (15 Dec 2009)

That's true enough I suppose - though as I have read it he's hardly the first to do it - and that said it's a symbolic thing more than anything else.  It's being trumped up by a few extremists to be some sort of thing - just like Lord Monckton's opinion is somehow fact once it passed through Glenn Beck's lips.  Not the best optics, but there's been plenty such little gaffes made by pretty much every Prez Democrat or Republican.  Not really anything of substance long term overall.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Actually, for Americans, it is a bit of a big deal, going back to their revolution.  Part of the "thing" about being POTUS is that you are subordinate to nobody, including Royalty.  As I understand it, it is rather bad form for the POTUS to bow to anyone.  (Yes, I've seen the pics of Dubya, but he wasn't bowing, he was lowering his head so that the Saudi dude could put a medallion around his neck).


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Dec 2009)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> >


A sign of friendship, not of subordination, so I don't get the reference...


----------



## mariomike (16 Dec 2009)

Some pics of how other world leaders greet the Emperor:
http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/president-obama-vs-rest-of-world.html


----------



## observor 69 (16 Dec 2009)

Looks like Obama got it right in the Shanghai China video.
Japan was a bit over the top and perhaps that has been pointed out to him .


----------



## Redeye (16 Dec 2009)

mariomike, clearly he tried more than a little too hard, I kind of laughed and wondered which of his handlers coached him to do that or if it was his (likely well-intentioned, but obviously poorly executed) initiative.  The reality, however, is that it's not so huge a thing as it's being trumped up to be by people who seem desperate to find any reason to vilify the guy.  I love when they call him "inexperienced" - aren't all Presidents "inexperienced" when they take office for the first time?

It's the same as when they were starting to call him a "failure" as POTUS when he'd been in office for three months (less in some cases!) - as if he somehow was going to dramatically alter a the trajectory of the American economy or social structures in such a short period of time.

I think what really gets to me is that rather than a real good discussion on how to move forward, the whole mess is being dominated by the teabagger set, and the shyte that these people say is just astounding, whether they're claiming he's not a citizen, or that he's a Marxist, or that he's a Muslim, or whatever else they have to say.  I've seen some just amazing blog pieces, Twitterers, and videos of these folks where I start to wonder if they need to throw another chlorine puck in the gene pool.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Dec 2009)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I love when they call him "inexperienced" - aren't all Presidents "inexperienced" when they take office for the first time?


No, not all presidents "inexperienced" when they take office.  Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, Reagen was Governor of California.  They are akin to "mini-presidents" in their respective areas, including Commander-in-Chief of an armed force (the various national guards).  Mr. Obama's experience is rather thin for President, and by this I mean in public office.  Remember, if it weren't for his charm, his good looks and Oprah's endorsements, he would have been an asterisk on the pages of US history, much as Geraldine Wasserface is from her run at VP in the 1980s.


			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> It's the same as when they were starting to call him a "failure" as POTUS when he'd been in office for three months (less in some cases!) - as if he somehow was going to dramatically alter a the trajectory of the American economy or social structures in such a short period of time.


He got the Nobel Peace Prize in less time, so stranger things have happened.


			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> I think what really gets to me is that rather than a real good discussion on how to move forward, the whole mess is being dominated by the teabagger set, and the shyte that these people say is just astounding, whether they're claiming he's not a citizen, or that he's a Marxist, or that he's a Muslim, or whatever else they have to say.  I've seen some just amazing blog pieces, Twitterers, and videos of these folks where I start to wonder if they need to throw another chlorine puck in the gene pool.


Much as the left was open to "discussion" when Dubya was in office?


----------



## Redeye (16 Dec 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> No, not all presidents "inexperienced" when they take office.  Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, Reagen was Governor of California.  They are akin to "mini-presidents" in their respective areas, including Commander-in-Chief of an armed force (the various national guards).  Mr. Obama's experience is rather thin for President, and by this I mean in public office.  Remember, if it weren't for his charm, his good looks and Oprah's endorsements, he would have been an asterisk on the pages of US history, much as Geraldine Wasserface is from her run at VP in the 1980s.



True enough - but I don't think that experience is necessarily needed to define a candidate.  Look at Sarah Palin, sure, she was Governor of Alaska (until she quit, anyhow), but what did that get her.  She still comes off as a populist buffoon, nothing really scares me more than the thought of her having influence or a shot at office (although I have a feeling a lot of Democrats would love to have her as an opponent).

Obama was already making a name for himself and a persona in 2004 when he gave the keynote address at the DNC.  He was almost unheard of at that point but I remember when my wife first told me about him and even then it seemed like he'd be the ideal person to step forward.  Of course getting support from Oprah Winfrey (given the tremendous amount of influence she has in America, look at what happens if you're an author and your book gets mentioned by her!) certainly helped him a lot but ultimately, he had to stand on his own and did so.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> He got the Nobel Peace Prize in less time, so stranger things have happened.



No argument there.  That one made absolutely no sense to me, I don't see what great accomplishment merited that, especially given that as I understand it the nominations would have closed about the same time he was inaugurated.  I've heard a good argument that it is a tool of moral suasion - a sort of "reminder" to "do the right thing".  Whether that's true or not I have no way to say.  I wonder though if it weighed on his consideration of a course in Afghanistan, but doubt it would have.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Much as the left was open to "discussion" when Dubya was in office?



Many of them were, and there was lots of good debate and discussion going on then.  There was a lot of very vocal protestors about a lot of things Dubya did and rightly so in my view... but that wasn't all the left just as the teabaggers aren't all the right.  The problem is that anyone in the middle or in the rational camps of across the spectrum is getting drowned out by nonsensical sideshows.  That's not good for anyone ultimately.

What I'll be interested to see is if the right in the US does wind up fracturing - sort of like the PC/Reform/UA/CCRAP rift in Canada, with a teabagger type wing splitting off, sort of like what happened in the 23rd Congressional District of New York recently. It would be beneficial to the Democratic Party for sure to be able to split the right vote.


----------



## GAP (16 Dec 2009)

Obama has to really screw up to not win 2012....but, given that, you will proabably find him as reviled as Bush & Clinton by the time his 8 years is up.


----------



## observor 69 (16 Dec 2009)

Boy I like this Redeye guy!  :christmas happy:
Like I told a member in a PM a few days ago I don't like to be labelled as left or right.
When I was in Texas I was slowly becoming a moderate Republican and I could see myself voting for a Progressive Conservative.
But ......   Try and find politicans who sit down and have a calm reasoned argument on the best way to deal with an issue. 
Karl Rove didn't help matters and parts of that have spilled into Canada.
Makes you wonder why any competent individual would want to run for political office.


----------



## Redeye (16 Dec 2009)

I was a card carrying Progressive Conservative until the party ceased to exist, and since then I've found that I'm not real fan of the CPC.  I just can't stand social conservativism.  I'm generally a moderately right leaning centrist when it comes to things like fiscal policy, but even there I find a lot of conservatives to be rather hypocritical and more self-interested than really interested in doing good for all.  In the American case, for example, I wonder where people who see no problem with funding two wars, one of which had very, very dubious casus belli in the first place, get off crying poor on health care reform which impacts so many people.  I'm not committed to any particular position on what form such reform should take but it seems to me that the fact that the administrative costs alone of the American system, with bloated insurance company bureaucracy and admin costs, and costs of delivery soaring to spread out cost of non-payers can be fixed and that some manner of state intervention is the best way to go.  Free markets are good when they function, and markets for healthcare tend not to be efficient - or at least not socially optimal.  Granted the US healthcare system is anything but a free market now but the intervention that does exist is patently ineffective.

Baden Guy is right that this stuff is spilling into Canada - the smearing and nonsense that's starting to pervade national political discourse is just a distraction - witness the Afghan torture allegation handling - it strikes me that the best way to look good in this is hold the inquiry - shine light into all the corners, and prove, as the government should be able to do, that they acted in the best reasonable manner.  Instead, attacking their opponents makes it look like they have something to hide when they fail to produce and real backing to show they don't.

What I'd like to see Obama be able to do is rise above this, get the Congress and Senate to actually work together, and get some policy changes in place that address the myriad of serious issues that the United States (and the world, really) are facing so that they can be clearly perceived as leaders.  That seems to be a pretty tall order for any politician though.



			
				Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Boy I like this Redeye guy!  :christmas happy:
> Like I told a member in a PM a few days ago I don't like to be labelled as left or right.
> When I was in Texas I was slowly becoming a moderate Republican and I could see myself voting for a Progressive Conservative.
> But ......   Try and find politicans who sit down and have a calm reasoned argument on the best way to deal with an issue.
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Dec 2009)

Well, if the Obama frot-fest is over, I'd like to jump in here.

On one hand, you two seem to go on (rightly so) about the uselessness of smear campaigns in bringing forth real issues and truth, yet, on the other, you seem to be tripping over each other over Saint Barack.  Dude was elected for a few reasons (in addition to the fact that more people voted for him than for Mr. McCain).  These include, but aren't limited to:

his looks
his race
his ability to speak well VERY well 
Oprah Winfrey
Not one of these things has bugger all to do with governing.  Public speaking is one skill.  Governing is another.  

You may want Obama to rise above this.  Hey, "Yes we can".  Hey, he's also modest.  Why "only" B+?



> his administration had "inherited the biggest set of challenges of any president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt" which they were still working on.


So, he grades his _performance _ (B+) and then talks in circles about _results_ and his starting condition.  They aren't the same thing, yet he demonstrates his skill at speaking in circles.   Yes, let us all hope.  :


----------



## observor 69 (17 Dec 2009)

I don't disagree with a lot of your comments TV.
I sat and watched Obama consider his answer to Oprah, thinking careful best sidestep this one. Then he comes out with B+.  :-\

One major aspect that stands out in my impression of Obama is his style of policy analysis.
Get the best people in the subject matter, carefully listen to and consider all the pros and cons.
Examine the possible options, implement policy.

I think the way Bush has turned a cold shoulder to Cheney indicates he regrets some of the decisions his administration made.

Ref the  "Obama frot-fest " I recommend "Lil' Bush Girl."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6wO9qcNxAE&feature=fvst


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Dec 2009)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Ref the  "Obama frot-fest " I recommend "Lil' Bush Girl."
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6wO9qcNxAE&feature=fvst


:rofl:  that was hilarious!  I also remember this photo (with glee!):





;D


----------



## a_majoor (22 Dec 2009)

Well, that didn't take long:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/change-obama-now-more-hated-than-bush-at-end-of-his-second-term/



> *Change… Obama Now More Loathed Than Bush at End of His Second Term*
> Tuesday, December 22, 2009, 6:59 PM
> Jim Hoft
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2010)

First anniversery reflections by Lord Black:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/22/conrad-black-the-lessons-of-massachusetts.aspx



> *Conrad Black: Incompetent Obama teeters on the edge*
> Posted: January 22, 2010, 11:00 AM by NP Editor
> Conrad Black, U.S. Politics
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2010)

What the world got, with a HT to Renne Magritte:


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Jan 2010)

Watch the video: http://ezralevant.com/2010/01/someones-in-love.html


----------



## Redeye (27 Jan 2010)

I'll find the future former Lord Black of Some Tube Station a little more easy to take serious when he's writing from some stately manor, rather than a federal prison.

My father has a copy of his book on Maurice Duplessis that he wrote that my father describes as totally unreadable for its pretentious and rather silly writing style.  The same style seems reflected in Federal Prison Inmate #18330-424 shows here.  Makes it pretty hard to even get to whatever he was trying to say - and I'm a pretty well educated guy.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> First anniversery reflections by Lord Black:
> 
> http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/22/conrad-black-the-lessons-of-massachusetts.aspx


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Jan 2010)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'll find the future former Lord Black of Some Tube Station a little more easy to take serious when he's writing from some stately manor, rather than a federal prison.


Look at the content, not its source.  OK, don't ignore its source, but just because it was written whilst imprisoned takes nothing from a message, or adds to it either.  I find it difficult to avoid going "ad hominem" myself; however, you refer to his status as a prisoner more often than his writing style, vice his style.  Or his message.
(I'm not going to comment on his message or style: I'll leave that to others).


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Jan 2010)

Redeye, I hope your Dad borrowed the book from the library. If he bought the book, he could donate it to a library. Others may enjoy the book.


----------



## Redeye (29 Jan 2010)

As it is autographed and now something of a historical curiosity given the author's later endeavours, I don't think he'll do that.  I did read the piece he wrote and the problem I have it that it comes of almost pseudointellectual and difficult to follow.  I'd like to think that Mr. Black could produce something a little more legible without sacrificing much of its content.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Redeye, I hope your Dad borrowed the book from the library. If he bought the book, he could donate it to a library. Others may enjoy the book.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Feb 2010)

VDH :

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzgzZjM2MWUwOGNjM2YyNzQyMWMyZjhkY2I5YmYwZGU=



> *The Truth Is a Precious Commodity*   [Victor Davis Hanson]
> 
> The problem with Obama’s new hedging on taxing those who make below $250,000, or his administration’s taking credit for victory in the Iraq war that they so once fervently tried to abort, or the flip-flop on renditions and tribunals, or the embarrassments over closing Guantanamo and trying KSM in New York or Mirandizing the Christmas Day bomber,or trashing/praising Wall Street grandees, is not that presidents cannot change their minds as circumstances warrant, or even that all politicians are at times hypocritical. No, the rub is that Obama is not merely flipping and triangulating on issues in a desperate attempt to shadow the polls, but he is doing so on matters that he once swore were absolutely central to his entire candidacy and his signature hope-and-change agenda, critical to the future of the U.S., and proof of his opponents’ either ignorance or disingenuousness.
> 
> Serially he once screamed about taxing only the wealthy and airing health care on C-SPAN. He advocated taking out all combat troops from Iraq by March 2008 and asserted the surge was failing — at a critical time when our soldiers were in a life-and-death struggle to make it work. Obama built an entire narrative about Bush the Constitution Shredder who presided over Guantanamo and renditions. There was no place in his promised new politics for lobbyists and Chicago tactics. After a single year of governance, there is now scarcely a single issue that Obama & Co. have not backtracked on, flip-flopped, redefined, or quietly dropped — mostly matters that were once demagogued to score political points. At some point — I think it was around mid-January — the public collectively shrugged and concluded of Obama, “I don’t trust anything that this guy says.” And when that happens in American politics, it is almost impossible to restore any modicum of credibility. All we are left with now is three more years of the president’s “Bush did it” mantra and a buffoonish Robert Gibbs, like some strutting carnival barker, showing off ink on his palm to a bored press corps.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Feb 2010)

Part 1 of 3

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the March/April 2010 edition of _Foreign Affairs_ is an essay by historian Niall Ferguson that explains that we need not have a long term, historical narrative to explain the collapse of empires or even of great nations:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65987/niall-ferguson/complexity-and-collapse?page=show


> Complexity and Collapse
> *Empires on the Edge of Chaos*
> 
> Niall Ferguson
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Feb 2010)

Part 2 of 3



> *WHEN GOOD SYSTEMS GO BAD*
> 
> Great powers and empires are, I would suggest, complex systems, made up of a very large number of interacting components that are asymmetrically organized, which means their construction more resembles a termite hill than an Egyptian pyramid. They operate somewhere between order and disorder -- on "the edge of chaos," in the phrase of the computer scientist Christopher Langton. Such systems can appear to operate quite stably for some time; they seem to be in equilibrium but are, in fact, constantly adapting. But there comes a moment when complex systems "go critical." A very small trigger can set off a "phase transition" from a benign equilibrium to a crisis -- a single grain of sand causes a whole pile to collapse, or a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon and brings about a hurricane in southeastern England.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Feb 2010)

Part 3 of 3


> *EMPIRE STATE OF MIND*
> 
> Regardless of whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy, any large-scale political unit is a complex system. Most great empires have a nominal central authority -- either a hereditary emperor or an elected president -- but in practice the power of any individual ruler is a function of the network of economic, social, and political relations over which he or she presides. As such, empires exhibit many of the characteristics of other complex adaptive systems -- including the tendency to move from stability to instability quite suddenly. But this fact is rarely recognized because of the collective addiction to cyclical theories of history.
> 
> ...








Perhaps national leaders, including American presidents, should thinks back to Roman heroes in riding in splendid _triumph_. Just behind them, it has been suggested, was a slave who whispered in his ear, _”Memento mori_" ("Remember (that you are) mortal").

I repeat what I have said before: I do not believe in a _special providence_,* not even for America. I think Bolingbroke and Kennedy and the theory of _imperial overreach_ are closest to the facts when they suggest that: _"The best instituted governments carry in them the seeds of their destruction: and, though they grow and improve for a time, they will soon tend visibly to their dissolution. Every hour they live is an hour the less that they have to live"_ and _"If a state overextends itself strategically . . . it runs the risk that the potential benefits from external expansion may be outweighed by the great expense of it all."_


----------
* Shakespeare Quotes | *There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow

Horatio:*
If your mind dislike any thing, obey it. I will forestall their
repair hither, and say you are not fit.

*Hamlet:*
Not a whit, we defy augury. There is special providence in
the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to
come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come—the
readiness is all. Since no man, of aught he leaves, knows what is't
to leave betimes, let be.

Hamlet Act 5, scene 2, 217–224

Hamlet's stepfather, King Claudius, has arranged a fencing match between the prince and Laertes. Laertes happens to be the son of Polonius (whom Hamlet has slain) and the brother of Ophelia (who has gone mad and committed suicide as a result of Hamlet's actions). Hamlet and his friend Horatio well know that the king desperately wants the prince out of the way, and that Laertes is looking for revenge; the fencing match doesn't promise to be an entirely playful affair.

Hamlet has agreed to it nonetheless, and refuses Horatio's offer to excuse him if he thinks better of things. "We defy augury"—that is, omens mean nothing to him. Hamlet will deliver himself over to his fate, because he finally realizes that it is out of his control. Before, he would have thought too precisely on the event, weighed its implications, and sought into its causes. Now, he is of the opinion that "there's special providence in the fall of a sparrow," and therefore a guiding hand behind his own fall, whenever it comes, now or in the future. Here, Hamlet echoes the Gospel according to St. Matthew, chapter 10: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell./ Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father" (King James version).

©2000-2010 Enotes.com Inc.
All Rights Reserved


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Feb 2010)

If I might resurrect the once popular "laws of thermodynamics" trope and restate the 2nd law - a system in stasis tends toward chaos - the implied corollary is that it requires active measures to stave off chaos.  Those active measures require energy.  In an infinite universe with limited energy resources it is necessary to decide whether to organize the infinitely chaotic universe, the dirigiste approach, or to husband the available resources and use them to organize oneself to cope with chaos.

Or putting it in staff college terms: he who attempts to hold everything, holds nothing.

There is nothing inevitable about an empire.  It requires active husbanding each and every day.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2010)

George Soros critisism is interesting; instead of hobbling the banks with regulation and leaving ownership responsibilities with the shareholders while directing the economic output (Fascism), Soros want the government to nationalize the banks and seize shareholder and depositor wealth (Communism). Suggesting Americans would find this popular is....interesting. The end result is pretty much the same, the only real difference is who (besides depositors) gets to feel the pain:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704089904575093760994295890.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



> *Soros Criticizes Obama's Bailouts*
> 
> By Luca Di Leo
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (5 Mar 2010)

Calling Soros a communist is pretty rich, given that he dedicated most of his life and a fair bit of wealth to fighting communism in Eastern Europe including his native Hungary, and to creating a smooth transition to free markets in those countries.  Interestingly, however, I get the impression the WSJ has slightly mischaracterized what Soros was talking about.  And by slightly, I mean in a FauxNews/WorldNetDaily kind of way.  Ironically, it was WND that clued me into this when it mentioned what Soros referred to, the Swedish banking crisis of 1992-93, because back in April it was something heavily talked about as TARP was unfolding.  Rather humourous, Soros was as I recall one of the speculators who targeted the SEK's fixed exchange rate, which forced the Swedish Central Bank to jack interest rates up with alarming speed to defend the krona), which in part precipitated the mess.  Soros made a lot of his wealth using his hedge fund to speculate on currency, using huge leverage to make fortunes off of the slightest arbitrage opportunities.

The part that this article is leaving out is crucial.  The "nationalization" was really just a recapitalization with some measure of state control - and more importantly - it was temporary.  An excellent explanation of the process is here:

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/POLICYDIS/pdp21.pdf

The reason that the AMCs were organized and they were done in the described manner is ultimately fairly simple.  The liquidation process, if done suddenly, would have made things substantially worse, flooding an already saturated market with the variety of collateral assets the banks held, and making clear that the banks would never recover the value thereof, and the bailout cost as a result would be massive.

The Swedish economy rebounded faster than expected and the AMCs were then liquidated, spinning the banks back into the market once things were done.  It was a brilliant plan, and it worked.  The initial outlay was about 4% of Sweden's GDP.  Measuring the actual cost is a little more complicated because the liquidation recouped a lot of it, but the SEK was devalued by that point because it became a floating currency, and I haven't seen a detailed analysis, though there are people who make the case that the government actually profited or at least broke even on the deal by the time the process was completed in 1997.  That's why Soros advocated it, the guy's smart, and whenever people accuse him of being a socialist or a communist it only servces to prove they have basically no idea what they're talking about.





			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> George Soros critisism is interesting; instead of hobbling the banks with regulation and leaving ownership responsibilities with the shareholders while directing the economic output (Fascism), Soros want the government to nationalize the banks and seize shareholder and depositor wealth (Communism). Suggesting Americans would find this popular is....interesting. The end result is pretty much the same, the only real difference is who (besides depositors) gets to feel the pain:
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704089904575093760994295890.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Mar 2010)

George Soros is something of an enigma to me.

I can't make up my mind if he destroys economies for fun, profit or some other ulterior motive.  Is he intellectualy heir to Armand Hammer or to Sacco and Vanzetti?  At times he strikes me as something of an economic anarchist wishing a plague on both capitalists and communists.   

At the same time his anarchism is demonstrably capitalism.  He makes a fortune out of his "principles".  

Or perhaps he is like many other champagne socialists - assuaging his conscience while ensuring that he personally profits greatly.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2010)

Whatever Soros may believe in as a personal philosophy, his public utterances are advocating the Communist form of Socialism. I found it especially unnerving that he is quoted as saying nationalizing the banks would be "more popular" with the American people, especially considering the reception they have given the "nationalized" automobile companies.

Whatever Soros may have had in mind, the public perception is quite clear. As well, considering the way previous government efforts at dealing with regulatory failure have worked in the United States (look up the history and record of Resolution Trust sometime, or for that matter, the history of regulatory manipulation that caused the S&L crisis of the late 70's early 80's) and you probably would not be enamoured of nationalization of the banks either.


----------



## Redeye (7 Mar 2010)

What, and please be specific, does Soros advocate that suggests in any way that he's remotely in favour of Communism in any form?  And since when is communism a form of socialism?

Soros' first mentions of the Stockholm Solution as it it sometimes called rather clearly stated what he saw as the flaw in the idea - that the public wouldn't accept the idea, though mainly out of ignorance.  THat was in Apil 2009.  For as long as I've watched politics I've made the obseravation that this is quite true with many issues.  Worse, there is a tendency for the degree of passion one has for many issues to be inversely proportional to their understanding thereof.  Thos who carp the loudest about a lot of things tend to demonstrate a profound ignorance of what they're talking about.

As for Soros, Kirkhill, I agree, he is something of an enigma.  He has displayed an incredible ability to make tremendous wealth, but in doing so has indeed done devastating things to economies - though realistically, the only reason he was able to do so was on account of their mismanagement creating the opportunties.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Whatever Soros may believe in as a personal philosophy, his public utterances are advocating the Communist form of Socialism. I found it especially unnerving that he is quoted as saying nationalizing the banks would be "more popular" with the American people, especially considering the reception they have given the "nationalized" automobile companies.
> 
> Whatever Soros may have had in mind, the public perception is quite clear. As well, considering the way previous government efforts at dealing with regulatory failure have worked in the United States (look up the history and record of Resolution Trust sometime, or for that matter, the history of regulatory manipulation that caused the S&L crisis of the late 70's early 80's) and you probably would not be enamoured of nationalization of the banks either.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Mar 2010)

I'm afraid that I am one of those that confuse and conflate socialism and communism, Redeye.

It may have something to do with Communards begetting the Socialist International and the Socialist International begetting the Communist International.  It could also have something to do with the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republic being run by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.  I could go on.

Communists and Socialists;  Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist or Trotskyite;  Laski, Alinski or Gramsci......  all too alike for me to distinguish the differences.  It's like trying to differentiate sparrows.  Their differences are notable but too subtle for my poor mind to put into any semblance of order.    And Mussolini, Franco, Salazar and de Valera,  not to mention the German paperhanger (like the Scotch play, he must not be named) are equally subtle shadings of the same Genus.


As to Soros: I have stated before that I believe his real "genius" is being able to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater and then profit from the ensuing panic.  He does this by making sure he buys a really big bullhorn.  Al Gore and Obama immediately spring to mind for some reason.


----------



## CougarKing (22 Mar 2010)

In the wake of US health care reform being in the news, we have this- calls for immigration reform also resurface:



> Rally organizers say President Barack Obama has failed to make good on a campaign pledge. They want immigration reform now. Tony Yapias of Utahns for Immigration Reform said, "You promised us. You promised us that you were going to address immigration reform in the first year, and we're in the second year and it hasn't happened yet."
> 
> *Marchers want legislation that creates a legal way for undocumented immigrants to gain citizenship. Utah resident Iris Gonzalez said, "We want freedom. Cuz our people are held back a lot." Supporters for reform also want congress to remove some of the hurdles involved in bringing relatives from their homeland to the states. And they want improved workplace fairness. "Most people would like to have an opportunity to just work here. Work and live here without the fear of being deported," said Yapias.*
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Apr 2010)

What the world wants and what it gets are becomming very different things indeed:

http://article.nationalreview.com/430228/parochially-post-american/mark-steyn



> *Parochially Post-American*
> 
> It wasn’t the “reset” button President Obama hit; it was the ejector-seat button.
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (14 Apr 2010)

In recent news with PM Harper.
"The finger wag that launched a thousand blog posts":
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/yahoocanada/100414/canada/the_finger_wag_that_launched_a_thousand_blog_posts


----------



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2010)

When Prime Minister Harper gets to play the Natural resources card, the Oil card or the Economic fundamentals card we'll see just who is getting the finger...  >


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2010)

Before and after:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703465204575208100160425826.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion



> *The Politics of 'Anything Goes'*
> 
> "Even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us--the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of 'anything goes.' Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America--there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America--there's the United States of America."--state senator Barack Obama, Democratic National Convention, July 27, 2004
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jul 2010)

"A dream for some; A nightmare for others!" (Merlin speaking to Arthur in Excalubar):

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/  13 July 2010



> “The Democratic party is the vehicle through which, after a populist interlude, the governing classes are proposing to take their country back. Obama is a restoration candidate but that doesn’t mean he has a plan. “ So wrote Christopher Caldwell in the last two sentences of his piece in The Spectator dated 29 October, 2008, Describing Obama as the restoration candidate for the governing classes may well capture a large part of the motivation behind a whole swath of people like Zuckerman.
> 
> Zuckerman, Bloomberg, and a very long list probably understood that Obama did not have enough experience. So much the better! Naturally, Obama would turn to the likes of them to help manage the country; except, it doesn’t look as if Obama and the people around him feel a great need for their help. If there is any shock to poor Mort, it’s that Obama, if only out of a sense of self-preservation, hasn’t recognized his need for the likes of him.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2010)

Irony:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Mosque-supporters-beg-George-W-Bush-to-come-to-Obamas-rescue-100977179.html



> *Mosque supporters beg George W. Bush to come to Obama's rescue*
> By: BYRON YORK
> Chief Political Correspondent
> 08/18/10 10:02 AM EDT
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Mar 2011)

What the world gets:

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/03/17/%e2%80%9cwhere-are-the-americans%e2%80%9da-tale-of-two-tsunamis/



> *‘Where Are the Americans?’ A Tale of Two Tsunamis*
> Posted By Roger Kimball On March 17, 2011 @ 4:49 am In Uncategorized | 74 Comments
> 
> On December 26, 2004, an undersea megathrust earthquake precipitated one of the deadliest natural disasters [1] in recorded history. With a magnitude of between 9.1 and 9.3, it was the third largest quake ever recorded. The resulting tsunamis, moving walls of water up to 100 feet high, slammed ashore in some 14 countries bordering the Indian Ocean, killing some 230,000 people [2].
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2011)

The Libyan adventure brings out the best in people  >:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2011/03/to-the-shores-of-tripoli-benghazi.html?cid=6a00d83451b2aa69e2014e86d40593970d#comment-6a00d83451b2aa69e2014e86d40593970d



> *BLOG COMMENT OF THE DAY: What I Like About Obama.*
> 
> Obviously, the biggest problem with Bush was sending the military into an Arab Muslim country that hadn’t even attacked us. Among the several things that made that offensive were
> * the rush to war – it was only several months after the possibility of military involvement was raised that combat operations began
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Apr 2011)

Some people are not too pleased. Watch this epic rant


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2012)

Maybe the thread title should be "What the world wants from an American president, again," and we might consider one of America's best but always overlooked presidents: Dwight Eisenhower. Ike is 'reviewed' in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/20/george-f-will-many-reasons-to-like-ike/


> George F. Will: Many reasons to like Ike
> 
> George F. Will
> 
> ...




Both Democrats and Republicans might want to review their history and consider a time when we had "real men," not Madison Avenue made replicas like Gingrich, Obama and Santorum, in public life. 

The decline started with JFK when style triumphed over substance.


----------



## GAP (21 Feb 2012)

By comparison.......PBS had a documentry on Clinton last night. It almost entirely focused on things he did wrong, rather than what he achieved.....Ah.....for an Ike today...........................


----------



## a_majoor (21 Feb 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> By comparison.......PBS had a documentry on Clinton last night. It almost entirely focused on things he did wrong, rather than what he achieved.....Ah.....for an Ike today...........................



Welfare reform? Bringing in balanced budgets? Sorry, that was the Republican House and Senate doing their "Contract with America" platform. President Clinton knew enough to go with the flow and claim credit for those, while dumping Hillarycare and redefining what "is" is...


----------



## mariomike (18 Feb 2017)

Update 02/17/17 

Historians rank Obama 12th best president 
https://www.google.ca/search?q=obama+12th&biw=1536&bih=723&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2%2F17%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A2%2F18%2F2017&tbm=


----------



## kkwd (18 Feb 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Update 02/17/17
> 
> Historians rank Obama 12th best president
> https://www.google.ca/search?q=obama+12th&biw=1536&bih=723&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2%2F17%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A2%2F18%2F2017&tbm=



They are all still teary eyed their precious idol had to leave. But I bet they are happy he is still in town so they can drop by to worship him.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Feb 2017)

kkwd said:
			
		

> They are all still teary eyed their precious idol had to leave. But I bet they are happy he is still in town so they can drop by to worship him.



Ummmmm?  Isn't he off gallivanting with Richard Branson?


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Feb 2017)

kkwd said:
			
		

> They are all still teary eyed their precious idol had to leave. But I bet they are happy he is still in town so they can drop by to worship him.



Meanwhile, Pence warns Europe to hop off of the US 'NATO welfare' train.... and who can blame Uncle Sam?


Mike Pence widens US rift with Europe over Nato defence spending 

On first visit to Europe since taking office, US vice-president tells Munich conference Nato allies must step up their contributions

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/18/mike-pence-widens-us-rift-with-europe-over-nato-defence-spending


----------



## kkwd (18 Feb 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ummmmm?  Isn't he off gallivanting with Richard Branson?



He was, he needs seed money to implement his Pinky And The Brian type plans. The twist is he doesn't want to take over the world, he wants the world to take over him and all that surrounds him. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_mPrhwpZ-8


----------



## George Wallace (18 Feb 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, Pence warns Europe to hop off of the US 'NATO welfare' train.... and who can blame Uncle Sam?
> 
> 
> Mike Pence widens US rift with Europe over Nato defence spending
> ...



....and this is where I think that "Justin just doesn't get it.":

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/trudeau-merkel-differ-answering-trump-083003268.html



> Ways to gauge Canada's commitment to NATO beyond just spending: Trudeau
> The Canadian PressFebruary 17, 2017
> 
> BERLIN — Canada's indifference to the ever-present push for more NATO spending was laid bare Friday in Germany as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau all but shrugged off Donald Trump's push to squeeze alliance members for more money.
> ...



Avoiding the monetary commitment agreed to, only making token contributions of troops to various NATO deployments and Exercises, is not at all what the US is now demanding.  It is AVOIDING one's RESPONSIBILITY, not to mention RENEGING on an agreement and trust signed when becoming a member. 


[edit]

See also: 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/nato-commitment-goes-beyond-cash-pm-trudeau-1.3289597#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=Facebook&_gsc=Q6XUsdK&_giguuid=a83b0db8eb4041a4bb0f3fe89478b920


----------



## Journeyman (23 Feb 2017)

I received an article that...perhaps.... explains part of Trump's popularity that I just couldn't understand.



> *4chan: The Skeleton Key to the Rise of Trump*
> Trump’s younger supporters know he’s an incompetent joke; in fact, that’s why they support him.
> 
> ...we can append a third category to the two classically understood division of Trump supporters:
> ...


          LINK

It's a long article. Sorry.

I still have trouble accepting that people would embrace and proudly self-proclaim being "losers," but it's another chunk of the puzzle to ponder.
:dunno:


----------



## Journeyman (26 Feb 2017)

LINK

I included the article, since Foreign Policy usually requires a subscription, unless they're running their periodic 'free trials.'



> Max Boot
> 
> *The Worst and the Dimmest*
> The wheels are falling off Donald Trump’s foreign policy, and the adults aren’t at the wheel.
> ...



Apparently, Trump's version of mindless nationalism _is_  the way ahead.  
I can only shake my head at this recent hate-on for truth, ethics, thinking, competence...   :not-again:


----------

