It is no secret that I loathe-loathe- Barack Obama. But if today is not the end of Hillary Clinton, I don't know what is. I am less concerned about her hurting the democratic party (if Mr Obama is the nominee, that can only help) than I think she is being unwise to continue the race for her own sake. I don't see Mrs Clinton's logic in staying in a race in which she has already overexposed herself and diminished the likelihood of a successful run in the future.
Mrs Clinton seems hell-bent on wrenching delegates, superdelegates and technicalities out of Mr Obama's hands. And I don't blame her, I would be doing the same thing. But it will be almost embarassing to watch her continue tonight after it becomes crystal clear that the numbers cannot add up in her favor without some rather arbitrary action against the will of the voters.
I would not "call for Mrs Clinton to exit the race," she, as every candidate, has the option to remain in competition essentially as long as their funds permit. I just don't see what she could realistically do to make a solid case going forward. People like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean only exacerbate this insane, insane publicity stunt put on by the democrats.
Mrs Clinton, get a massage, have some champagne, and pick up a good book. A job well done, but a job perilously near its end.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Sunday breather
Besides my power going out for most of today (and, thus, my internet router), I decided that Sunday is my break day. I already run around and overcommit myself as it is, so today will be for regaining my sanity before the week starts.
In the upcoming week, I want to look at US polls and Fukuda and Dmitry Medvedev and whatever else comes up. So "stay tuned."
C
In the upcoming week, I want to look at US polls and Fukuda and Dmitry Medvedev and whatever else comes up. So "stay tuned."
C
Saturday, May 3, 2008
London elects, Labour loses
"The end game of the New Labour cult."
London voters yesterday unceremoniously ousted Ken Livingstone in favor of Conservative Boris Johnson in the mayoralty election. Their choice, compounded by other local elections across the country, delivered Labour its hardest hit in 40 years and has some ominous clouds hanging over 10 Downing Street. Driven by doubts concerning the economy and immigration, and for some a mere distaste for Mr Livingstone, London moved decidedly to the right with its selection of bluntly-spoken Mr Johnson.
The Tories held 44% of votes in the local elections Friday, with even the weak Liberal Democrats beating out Labour by one percent (25%-to-24%). Voters seem more than willing to throw the Labour establishment aside given the state of Britain's credit markets and the ills of the banking industry heavily publicised during the nationalisation of Northern Rock earlier this year. Even Mr Livingstone offered to the BBC that "The smart thing for Labour to do would be to quietly remove Gordon Brown and install [Foreign Secretary David] Miliband." Mr Brown need not call a general election until 2010, but his continued success will be determined by his ability to lift a sagging economy (particularly a financial sector that accounts for more than 20% of UK jobs) and encourage lending to buttress home prices. He is putting all of his chips on it.
But Mr Brown is not in the best position to play lifeguard with the financial markets. He was a generous public spender as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Tony Blair, and now finds his coffers depleted, insufficient to provide a substantive kick for the economy. Friday, Mr Brown offered only the necessary "courage and conviction," continuing to be ambiguous about what actions his administration would take going forward.
London elected Mr Johnson, an abrasive, outspoken media personality and magazine editor cum politician. Speculation is high in Britain that it may mean voters are once again ready to embrace the Tories, now under David Cameron's leadership, after more than a decade. Some speculated that Polish immigrants, numbering a registered 58,472, could influence the outcome of the election, but it seemed unlikely that the Poles would vote in a coherent bloc; the conservative Catholics expectedly went for Mr Johnson. But if this does signal a true paradigm shift of the British electorate, which all indicators point to, it will serve Mr Brown to rethink his approach before 2010.
London voters yesterday unceremoniously ousted Ken Livingstone in favor of Conservative Boris Johnson in the mayoralty election. Their choice, compounded by other local elections across the country, delivered Labour its hardest hit in 40 years and has some ominous clouds hanging over 10 Downing Street. Driven by doubts concerning the economy and immigration, and for some a mere distaste for Mr Livingstone, London moved decidedly to the right with its selection of bluntly-spoken Mr Johnson.
The Tories held 44% of votes in the local elections Friday, with even the weak Liberal Democrats beating out Labour by one percent (25%-to-24%). Voters seem more than willing to throw the Labour establishment aside given the state of Britain's credit markets and the ills of the banking industry heavily publicised during the nationalisation of Northern Rock earlier this year. Even Mr Livingstone offered to the BBC that "The smart thing for Labour to do would be to quietly remove Gordon Brown and install [Foreign Secretary David] Miliband." Mr Brown need not call a general election until 2010, but his continued success will be determined by his ability to lift a sagging economy (particularly a financial sector that accounts for more than 20% of UK jobs) and encourage lending to buttress home prices. He is putting all of his chips on it.
But Mr Brown is not in the best position to play lifeguard with the financial markets. He was a generous public spender as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Tony Blair, and now finds his coffers depleted, insufficient to provide a substantive kick for the economy. Friday, Mr Brown offered only the necessary "courage and conviction," continuing to be ambiguous about what actions his administration would take going forward.
London elected Mr Johnson, an abrasive, outspoken media personality and magazine editor cum politician. Speculation is high in Britain that it may mean voters are once again ready to embrace the Tories, now under David Cameron's leadership, after more than a decade. Some speculated that Polish immigrants, numbering a registered 58,472, could influence the outcome of the election, but it seemed unlikely that the Poles would vote in a coherent bloc; the conservative Catholics expectedly went for Mr Johnson. But if this does signal a true paradigm shift of the British electorate, which all indicators point to, it will serve Mr Brown to rethink his approach before 2010.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Wright or wrong
It is too late for Barack Obama to reverse the "Wright damage." But the GOP should not expect a lot of mileage out of it, either. With Mr Obama's second public disavowal of Jeremiah Wright and his remarks comes some relief among his supporters, but not much outside of his ranks. A Rasmussen poll found that 58% of voters believed Mr Obama made his second, more decisive speech out of political convenience rather than personal outrage. He will have to drive a hard effort to convince them otherwise.
The hot, bright lights on Messrs Wright and Obama underscore a character interest in this election unique from the ones before it. Maybe it is because, at least in the Democratic party, the platforms are so similar. Maybe it is scrutiny and pullback over race and gender that voters thought they could swallow. Whatever the reasons, Mr Wright has already discredited himself, the question is: how low has he dragged Mr Obama, and if Mr Obama is capable of putting an end to it.
The answers are unclear. Statistics show Mr Obama took a marginal hit in national polls. But he may have missed a golden opportunity to bring the devoutly religious back into his fold. The lynchpin was his first, "soft" renunciation not of Mr Wright but of Mr Wright's remarks. He was ambiguous about his standing with Mr Wright and instead oddly compared his situation to throwing his racist grandmother under the bus. Conservatives were predictably skeptical of Mr Obama's sincerity, while liberals already likely to vote for Mr Obama were generally inspired.
After Mr Wright reiterated his comments on Tuesday (it seems that the hot, bright lights are exactly where Mr Wright wants them), Mr Obama made a second, more explicit condemnation of the remarks and the man. He finally made a decisive move in damage control, but it would have been exponentially more effective the first time around. It is yet to be seen whether he can stop further fallout from Mr Wright's continued public remarks, but it would be wise of him to reach out to the more conservative, devout corners of his party (and even the Republicans).
Mr Obama has had to play up his membership at Trinity United to counter early (and lingering) claims that he is a Muslim. There is not a better time for him to make even clearer his disappointment in the bully pulpit of Mr Wright and the need for reverence in his Christian church. Even if he fails to make this connection with the moderate, conservative, and skeptical religious, the GOP will have a hard time extracting more usable fuel from Mr Wright.
With the 18-month election cycle that we are now seeing, it would be nearly impossible to captivate public attention on an associative relationship that, in reality, does not have a lot of meat to it. There are to date no photographs, videos or records placing Mr Obama in the church at the time of one of the questionable sermons; the argument is based on the idea that Mr Wright's political ideas may (and probably) have rubbed off on Mr Obama during the decades of their friendship. Had this came to light in October, it would be an entirely different story.
There is little doubt that this time that Mr Obama will be his party's nominee for President. There is, however, skepticism about his judgment and sincerity. It will be quick, decisive action in the future that will regain him the trust of the voters.
The hot, bright lights on Messrs Wright and Obama underscore a character interest in this election unique from the ones before it. Maybe it is because, at least in the Democratic party, the platforms are so similar. Maybe it is scrutiny and pullback over race and gender that voters thought they could swallow. Whatever the reasons, Mr Wright has already discredited himself, the question is: how low has he dragged Mr Obama, and if Mr Obama is capable of putting an end to it.
The answers are unclear. Statistics show Mr Obama took a marginal hit in national polls. But he may have missed a golden opportunity to bring the devoutly religious back into his fold. The lynchpin was his first, "soft" renunciation not of Mr Wright but of Mr Wright's remarks. He was ambiguous about his standing with Mr Wright and instead oddly compared his situation to throwing his racist grandmother under the bus. Conservatives were predictably skeptical of Mr Obama's sincerity, while liberals already likely to vote for Mr Obama were generally inspired.
After Mr Wright reiterated his comments on Tuesday (it seems that the hot, bright lights are exactly where Mr Wright wants them), Mr Obama made a second, more explicit condemnation of the remarks and the man. He finally made a decisive move in damage control, but it would have been exponentially more effective the first time around. It is yet to be seen whether he can stop further fallout from Mr Wright's continued public remarks, but it would be wise of him to reach out to the more conservative, devout corners of his party (and even the Republicans).
Mr Obama has had to play up his membership at Trinity United to counter early (and lingering) claims that he is a Muslim. There is not a better time for him to make even clearer his disappointment in the bully pulpit of Mr Wright and the need for reverence in his Christian church. Even if he fails to make this connection with the moderate, conservative, and skeptical religious, the GOP will have a hard time extracting more usable fuel from Mr Wright.
With the 18-month election cycle that we are now seeing, it would be nearly impossible to captivate public attention on an associative relationship that, in reality, does not have a lot of meat to it. There are to date no photographs, videos or records placing Mr Obama in the church at the time of one of the questionable sermons; the argument is based on the idea that Mr Wright's political ideas may (and probably) have rubbed off on Mr Obama during the decades of their friendship. Had this came to light in October, it would be an entirely different story.
There is little doubt that this time that Mr Obama will be his party's nominee for President. There is, however, skepticism about his judgment and sincerity. It will be quick, decisive action in the future that will regain him the trust of the voters.
braindead
I have to apologize for that last entry; I can see the lack of synapse activity just reading it. I guess that is what I get for 2am blogging.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Bravo, Mr McCain
The presumptive Republican nominee (I wonder when that phrase will get old) revealed a more in-depth look at his plan for healthcare yesterday, highlighting its market-based approach and fairly comprehensive incentives. It looks lean compared to the messy propositions of Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But healthcare is traditionally a battleground between ethics and pragmatism, where the populists will invoke the children and the elderly and it then becomes about doing the "right thing" versus the "corporate thing."
It is one of those areas in American politics that is hard to touch because it is so emotional yet absolutely impractical to leave in its current state. In the end it is about money: a middle class increasingly unable to afford ballooning medical bills (exacerbated by obesity, diabetes, and cancer) and the elderly under a Medicare plan thousands of pages long and not even in actuarial balance. That Mrs Clinton or Mr Obama could propose their government could do an significantly more efficient job of keeping costs down for 100% of Americans seems unrealistic.
Because cost is the problem for Americans it is logical that costs should be examined and addressed by their own merit, not behind the veil of an ethical crusade for the "right" thing. Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama seem to think that this is one aspect in which we can genuinely reach utopia.
Mr McCain proposes a more pragmatic albeit imperfect plan. But pragmatism and results are something that can be shaped and created with, unlike utopia. He advocated individual, tax-friendly Health Savings Accounts, as well as tax credits of up to $5,000 for the purchase of individual insurance. His strong point is his emphasis in the important shift away from employer-provided insurance that ties workers to the bureaucracy of their companies and can leave them unnecessarily helpless in interim periods. It is not entirely logical that this insurance structure even exists in the USA today; the Anglo-American business model is heavily oriented toward labor volatility.
There are some big holes in McCain's plan, though. His reliance on individual rather than employer-based insurers is one of his strong suits, but it also opens the pandora's box of medical underwriting. Most any Republican would be hesitant to slap underwriting legislation on insurance companies, and McCain proposes a state-focused solution that brings in non-profits, often in the setup of "high risk pools." These have not proven promising in the past and there is no reason to believe that their coffers would be adequately filled to provide a consistent level of care.
The notions of Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama are noble ones. But they are not realistic in the next four or eight years, and governments the world over (including this one) have proven absolutely incapable of managing the tremendous cost of universal health care. The government must provide a safety net for those who fall through the cracks of a tempered market system. But spare me, Mrs Clinton, and stop invoking "the kids."
It is one of those areas in American politics that is hard to touch because it is so emotional yet absolutely impractical to leave in its current state. In the end it is about money: a middle class increasingly unable to afford ballooning medical bills (exacerbated by obesity, diabetes, and cancer) and the elderly under a Medicare plan thousands of pages long and not even in actuarial balance. That Mrs Clinton or Mr Obama could propose their government could do an significantly more efficient job of keeping costs down for 100% of Americans seems unrealistic.
Because cost is the problem for Americans it is logical that costs should be examined and addressed by their own merit, not behind the veil of an ethical crusade for the "right" thing. Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama seem to think that this is one aspect in which we can genuinely reach utopia.
Mr McCain proposes a more pragmatic albeit imperfect plan. But pragmatism and results are something that can be shaped and created with, unlike utopia. He advocated individual, tax-friendly Health Savings Accounts, as well as tax credits of up to $5,000 for the purchase of individual insurance. His strong point is his emphasis in the important shift away from employer-provided insurance that ties workers to the bureaucracy of their companies and can leave them unnecessarily helpless in interim periods. It is not entirely logical that this insurance structure even exists in the USA today; the Anglo-American business model is heavily oriented toward labor volatility.
There are some big holes in McCain's plan, though. His reliance on individual rather than employer-based insurers is one of his strong suits, but it also opens the pandora's box of medical underwriting. Most any Republican would be hesitant to slap underwriting legislation on insurance companies, and McCain proposes a state-focused solution that brings in non-profits, often in the setup of "high risk pools." These have not proven promising in the past and there is no reason to believe that their coffers would be adequately filled to provide a consistent level of care.
The notions of Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama are noble ones. But they are not realistic in the next four or eight years, and governments the world over (including this one) have proven absolutely incapable of managing the tremendous cost of universal health care. The government must provide a safety net for those who fall through the cracks of a tempered market system. But spare me, Mrs Clinton, and stop invoking "the kids."
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Welcome to Capitol Shrill
Greetings:
Capitol Shrill is the product of my first blog, which was split in order to provide content for more specific readerships, respectively. I have included relevant posts from my previous blog on this one.
In political writing as well as opinion and criticism it is important to acknowledge that we each hold values which belong to value systems that are always incongruent in some way. Politics and writing attempt to address the relationships between these values through argument, to find the most ethical, effective solution for the whole. As such, I view this kind of discourse (especially in a blog format, where back-and-forth between reader, writer, and peer group is possible) as an expression of our malleable values, opinions, and judgments, tempered by one another, to find a greater whole. Comments and response are integral and necessary to this process.
So I hope you will enjoy the experience that is Capitol Shrill; I am sure that it cannot be everything to everyone but a solid ground from which further thought, analysis and humor can be explored.
Follow the link to my personal blog, Ad astra per aspera.
Thank you for your support.
Capitol Shrill is the product of my first blog, which was split in order to provide content for more specific readerships, respectively. I have included relevant posts from my previous blog on this one.
In political writing as well as opinion and criticism it is important to acknowledge that we each hold values which belong to value systems that are always incongruent in some way. Politics and writing attempt to address the relationships between these values through argument, to find the most ethical, effective solution for the whole. As such, I view this kind of discourse (especially in a blog format, where back-and-forth between reader, writer, and peer group is possible) as an expression of our malleable values, opinions, and judgments, tempered by one another, to find a greater whole. Comments and response are integral and necessary to this process.
So I hope you will enjoy the experience that is Capitol Shrill; I am sure that it cannot be everything to everyone but a solid ground from which further thought, analysis and humor can be explored.
Follow the link to my personal blog, Ad astra per aspera.
Thank you for your support.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Cold reception
Turkish politics is interesting in that it is such a stark mix of an aspiring modern democracy and a body politic still willing to ignore some basic freedoms. It is not as much a state in transition from one to the other as it is a place where both coexist. This oppression takes many forms: journalists are regularly imprisoned, authors boycotted and prosecuted for criticizing the Turkish government; by the same token, the Turks embrace a strict Kemalist (secularist) approach through democracy that often does not allow them to publicly display the faith that most of them practice. It seems fitting that the crossroads of the east and west is divided in such a manner.
Turkey wants (and needs) nothing more than to join the European Union at this point. But the recent actions of Supreme Court prosecutors, and previously the army generals, threaten to push accession back onto the faraway horizon. The chief prosecutor of Turkey last month filed suit in the Supreme Court to strip Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Abdullah Gül of their positions as Prime Minister and President, respectively, and to disband their ruling Justice and Development Party (AK) on grounds that the party and Messrs Erdoğan and Gül are promoting Islamism and shari’a law in Turkey. All would be banned from politics for at least five years. The action, while not necessarily baseless, is destructive to the Turkish system and would provide little relief.
Mr Erdoğan describes himself and his party as center-right conservative. The parties that preceded his AK (the center-right has had to consistently re-invent itself in Turkey) have been traditionally more EU- and Western- oriented, something that continues to cause rumbles in secularist circles. Prevailing Kemalist attitudes dictate that religion must be shoved aside in all forms to pursue modernism. Turkey may choose this path, but it does so at the cost of EU membership.
Turkey’s secular establishment should reevaluate its motives, and perhaps more importantly, the consequences of its hard-line against Islamism. It is often overly wary of the West and the EU, and has dragged the country’s feet in the mud as a result. The administrations under Mr Erdoğan have been some of the most successful in modern Turkey, putting an end to the hyperinflation that plagued the country for decades, and bringing it closer than it has ever been to EU eligibility. A poll by TESEV in 2006 indicated that only 7% of Turks favored an Islamic state that implemented shari’a law, of that, only 2% supported shari’a’s harshest measures. It seems that the secularists have much less to worry about than they let on. They also cannot afford (and have no reason) to ignore the growing moderate-Muslim population; a group that is religious and wears the headscarf but that is also adaptable, excited about the prospect of accession to the EU, and looking for ways to reconcile their faith with the modern world.
With the proposed closure of the AK comes the disenfranchisement of the Kurds and further fractionalization of Turkey. AK is the only party currently capable of representing the entire country and remaining competitive with the pro-Kurdish DTP in Kurdish provinces. Providing the Kurds with a suitable alternative would be extremely difficult for the secular establishment.
Turkey’s commitment to secularism should be commended. But it should not come at the expense of democracy. The secular forces in Turkey must evaluate the consequences of a government-mandated AK closure, which would push EU accession farther, alienate the Kurds, inflame what has been a moderation in the country’s Muslim population, and disrupt economic progress. Messrs Erdoğan & Gül must be allowed to serve out their terms and participate in government as directed by voters. The future of Turkey depends on it.
Turkey wants (and needs) nothing more than to join the European Union at this point. But the recent actions of Supreme Court prosecutors, and previously the army generals, threaten to push accession back onto the faraway horizon. The chief prosecutor of Turkey last month filed suit in the Supreme Court to strip Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Abdullah Gül of their positions as Prime Minister and President, respectively, and to disband their ruling Justice and Development Party (AK) on grounds that the party and Messrs Erdoğan and Gül are promoting Islamism and shari’a law in Turkey. All would be banned from politics for at least five years. The action, while not necessarily baseless, is destructive to the Turkish system and would provide little relief.
Mr Erdoğan describes himself and his party as center-right conservative. The parties that preceded his AK (the center-right has had to consistently re-invent itself in Turkey) have been traditionally more EU- and Western- oriented, something that continues to cause rumbles in secularist circles. Prevailing Kemalist attitudes dictate that religion must be shoved aside in all forms to pursue modernism. Turkey may choose this path, but it does so at the cost of EU membership.
Turkey’s secular establishment should reevaluate its motives, and perhaps more importantly, the consequences of its hard-line against Islamism. It is often overly wary of the West and the EU, and has dragged the country’s feet in the mud as a result. The administrations under Mr Erdoğan have been some of the most successful in modern Turkey, putting an end to the hyperinflation that plagued the country for decades, and bringing it closer than it has ever been to EU eligibility. A poll by TESEV in 2006 indicated that only 7% of Turks favored an Islamic state that implemented shari’a law, of that, only 2% supported shari’a’s harshest measures. It seems that the secularists have much less to worry about than they let on. They also cannot afford (and have no reason) to ignore the growing moderate-Muslim population; a group that is religious and wears the headscarf but that is also adaptable, excited about the prospect of accession to the EU, and looking for ways to reconcile their faith with the modern world.
With the proposed closure of the AK comes the disenfranchisement of the Kurds and further fractionalization of Turkey. AK is the only party currently capable of representing the entire country and remaining competitive with the pro-Kurdish DTP in Kurdish provinces. Providing the Kurds with a suitable alternative would be extremely difficult for the secular establishment.
Turkey’s commitment to secularism should be commended. But it should not come at the expense of democracy. The secular forces in Turkey must evaluate the consequences of a government-mandated AK closure, which would push EU accession farther, alienate the Kurds, inflame what has been a moderation in the country’s Muslim population, and disrupt economic progress. Messrs Erdoğan & Gül must be allowed to serve out their terms and participate in government as directed by voters. The future of Turkey depends on it.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Curb your zeal, baby
Xinhua, the state news agency, told the Chinese last week that they "must curb [nationalist] zeal" in reaction to the torch protests in Europe and North America. The Chinese government, and by proxy Xinhua, has been steely in its reaction to the Olympic drama elsewhere. But despite efforts the quell the rage at home, Chinese discontent and reactivity continues to be apparent in Asia and abroad.
Chinese nationalism is big and amorphous but only because it is so hollow. Its lack of substance allows it to shape-shift and emerge in unlikely places, especially where emotions are lit. And it is, thus, incredibly resilient. This kind of ideology is unsettling to the west (although I'm not sure it should be), and taps into our own xenophobia. It is not a difficult thing especially for American politicians to exploit, only enhanced by Taiwan's comfortable seat on the couch in Washington.
To Taiwan's credit, President-elect Ma Ying-jeou and his deputy, Vincent Siew of the Kuomintang have done an exceptional job of bringing the PRC and President Hu Jintao back into the fold, even before taking office. The picture for Tibet does not look so rosy.
But the real accomplishment of Messrs Ma and Siew is the bilateral nature of their dialogue, something the Dalai Lama has been less successful at, perhaps not for his own part but the stubbornness of his followers. Tenzin Gyatso (the Dalai Lama) has made it known in later years that he does not support outright independence for Tibet, something that western supporters are loth to acknowledge or even pay attention to. It is increasingly difficult for Mr Gyatso to hold a dialogue with the Chinese when those inside Tibet are subverting him.
The Tibet issue is so nuanced that it is hard to disentangle it from the threads of nationalism, Buddhism, independence, and the 2008 games. It is no secret that the Chinese have suffered an outrageous PR disaster at the heels of the country's coming out party. But it may serve them in the end to take Xinhua's advice, curb their zeal, take politics out of the equation and end the torch relay. Nicolas Sarkozy would be foolish to boycott the games now, as he threatened earlier, after the relay ordeal in Paris. Barack Obama is equally misguided in calling for the same from George Bush. China is a big, developing country and a flawed one. But they must be left to solve their own problems.
Chinese nationalism is big and amorphous but only because it is so hollow. Its lack of substance allows it to shape-shift and emerge in unlikely places, especially where emotions are lit. And it is, thus, incredibly resilient. This kind of ideology is unsettling to the west (although I'm not sure it should be), and taps into our own xenophobia. It is not a difficult thing especially for American politicians to exploit, only enhanced by Taiwan's comfortable seat on the couch in Washington.
To Taiwan's credit, President-elect Ma Ying-jeou and his deputy, Vincent Siew of the Kuomintang have done an exceptional job of bringing the PRC and President Hu Jintao back into the fold, even before taking office. The picture for Tibet does not look so rosy.
But the real accomplishment of Messrs Ma and Siew is the bilateral nature of their dialogue, something the Dalai Lama has been less successful at, perhaps not for his own part but the stubbornness of his followers. Tenzin Gyatso (the Dalai Lama) has made it known in later years that he does not support outright independence for Tibet, something that western supporters are loth to acknowledge or even pay attention to. It is increasingly difficult for Mr Gyatso to hold a dialogue with the Chinese when those inside Tibet are subverting him.
The Tibet issue is so nuanced that it is hard to disentangle it from the threads of nationalism, Buddhism, independence, and the 2008 games. It is no secret that the Chinese have suffered an outrageous PR disaster at the heels of the country's coming out party. But it may serve them in the end to take Xinhua's advice, curb their zeal, take politics out of the equation and end the torch relay. Nicolas Sarkozy would be foolish to boycott the games now, as he threatened earlier, after the relay ordeal in Paris. Barack Obama is equally misguided in calling for the same from George Bush. China is a big, developing country and a flawed one. But they must be left to solve their own problems.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Who cares about the winner
What is really compelling is the Abercrombie & Fitch crew that has apparently taken up arms for Barack Obama
I guess it is what you call a "sign of the times." I only thought of myriad new campaign ads, featuring Mr & Mrs Obama in grayscale, straddling a horse; Mr Obama running through a field with low-slung jeans and just a hint of crack.
And he wonders why he is losing the seniors................. Mr Obama, not impressed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
