Situation in the Middle East has been far from stable for many decades. On the surface, most of the countries laying on the Northern shore of Africa were in a state of a quiet 'trans' since the liberation from the colonial forces in the at the beginning of the XX century. Some of them were openly accepting coexistence with the West on the World's arena (like Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco) and some others like Libya had a long rooted problem with it (in the person of it's Leader Muammar al-Gaddafi - who apparently recently noticed some benefits in suckling the West's udder). Another one like Algeria (or it's white population) never came to terms with the separation from the all-powerful Mother Country - France. All together, with some extended periods of the very misleading inactivity and complacency always something was brewing under the surface.
When the country of Israel was established in 1948 with the expiration of the British Mandate (and accepted to the United Nations in 1949) the peace of the whole region became a very fragile, ephemeral "creature" requiring constant supervision from the UN and the West. Growing Anti-Israeli sentiments (partially because of the mishandling of the Palestinian issue by the Western Countries) became the nagging problem, resulting on a few occasions in a military conflicts between Israel and Egypt as well as other countries of the region, like Syria, Jordan, Lebanon.
I will dwell on this subject some other time.
I do not need to explain the importance of the North-African-Shore countries (and the whole Middle East) to the security and the prosperity of the neighboring with them across the Mediterranean European Countries. I do not need to explain the importance from the strategical and economical point of view all of these countries to to the whole World. They are on the edge of the still underdeveloped and presenting tremendous potential (as a source of the minerals we need and the fossil fuels we want) continent. Not even mentioning that this region is in too close proximity to the rich in oil fields of the Saudi Arabia and all the OPEC countries. And of course I do not need to remind anybody that the Suez Canal being in the hands of the Egyptians is a very strong determinant of the "growing friendship" between the West and the Arab Republic of Egypt.
In such an economical and political climate no expenses were spared by the Russians (and Chinese) to influence the countries of the region - to which they could claim the full success when after the Nasser revolution in Egypt a pro-Soviet government was established with Nasser as a head of state). Russian control of the Suez Canal ended with Anwar El Sadat taking office of the President of Egypt in 1970. His openly pro-Western sentiments killed him finally in 1981 when he was assassinated by the Islamic extremists during the parade celebrating the October 6 Victory in a '6 hour war' of 1973. However due to his pro-Western sentiments lots a things changed in Egypt. Inferior Russian technology was replaced by the Western one. Egypt started producing Italian and French cars, and other products. Hotels and restaurants were growing everywhere inviting the Western tourists and their Western mighty currency. Tightened by the President Nasser laws (as a reaction to the unruly and lose behavioral style in the King Farouk era - before the revolution), were loosened again to accommodate growing number of Westerners vacationing and also working in that country - some laws changed for more personal reasons (ie.: his daughter couldn't divorce her husband under the Islamic Law - the law was changed to accommodate her needs). Cairo became again a one of the Capitals of the World. The CIA is said to be responsible for building a 141 ft TV tower in the center of the Zamalek (an island on the Nile in Cairo - a place of the Opera House, the Western Embassys and the Corporate Offices...). American support in funds and equipment for the 1 Million strong Egyptian military began, as well as Western political support. What we have to remember is also the fact that all Egyptian Presidents were generals in the Egyptian Army before taking office of the President.
After assassination of the President Sadat, the Martial Law has been implemented. A few months later after some not important personnel changes Hosni Mubarak who was a Vice President since 1975 took office as President of Egypt. And the new era began. It was 1981.
Mubarak since the very beginning tried to juggle both Western influences and interest and the growing Radicalization and Fundamentalization of Egyptian Muslim population.
Egypt is a multi-religious country, has always been. About 13-15% of the population is Christian - called Coptic. Their religion as an organized Coptic Church is dated much earlier than any of the organized European Christian denominations. Until today Egypt has many working Coptic monasteries - places of the mass pilgrimages of their Christan part of the society. They still believe in the same form of a Christan faith, a bit different form any denominations in Europe. Their language of faith is also Coptic. Their alphabet is based on the Greek, but has a few symbols more and a different vocabulary. Some of the aforementioned monasteries were established on the edge of the Eastern Desert as early as the 4-th Century (St. Paul's and St. Anthony's). They have churches in the Egyptian cities, not as numerous as mosques, but many. Relatively huge part of Coptic population lives in the part of the country called Middle Egypt, 2-3 hundred miles south of Cairo. The remaining 85-87% of the Egyptian society is Muslim.
I spent 2 years in Egypt in the Eighties. I was a photographer of one of the Archaeological Centers who had to travel to sometimes very remote locations in Egypt to cover the archaeological excavations. I traveled extensively (also to the Sudan), getting to know the country, it's history, it's people, their customs. People who were in most cases extremely poor (in the European standards), but very friendly and well spirited at the same time. It was a common thing in Cairo to pass a person (or a family) sitting on a grass covered median on one of the streets, eating their lunch and to be stopped by one of them and offered to share the food with them. At that time - in the eighties - they weren't indoctrinated yet by the extreme Muslim organizations for whom the only way of encounter the infidels is with the knife or a gun in their hands.
It was also the beginning of the Mubarak era. The hopes of the nation were high.
In a certain way all the Presidents of Egypt were extremely crucial in making Egypt what it is today. President Nasser (who was pro Soviet ruler) brought Egypt out of Feudal Era to the XX-the Century. He introduced obligatory basic education for all. An analphabetism in the Muslim countries is not that widely spread since every believer has to be able to read the Kur'an and does it often. Nevertheless the schools were secular, not religious 'madrassas'. Branches of the Universities were spreading like mushrooms to every community in the country. (The quality of the education is a completely different story). He also covered all Egyptians by the State run Health program. Doctors and hospitals were open for every one in need (again, the quality is a different animal). He introduced the "bread for all" program and fixed-price-stores for the poorer population - with heavily subsidized food.
Sadat brought the Western technology and close ties with the West. All the social programs were kept. Mubarak reinforced all previously introduced elements and at the time of growing Muslim extremism - had a difficult task to keep Egypt "afloat" - preventing it from sinking back to the Middle Ages (Established in 1928 - and banned in Egypt for decades - Muslim Brotherhood would gladly introduce the Muslim Sharia Law and cut all ties with the West).
Radicalization of the Muslim population is a rapidly progressing process. This process has been well fed by Saudi Arabia's Riyal ($1~4Riyal) - in the eighties Saudi Arabia introduced the scholarships on the Egyptian Universities for the female students just for wearing typical Muslim clothes - long robes with just the face uncovered or even covered by a veil. During my 2 years in Egypt between 1984 and 1986 I was flabbergasted by the rapid change on the streets of Cairo or Alexandria - from looking completely Western (short skirts, tight blouses, well groomed hair... to the streets filled with "burkas" or at least women with the scarfs draped around their faces preventing from showing even a tiniest glimpse of the skin).
A couple of years ago (2006) while I was on the excavations near Alexandria, I met a prominent Egyptian archaeologist who in a casual conversation with me bragged proudly about the previous night 'intervention' - prompted by the family he exorcised his brother, and by reading the Kur'an loudly to him, he expelled the Satan out of his brother's body... Just a reminder - it was 2006.
Saudi fed fundamental extremism was responsible for the unrest in Cairo in the early 1986 (police riots). One must understand that the regular Police is composed of young people from the very poor, and mostly rural parts of the country - it was (one may call) a "work for all" program. When I returned from the Sudan when it was over (the Police was shooting from the helicopters to the people demonstrating on the streets and burning the high end hotels in Giza) I was met at the airport by the well fed, and groomed, well armed and very bright and smart looking comandos - instead of the police and soldiers with mismatched boots and the rifles on a twine instead of a normal strap. This was the moment when I learned that the Egyptian Army, well hidden in the desert, is ready for any unrest the future may bring.
Since the late eighties Muslim extremists have been responsible for numerous and very often very bloody attacks on the Western tourists like the Luxor massacre on 1997, or later notorious shooting at the air-conditioned cars of the train going from Cairo to Luxor. There were kidnappings and assassinations, there were suicide bombings of the frequented by the Israelis and the Westerners - Red See resorts - all done by the extremists. Let's not forget about the 911 and the fact that some of the terrorists were from this country as well.
Mentioned beforehand Middle Egypt with it's big population of the Copts (Egyptian Christians) is very often off-limits for the Western tourists - for their own protection. Every now and then the massacres of Copts by the Muslim extremists occur. Unrest is on the rise. When I repeatedly traveled throughout the region (already after 911) my car was always followed (and preceded) by the armed Police units escorting me to the places on my itinerary, or at least to the highway (if I signed the waiver that I didn't want any protection).
Unfortunately, for the status quo - The Democracy in Egypt is non-existent. Along with the radicalization the general social and political awareness is on the rise. In order to keep the situation under control, the President Mubarak'(s regime rules heavy-handedly with the use of very efficient Secret Police and the Army. People disappear overnight (Amnesty International reports often). The People's voice would not necessarily bring any Western style Democracy to the country like that. This is what many pundits and scholars are afraid of - democratic electoral process may (or rather will) create in Egypt the religion based system like Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, with the ongoing suppression of the human rights and women rights in particular.
No one had any doubts, all the Mubarak elections were fixed. It's not my claim - it transpired from the streets, talks with people... I was in Egypt when the last elections took place. It was a first time when the Regime allowed a number of the opposition candidates to run along the incumbent President. The opposition diluted their vote. Even in the UN observed elections Mubarak won in a land-slide. At the same time (before the elections) I talked to a young college graduate who worked as a clerk in a (...) car rental office in one of the (...) Hotels. He started the political reflections unprompted, in a way he felt an imperative to share his frustration with a stranger who could denounce his subversiveness to the authorities. He was furious talking of lack of freedoms the current regime was imposing on them. He was furious about the corruption of the government, he was furious about the particular interests of the Mubarak's family and that his sons are prepared to 'inherit the throne'. He was furious about the Martial Law which has never been revoked since the assassination of Sadat.
It's an era of the Internet, Cell Phones, Twitter, easy travel. It's an era of Information. No matter how GOOD the DICTATORSHIP is - and this one is just a normal - 'good-for-nothing' dictatorship - one can't stop people's quest for a social and economical reforms, for the transparency in the government, for what we take for granted - RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY...
Making sure that the Status Quo remains untouched is not going to be possible for long. It's kept in balance only by our financial support.
America stands in the World as a champion of the ideals, champion of the human rights, and political freedoms. And yet so often America supports the regimes which, although crucial for the stability in their region, crucial for the World's interests, the same time are repressive to their own people - that it makes me ask a question - is it worthy? - and where do we draw the line? - when does the social cost of such a "stability" outrun the benefits?
----------
On Tuesday, thousands of people took part in anti-government protests in Cairo and other cities, calling for an end to three decades of rule by President Hosni Mubarak. Three civilians and a police officer were killed in the unrest. Egypt's government said at least 85 police officers were injured. Some Tweets say about 2000 protesters being held by the Police overnight.
Tuesday's demonstrations in Cairo began peacefully, with police at first showing restraint. Several people said the clashes in Cairo began after protesters tried to take control of a water cannon truck. Such a coordinated wave of anti-government protests has not been seen in Egypt since Mubarak assumed power in 1981 after Islamists assassinated President Anwar Sadat.
The protests were promoted online by groups saying they speak for young Egyptians frustrated with the kind of poverty and oppression that triggered Tunisia's unrest. It escalated far beyond this point. Egyptians torched a police post in Suez early on Thursday in response to the killing of three demonstrators earlier in the week, a Reuters witness said. Tweets brought to our attention also the fact that the army cut the Suez off. There is no Internet, no cell phones, not Twitter working in Suez. Report of the Police brutality however ooze out.
Thousands of protesters also took to the streets in Yemen on Thursday to demand a change of government there. It raises the total of affected countries in that region to 3.
All of these regimes had a strong US support since they also were strong participants in the War on Terror (not always very effective like in the case of Yemeni regime).
Does it mean that the started in December 2010 Tunisian revolt (making Zine el Abidine Ben Ali, who had ruled the country for 23 years, and his family flee for exile) just ignited the "brush wild fires" which are going to spread through the region and change the geopolitical map of the World forever?
Maybe not at this moment of history. But it may be closer than we would like to realize.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Presidential State Of The Union Address - opposition's responses...
I have paid attention to more than 20 Presidential State Of The Union Addresses - delivered by the last 5 Presidents. They never left me satisfied, even the last year's Obama's speech.
I have to admit that this one was completely different. It was mostly with the economy in mind, promising the emphasis on the job creation and making America competitive on the World Market again. Obama even quoted the "deliverables" resulting from the on-going talks with the China and Korea - creating hundreds of thousand jobs in the US. He promised doubling of the national export by 2014. There was a good stress on the clean energy promising that 85% of the US produced energy by 2035 will come from the Clean Energy (of course it leaves the question "how clean is clean energy" if we talk about the nuclear power plans or the energy coming from burning of fossil fuels - "clean coal" and gas). He also concentrated on necessity of saving the budget. 5 Year Freeze on all Discretionary Domestic spending is a good start - followed by restructuring the current programs. At the same time he promised prioritizing higher education to produce more technologically advanced work force. There was a "Sputnik moment" mentioned and a "fast train" to the future - and Coast to Coast.
Some pundits criticized it afterwords for being too general, and not delivering any solutions. Some others for sending some contradictory messages (spending freeze - education and infrastructure expansion, etc).
Health reform which is the sore in the eye of the Republicans was on a table for "re sculpting" - "let's fix what needs to be fixed and let's move forward" - said Obama. America suffers the highest in the World Corporate Tax, at the same time having loopholes allowing many (most) to pay close to nothing. It's on a target list along with the simplifying of the tax code in general.
These were the things we almost always hear on such occasions, however most of the times not as convincingly as today.
What we almost never heard in such a decisive way is the promise of restructuring of the Government, dismantling many redundant agencies and services, saving funds as well as increasing the efficiency of such services several times. As stated by the President such a restructuring was overdue since the "B&W TV era". This kind of a promise along with the rejecting of all of the earmarks in all the future bills - besides being a very good idea must have looked very attractive even to the Republicans.
I was waiting impatiently to hear how was going to be mentioned and how was offered to be solved the issue of 2 Wars inherited from the former administration. According to the President the Iraq War is ended and even though slowly, the stabilization becomes more pronounced, and the day the last American soldier returns home is in the near future. The same was told about American involvement in the Afghan conflict - with the shift of responsibilities to the Locals, Pakistan and other allies, it makes the talk about return of our personnel also possible. It's about time. Also, the price tag of these wars so far is more than $3 Trillion of the money we didn't have at the first place (ref-a). When our involvement in these unpopular activities is limited or ended - then and only then we can start talking about getting out of debt.
Knowing the complexity of the political and economical climate in the last months (enhanced by the result of the November elections) I have no doubt that the President Obama, preparing to deliver the State of The Union address in January 2011, faced probably the toughest task out of all 5 Presidents whom I had a chance to observe. And yet the delivered 'product' played well the tune of hope. A real hope, and not a fairy tale. Lots of promises, but the same time making the impression that the fulfillment is withing the reach.
So, when the President finally pronounced the usual "...and the State of Our Union is strong" - it actually didn't sound like a cliche.
---------------
It leaves us with two responses to the President's Speech - one by the legitimate Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, and the other by a Tea Party spokesperson Rep. Michelle Bachmann.
As much as Ryan's response was quite predictably attacking the Policy of the President, and promising the fight for reducing of the size and the influence of the Federal Government on both business as well as State Governments - it wasn't too confrontational. It's tone offered some hope for negotiations, and the reasoning. Ryan seemed to understand that the situation in which our economy is right now is the result of action of a few presidents before Obama (I would insist on blaming only the previous one) .
This, by itself was one of the biggest differences between his response and the one delivered by Michelle Bachmann. The latter one immersed herself in a cloud of condemning-Obama-and-all-the-Democrats rhetoric. She didn't have any problem with putting a blame only on the current administration for the effects of Bush presidency, concentrating herself on how the economy (and the job market) was 'crashed' by the Obama's policy in the first 2 years of current Presidency. Although surprisingly she stayed away from total "misfiring" of the data (bending it nevertheless to prove her agenda), however couldn't help herself making a factually incorrect reference about the American attack on Iwo Jima, claiming that American GI-s won that battle "against all the odds". Well, however difficult and bloody (resulting in a great number of casualties) this episode of the War on the Pacific was, the ODDS weren't against us. It was already the March of 1945. Michelle Bachman and her writers have a very baffling tendency of writing the fictional short stories - vaguely connected to the reality.
---------------
ref-a: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html
I have to admit that this one was completely different. It was mostly with the economy in mind, promising the emphasis on the job creation and making America competitive on the World Market again. Obama even quoted the "deliverables" resulting from the on-going talks with the China and Korea - creating hundreds of thousand jobs in the US. He promised doubling of the national export by 2014. There was a good stress on the clean energy promising that 85% of the US produced energy by 2035 will come from the Clean Energy (of course it leaves the question "how clean is clean energy" if we talk about the nuclear power plans or the energy coming from burning of fossil fuels - "clean coal" and gas). He also concentrated on necessity of saving the budget. 5 Year Freeze on all Discretionary Domestic spending is a good start - followed by restructuring the current programs. At the same time he promised prioritizing higher education to produce more technologically advanced work force. There was a "Sputnik moment" mentioned and a "fast train" to the future - and Coast to Coast.
Some pundits criticized it afterwords for being too general, and not delivering any solutions. Some others for sending some contradictory messages (spending freeze - education and infrastructure expansion, etc).
Health reform which is the sore in the eye of the Republicans was on a table for "re sculpting" - "let's fix what needs to be fixed and let's move forward" - said Obama. America suffers the highest in the World Corporate Tax, at the same time having loopholes allowing many (most) to pay close to nothing. It's on a target list along with the simplifying of the tax code in general.
These were the things we almost always hear on such occasions, however most of the times not as convincingly as today.
What we almost never heard in such a decisive way is the promise of restructuring of the Government, dismantling many redundant agencies and services, saving funds as well as increasing the efficiency of such services several times. As stated by the President such a restructuring was overdue since the "B&W TV era". This kind of a promise along with the rejecting of all of the earmarks in all the future bills - besides being a very good idea must have looked very attractive even to the Republicans.
I was waiting impatiently to hear how was going to be mentioned and how was offered to be solved the issue of 2 Wars inherited from the former administration. According to the President the Iraq War is ended and even though slowly, the stabilization becomes more pronounced, and the day the last American soldier returns home is in the near future. The same was told about American involvement in the Afghan conflict - with the shift of responsibilities to the Locals, Pakistan and other allies, it makes the talk about return of our personnel also possible. It's about time. Also, the price tag of these wars so far is more than $3 Trillion of the money we didn't have at the first place (ref-a). When our involvement in these unpopular activities is limited or ended - then and only then we can start talking about getting out of debt.
Knowing the complexity of the political and economical climate in the last months (enhanced by the result of the November elections) I have no doubt that the President Obama, preparing to deliver the State of The Union address in January 2011, faced probably the toughest task out of all 5 Presidents whom I had a chance to observe. And yet the delivered 'product' played well the tune of hope. A real hope, and not a fairy tale. Lots of promises, but the same time making the impression that the fulfillment is withing the reach.
So, when the President finally pronounced the usual "...and the State of Our Union is strong" - it actually didn't sound like a cliche.
---------------
It leaves us with two responses to the President's Speech - one by the legitimate Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, and the other by a Tea Party spokesperson Rep. Michelle Bachmann.
As much as Ryan's response was quite predictably attacking the Policy of the President, and promising the fight for reducing of the size and the influence of the Federal Government on both business as well as State Governments - it wasn't too confrontational. It's tone offered some hope for negotiations, and the reasoning. Ryan seemed to understand that the situation in which our economy is right now is the result of action of a few presidents before Obama (I would insist on blaming only the previous one) .
This, by itself was one of the biggest differences between his response and the one delivered by Michelle Bachmann. The latter one immersed herself in a cloud of condemning-Obama-and-all-the-Democrats rhetoric. She didn't have any problem with putting a blame only on the current administration for the effects of Bush presidency, concentrating herself on how the economy (and the job market) was 'crashed' by the Obama's policy in the first 2 years of current Presidency. Although surprisingly she stayed away from total "misfiring" of the data (bending it nevertheless to prove her agenda), however couldn't help herself making a factually incorrect reference about the American attack on Iwo Jima, claiming that American GI-s won that battle "against all the odds". Well, however difficult and bloody (resulting in a great number of casualties) this episode of the War on the Pacific was, the ODDS weren't against us. It was already the March of 1945. Michelle Bachman and her writers have a very baffling tendency of writing the fictional short stories - vaguely connected to the reality.
---------------
ref-a: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
In anticipation of the State Of The Union...
Only a few hours are left to the State Of The Union address by the President Obama. In previous years, no matter what the situation of the country really was, we heard every time the reassuring words, "... and our Union is STRONG!". We were receiving this statement like a communion at the end of a mass. We were all addicted to it. We needed that "fix", and we applauded it regardless of the situation of the economy, regardless of our growing 'unpopularity' among other countries in the World.
Last year we heard it again and it made what it was designed to do - it lit a dim, flickering flame of HOPE. The country was (it's barely started to recover from it) in a recession which was unprecedented in our lives. Two wars raging, economy on it's knees, jobs escaping across the oceans...
What is the future going to bring? Will we have anything to look forward to? Is President Obama going to bring in his speech tonight something more substantial than the 'fix' we always received? I hope so. It's time.
---------
And then we will hear not one response from the Republicans, but two - the other from the self appointed prophetess of the Tea Party - Michelle Bachmann. Oh, well, the fun never stops.
Last year we heard it again and it made what it was designed to do - it lit a dim, flickering flame of HOPE. The country was (it's barely started to recover from it) in a recession which was unprecedented in our lives. Two wars raging, economy on it's knees, jobs escaping across the oceans...
What is the future going to bring? Will we have anything to look forward to? Is President Obama going to bring in his speech tonight something more substantial than the 'fix' we always received? I hope so. It's time.
---------
And then we will hear not one response from the Republicans, but two - the other from the self appointed prophetess of the Tea Party - Michelle Bachmann. Oh, well, the fun never stops.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann - too pretty for their own good...
Both Sarah Palin and Rep. Michelle Bachmann are not too popular with the Liberal Media, to say the least. In fact recently they haven't been too popular with their own Party activists.
On January 21, Bill O'Reilly, a conservative political commentary, in his program on the Fox News Channel came out with a 'brilliant' explanation to that problem. According to O'Reilly, liberals and others do not like both women because they are both so "good-looking." This assessment gained approval of all the Conservative Media. The problem has been solved...
Really?
Sarah Palin's popularity has recently dropped across the America. The recent CBS/New York Times poll found that as much as 57% of the voters do not approve Sarah Palin's views.
Does it mean that all 57% of the voters are Liberal?
For about 3 years now Sarah Palin proved that she can't answer a simple questions asked by the interviewers, about politics, about economy - without diving in an empty rhetoric without providing any real solutions to the most serious and nagging problems of the Country. After her Presidential Campaign, still being a Governor of Alaska she simply quit her governorship like it was a game of Bingo. So much for the interest in the State of Alaska's welfare. She was proclaimed a "a self-promoting ignoramus, and at worst a shameless media troll who will abuse any platform to deliver dog whistle encouragement to a far-right base, that may include possible insurrectionists" by Stephen Colbert.
Her stunt with putting the "cross hair" over the most democratic congressional districts didn't help her gaining popularity either. I agree - there is no direct relation of her act with the massacre, but it didn't act as a preventive measure either. Not to mention her "wonderfully soothing" TV address after the massacre in Arizona, where she expressed her "profound thoughts" using the term "Blood Libel", and then defending the "lost" position over and over.
At the end, Dick Chaney (the former Vice President) even didn't mention her name when asked about some candidate names for the coming in 2012 Republican Nomination. One must be really "off track" if the well known for his too strong and too vitriol statements Newt Gingrich on January 18 advises her to "slow down" and stated that she had become more 'controversial'.
Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-Min) is a bit different story, or is it?
On January 21, Bill O'Reilly, a conservative political commentary, in his program on the Fox News Channel came out with a 'brilliant' explanation to that problem. According to O'Reilly, liberals and others do not like both women because they are both so "good-looking." This assessment gained approval of all the Conservative Media. The problem has been solved...
Really?
Sarah Palin's popularity has recently dropped across the America. The recent CBS/New York Times poll found that as much as 57% of the voters do not approve Sarah Palin's views.
Does it mean that all 57% of the voters are Liberal?
For about 3 years now Sarah Palin proved that she can't answer a simple questions asked by the interviewers, about politics, about economy - without diving in an empty rhetoric without providing any real solutions to the most serious and nagging problems of the Country. After her Presidential Campaign, still being a Governor of Alaska she simply quit her governorship like it was a game of Bingo. So much for the interest in the State of Alaska's welfare. She was proclaimed a "a self-promoting ignoramus, and at worst a shameless media troll who will abuse any platform to deliver dog whistle encouragement to a far-right base, that may include possible insurrectionists" by Stephen Colbert.
Her stunt with putting the "cross hair" over the most democratic congressional districts didn't help her gaining popularity either. I agree - there is no direct relation of her act with the massacre, but it didn't act as a preventive measure either. Not to mention her "wonderfully soothing" TV address after the massacre in Arizona, where she expressed her "profound thoughts" using the term "Blood Libel", and then defending the "lost" position over and over.
At the end, Dick Chaney (the former Vice President) even didn't mention her name when asked about some candidate names for the coming in 2012 Republican Nomination. One must be really "off track" if the well known for his too strong and too vitriol statements Newt Gingrich on January 18 advises her to "slow down" and stated that she had become more 'controversial'.
Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-Min) is a bit different story, or is it?
China and our Political Climate
A few days have past already from this historic (no matter how you look at it) visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to the USA.
I do not have to mention that China is one of American biggest trade partners, partners with whom America has the biggest Trade Deficit - overall U.S. deficit with China - $25.63 Billion (ref-a). They have been manufacturing many if not the most of the 'every-day-use' items available on our market, from the simple plastic toys to the high end electronics. The Chinese political system have embraced the free market economy to a certain degree, making China the fastest growing economy in the World, in 2010 exceeding 10% growth. It's anticipated that in not so far-away future this economical giant will supersede the US economy. The fourth-quarter of 2010 China's GDP numbers make it all but certain that China became the world's second-largest economy in 2010, ending Japan's 42-year reign in that position (ref-c).
China is the World's bigger owner of the US debt - as reported by Guardian (ref-b) China owns 907 Billion USD, superseding Japan who owns now 877 Billion USD. The total debt being a staggering amount of 4 Trillion 310 Billion USD. A the same time China's President stated during his speech in Washington that US-dollar dominated global currency system a "product of the past."(ref-d). He then highlighted moves to turn the yuan into a global currency.
China grows not only economically, it's military machine is also in overdrive (thanks to the economical success). We have just learned that the new Chinese Stealth Fighter has been successfully tested, making them even more formidable force.
It leaves also two other threads (long promised and not yet delivered) - a ballistic missile whose only purpose would be the aircraft carriers (our carriers) and also a ballistic, anti-satellite missile - which could blind the US defenses and targeting systems in a blink of the eye.
I am not trying to cause an unsubstantiated fear of the Armageddon. Far from it. As a matter of fact I still believe that no one (Chinese, Russians, nor Americans) really wants any military confrontation. But I believe that what we are witnessing right now is just a new and improved Cold War. Cold War whose purpose is making the normal, economical bargaining between the countries like China and the US completely impossible.
Since the moment when I was old enough to start understanding any political environments and the forces governing the interaction between the Political Blocks I stood in awe looking at what Russia and China were creating. No matter if the term "Evil Empires" applies to them or not any more, they are still (right now it's obvious that China more than Russia) involved in changing the World according to their agenda. Agenda which is not limited to the 4 year periods (election cycle in the US), but is designed to produce effects in 100 years periods or even longer. The scary part of is is that they succeed in it.
Energy crisis is not anything our generation invented. There is also a crisis of the minerals needed to advance in electronics, a well known shortage of copper... China, for long decades, has been establishing it's presence and influences in the most of the underdeveloped then, and developing now countries in the world. They were "sneaky" enough not to push too hard their political agenda (trying to convert the target countries to the Communism) or even radicalizing them too far. Thus keeping these activities under the radar of the US politics.
When I was in the Sudan in 1985, and 1986 I was surprised learning that at that time there were about 100 thousand of Chinese workers in the Sudan - the employees of the construction companies, oil companies and mining companies "helping" the host country and the same time assuring for themselves the resources until this day hidden under the Sudanese soil. And the Sudan was just an example - this kind of quiet invasion has been conducted in many of the African countries.
When the whole West runs out of resources - China may still have an Ace in their sleeve.
China has become a World's Super Power, Super Economy, force to be reckoned with on any level. And yet, the intellectual property issue is almost completely unresolved. Even though since 1994 - Copyright Implementing Regulations - Makes copyright infringement a criminal offense (violators can be sentenced to prison for up to seven years or executed in severe cases) as estimated only 10% of Microsoft software is used in Chine under the legal license. But it doesn't concerns software piracy only. Well known are cases of the "knock-off" products being produced freely in China and distributed all over the world. I believe that it is symptomatic.
I only mention here the on going 'human rights' abuse (as reported over and over by Amnesty International). China's human right's policies have caused strains between the rival powers, with the U.S. calling on China to release jailed dissidents, including Nobel peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, who was prevented from attending the Dec. 10 prize ceremony in the Norwegian capital. Nothing happens - except of President Hu mentioning that our relationship shouldn't interfere in the internal policies of our countries.
No one questions that the relationship between the US and China is one of the most important bilateral relationships, not only for us, but the world in total. But, even though Mr. Hu stated firmly: "We do not engage in an arms race or pose a military threat to any country. China will never seek hegemony or pursue an expansionist policy" (ref-e) - should we treat it for the face value, or be as vigilant as possible? I go for the latter.
--------------
The President of the People's Republic of China comes to the US to have talks with the President of the USA. No matter what is anybody's personal feeling about this summit, the importance of such an event is unmeasurable. Our ties (economies of both countries) are becoming closer and closer. The changing of political climate within that country allows the American businesses not only "off-shore" the production of the goods (what is at least a controversial issue for many) but also creating the factories and products which will be sold only on the Chinese market - profiting the American economy.
In such a climate, facing such a difficult task of making this relationship work - a prominent radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh mocks the President Hu's speech by 30-second-long imitation of him speaking in Chinese, delivered on his radio show while he was watching the actual speech on the Fox Network.
It made me speechless...
---------------------------------
ref-a: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079600579354700.html
ref-b: The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/18/us-federal-deficit-china-america-debt
ref-c: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704590704576092730688164622.html
ref-d: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110118-714345.html
ref-e: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-01/21/c_13700418.htm
I do not have to mention that China is one of American biggest trade partners, partners with whom America has the biggest Trade Deficit - overall U.S. deficit with China - $25.63 Billion (ref-a). They have been manufacturing many if not the most of the 'every-day-use' items available on our market, from the simple plastic toys to the high end electronics. The Chinese political system have embraced the free market economy to a certain degree, making China the fastest growing economy in the World, in 2010 exceeding 10% growth. It's anticipated that in not so far-away future this economical giant will supersede the US economy. The fourth-quarter of 2010 China's GDP numbers make it all but certain that China became the world's second-largest economy in 2010, ending Japan's 42-year reign in that position (ref-c).
China is the World's bigger owner of the US debt - as reported by Guardian (ref-b) China owns 907 Billion USD, superseding Japan who owns now 877 Billion USD. The total debt being a staggering amount of 4 Trillion 310 Billion USD. A the same time China's President stated during his speech in Washington that US-dollar dominated global currency system a "product of the past."(ref-d). He then highlighted moves to turn the yuan into a global currency.
China grows not only economically, it's military machine is also in overdrive (thanks to the economical success). We have just learned that the new Chinese Stealth Fighter has been successfully tested, making them even more formidable force.
It leaves also two other threads (long promised and not yet delivered) - a ballistic missile whose only purpose would be the aircraft carriers (our carriers) and also a ballistic, anti-satellite missile - which could blind the US defenses and targeting systems in a blink of the eye.
I am not trying to cause an unsubstantiated fear of the Armageddon. Far from it. As a matter of fact I still believe that no one (Chinese, Russians, nor Americans) really wants any military confrontation. But I believe that what we are witnessing right now is just a new and improved Cold War. Cold War whose purpose is making the normal, economical bargaining between the countries like China and the US completely impossible.
Since the moment when I was old enough to start understanding any political environments and the forces governing the interaction between the Political Blocks I stood in awe looking at what Russia and China were creating. No matter if the term "Evil Empires" applies to them or not any more, they are still (right now it's obvious that China more than Russia) involved in changing the World according to their agenda. Agenda which is not limited to the 4 year periods (election cycle in the US), but is designed to produce effects in 100 years periods or even longer. The scary part of is is that they succeed in it.
Energy crisis is not anything our generation invented. There is also a crisis of the minerals needed to advance in electronics, a well known shortage of copper... China, for long decades, has been establishing it's presence and influences in the most of the underdeveloped then, and developing now countries in the world. They were "sneaky" enough not to push too hard their political agenda (trying to convert the target countries to the Communism) or even radicalizing them too far. Thus keeping these activities under the radar of the US politics.
When I was in the Sudan in 1985, and 1986 I was surprised learning that at that time there were about 100 thousand of Chinese workers in the Sudan - the employees of the construction companies, oil companies and mining companies "helping" the host country and the same time assuring for themselves the resources until this day hidden under the Sudanese soil. And the Sudan was just an example - this kind of quiet invasion has been conducted in many of the African countries.
When the whole West runs out of resources - China may still have an Ace in their sleeve.
China has become a World's Super Power, Super Economy, force to be reckoned with on any level. And yet, the intellectual property issue is almost completely unresolved. Even though since 1994 - Copyright Implementing Regulations - Makes copyright infringement a criminal offense (violators can be sentenced to prison for up to seven years or executed in severe cases) as estimated only 10% of Microsoft software is used in Chine under the legal license. But it doesn't concerns software piracy only. Well known are cases of the "knock-off" products being produced freely in China and distributed all over the world. I believe that it is symptomatic.
I only mention here the on going 'human rights' abuse (as reported over and over by Amnesty International). China's human right's policies have caused strains between the rival powers, with the U.S. calling on China to release jailed dissidents, including Nobel peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, who was prevented from attending the Dec. 10 prize ceremony in the Norwegian capital. Nothing happens - except of President Hu mentioning that our relationship shouldn't interfere in the internal policies of our countries.
No one questions that the relationship between the US and China is one of the most important bilateral relationships, not only for us, but the world in total. But, even though Mr. Hu stated firmly: "We do not engage in an arms race or pose a military threat to any country. China will never seek hegemony or pursue an expansionist policy" (ref-e) - should we treat it for the face value, or be as vigilant as possible? I go for the latter.
--------------
The President of the People's Republic of China comes to the US to have talks with the President of the USA. No matter what is anybody's personal feeling about this summit, the importance of such an event is unmeasurable. Our ties (economies of both countries) are becoming closer and closer. The changing of political climate within that country allows the American businesses not only "off-shore" the production of the goods (what is at least a controversial issue for many) but also creating the factories and products which will be sold only on the Chinese market - profiting the American economy.
In such a climate, facing such a difficult task of making this relationship work - a prominent radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh mocks the President Hu's speech by 30-second-long imitation of him speaking in Chinese, delivered on his radio show while he was watching the actual speech on the Fox Network.
It made me speechless...
---------------------------------
ref-a: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079600579354700.html
ref-b: The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/18/us-federal-deficit-china-america-debt
ref-c: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704590704576092730688164622.html
ref-d: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110118-714345.html
ref-e: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-01/21/c_13700418.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)