A US President in Cairo calling for partnership with the Muslim world – this could have been a scene from a Hollywood blockbuster movie a few years ago – a cotton candy vision of utopia. Yet, B. Hussein Obama (as Ann Coulter addresses him to emphasize the foreignness) provided a shaded perspective on a tenuous topic.
Salient points of the speech:
- The Presidency would fight negative stereotypes of Muslims everywhere, and the same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America.
- Violent extremism must be confronted – all faiths reject the killing of innocent men, women, and children
- An investment of $1.5 billion would be made per year in Afghanistan and Pakistan to build schools, hospital and other infrastructure
- All US troops are to be removed from Iraq by 2012
- The US endorses a two state system in Israel requiring halting of settlements in the occupied territories and renunciation of violence by Palestinians
- A request to stop nuclear weapon proliferation throughout the Middle East including for Israel
- Recognition that the US supports the spread of Democracy globally but would not impose that ideal
- A call to Western nations to stop disguising hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism
- The promotion of equal opportunities for education for women in Muslim countries
- Establishing a partnership in economic development for public health, business development and research
The speech gained widespread acclamation, and everyone has a part with which they disagree – a mark of great oratory. The two individuals who unequivocally denounced the address were Osama bin Laden and Rush Limbaugh who called the President’s visit an “apology tour”. What perfect bed-fellows politics makes.
Given the textured arguments of the speech, a common response has been “These are just words; they need to be backed up by actions.” Obama’s heart may be in the right place, but as they say in Batman Begins “It’s not who you are underneath, it’s what you do that defines you.”
The second part of the sentiment is uncontestable – commitments made must be followed through.
As for the first part, there is some room for debate. Intention and words matter here, not only because the words are more articulate than any President, Democrat or Republican, in the past 40 years. But also the symbolism is undeniable – the most powerful Office in the world extending a welcome hand and acting as bridge between two worlds. As the fast-paced but ultimately fatigable movie Angels & Demons points out: symbols by themselves convey meaning even if they ultimately don’t lead to anything.
Similar to Nixon’s visit to China, President Obama is the only who could have carried off this remarkable event, because he is a symbol that can be trusted from both sides. The Western world believes in him by virtue of his position. The Islamic world may have skepticism but his Muslim father and upbringing, provide a believable alternative to the “axis of evil” perspectives of previous administrations.
In his own words: “All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- a sustained effort -- to find common ground,”
The relentless and satisfying production – Glee – is the most promising show of the Fall season. Premiering after American Idol two weeks ago, it was ostensibly a high school musical rip-off with competing cliques breaking into song. Instead the show delivers on the promise of its title – an unwavering assault on your senses until you are forced to smile. The series will continue in September, but the pilot is still available on the internet at the Fox website.
In the show, the quarterback finds that his passion for singing outweighs the taunts of his fellow players. Given his position he is the only one that can bring legitimacy to the outcasts who inhabit the glee club. Like Obama, the football jock inspires confidence from both sides of the fence – not necessarily making the two factions into friends, but engendering a belief that greater understanding is a possibility.
As the choral group from Glee sing - “Don’t Stop Believing”.
June 6, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Some thoughts on… Boldly Going
Memorial Day weekend commemorates US men and women who have died in service. Conducting quick internet research, I discovered a site from the Department of Defense describing the casualties of war from Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) and Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan).
As of May 16, 2009, the two wars have resulted in 4,967 US troop deaths. This number is large, and to understand the magnitude, I tried to compare this figure with other major US conflicts. According to Department of Defense statistics and adding both “in-theater” and “non-theater” casualties, I estimate:
Conflict (Number of Deaths)
Persian Gulf War (1,947)
Vietnam War (59,961)
Korean War (54,246)
World War II (~405,000)
World War I (~116,000)
Civil War (~365,000)
Revolutionary War (~5,000)
The bravery of the men and women who sacrificed for the country should be honored. Their efforts have helped to keep the nation safe.
In the past week President Obama and Dick Cheney have offered divergent perspectives on the ongoing maintenance of the nation’s safety in the changing international climate. The issues in contention are the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, e.g. waterboarding, and the closing of the prison at Guantanamo.
Between the President and former Vice-President’s arguments, which of the two approaches is more compelling? To make that decision, let’s choose a reasonable metric for judgment – which of the approaches would save the greater number of future American lives (both military and civilian) as well as non-US civilians?
In his speech, Obama provides his rationale for shutting down Guantanamo and for ceasing waterboarding on the grounds that it is morally the right thing to do. Delivering the speech symbolically from the National Archives, he argues that the values epitomized by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights – the country’s collective rule of law – is one of the strongest weapon we have to fight terrorism. By adhering to our moral authority in the world, we treat our enemies with dignity and exemplify our ideals. The pictures from Abu Grahib and the practice of waterboarding declare to the world that we don’t mind if our own troops are handled in a similar manner. We treat our neighbors as we ourselves wish to be treated.
The future safety of the American people, and the world’s people, must come from our true position of strength which is elevating to a moral high ground, rather than descending to a ‘might is right’ principle for political expediency.
The ideas from Dick Cheney’s speech at the American Enterprise Institute are in stark contrast. Delivered seconds after the completion of the President’s statements and in the midst of shopping his book deal on the Bush years, Cheney defends the previous administration’s position of a comprehensive attack strategy both domestically and internationally to eliminate the terrorist threat. Waterboarding techniques are a necessary tool for these situations, and provide valuable information to sequester enemy insurgence. These techniques are means that justify the end result: there have been no major terrorist attacks since 9/11. Although we will never know the contra positive – without Guantanamo and excessive interrogation techniques, would there still have been no terrorist attacks – the former VP is quite confident that this would be impossible.
Which of the approaches will save more lives is a personal perspective that must be answered by individual judgment. At the core is how the American citizenry wish to be treated by their leaders. Cheney’s approach is providing a patronizing argument based on keeping the public in fear – there is a big monster out there, stay in your homes (or in your underground bunker), and let us resolve the problem. It is better that the public stay unaware and in ignorance for that is bliss.
Obama’s approach is boldly going to a new frontier in leadership He is providing well nuanced arguments that clarify a defensible position, rather than broad statements of good versus evil. He trusts that by the government being more transparent, we can make our own distinctions and create fine lines, rather than believe broad brush arguments. Despite our micro-byte driven society, where information is provided in staccato bursts, he trusts that people have the ability to think through a problem, rather than be driven by fear
Similar to the Star Trek franchise, rebooted with flair by J.J. Abrams, the frontier is tackled through engagement and discussion, rather than military onslaught. The original series addressed issues of multi-cultural/ multi-species interaction through tolerance and respect – taking an ethical high-ground on race issues during the contentious 1960’s.
Obama’s moves are a calculated risk, reclaiming a moral leadership position, or in the famous words of the Star Trek opening “boldly going where no one has gone before.”
May 24, 2009
As of May 16, 2009, the two wars have resulted in 4,967 US troop deaths. This number is large, and to understand the magnitude, I tried to compare this figure with other major US conflicts. According to Department of Defense statistics and adding both “in-theater” and “non-theater” casualties, I estimate:
Conflict (Number of Deaths)
Persian Gulf War (1,947)
Vietnam War (59,961)
Korean War (54,246)
World War II (~405,000)
World War I (~116,000)
Civil War (~365,000)
Revolutionary War (~5,000)
The bravery of the men and women who sacrificed for the country should be honored. Their efforts have helped to keep the nation safe.
In the past week President Obama and Dick Cheney have offered divergent perspectives on the ongoing maintenance of the nation’s safety in the changing international climate. The issues in contention are the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, e.g. waterboarding, and the closing of the prison at Guantanamo.
Between the President and former Vice-President’s arguments, which of the two approaches is more compelling? To make that decision, let’s choose a reasonable metric for judgment – which of the approaches would save the greater number of future American lives (both military and civilian) as well as non-US civilians?
In his speech, Obama provides his rationale for shutting down Guantanamo and for ceasing waterboarding on the grounds that it is morally the right thing to do. Delivering the speech symbolically from the National Archives, he argues that the values epitomized by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights – the country’s collective rule of law – is one of the strongest weapon we have to fight terrorism. By adhering to our moral authority in the world, we treat our enemies with dignity and exemplify our ideals. The pictures from Abu Grahib and the practice of waterboarding declare to the world that we don’t mind if our own troops are handled in a similar manner. We treat our neighbors as we ourselves wish to be treated.
The future safety of the American people, and the world’s people, must come from our true position of strength which is elevating to a moral high ground, rather than descending to a ‘might is right’ principle for political expediency.
The ideas from Dick Cheney’s speech at the American Enterprise Institute are in stark contrast. Delivered seconds after the completion of the President’s statements and in the midst of shopping his book deal on the Bush years, Cheney defends the previous administration’s position of a comprehensive attack strategy both domestically and internationally to eliminate the terrorist threat. Waterboarding techniques are a necessary tool for these situations, and provide valuable information to sequester enemy insurgence. These techniques are means that justify the end result: there have been no major terrorist attacks since 9/11. Although we will never know the contra positive – without Guantanamo and excessive interrogation techniques, would there still have been no terrorist attacks – the former VP is quite confident that this would be impossible.
Which of the approaches will save more lives is a personal perspective that must be answered by individual judgment. At the core is how the American citizenry wish to be treated by their leaders. Cheney’s approach is providing a patronizing argument based on keeping the public in fear – there is a big monster out there, stay in your homes (or in your underground bunker), and let us resolve the problem. It is better that the public stay unaware and in ignorance for that is bliss.
Obama’s approach is boldly going to a new frontier in leadership He is providing well nuanced arguments that clarify a defensible position, rather than broad statements of good versus evil. He trusts that by the government being more transparent, we can make our own distinctions and create fine lines, rather than believe broad brush arguments. Despite our micro-byte driven society, where information is provided in staccato bursts, he trusts that people have the ability to think through a problem, rather than be driven by fear
Similar to the Star Trek franchise, rebooted with flair by J.J. Abrams, the frontier is tackled through engagement and discussion, rather than military onslaught. The original series addressed issues of multi-cultural/ multi-species interaction through tolerance and respect – taking an ethical high-ground on race issues during the contentious 1960’s.
Obama’s moves are a calculated risk, reclaiming a moral leadership position, or in the famous words of the Star Trek opening “boldly going where no one has gone before.”
May 24, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Some thoughts on… Spreading Virulence
With Swine Flu racing around the world, the spread of the virus is on everyone’s mind. The WHO has placed the global public on level 5 for the pandemic indicating that there is sustained human-to-human transmission in communities in different geographical locations. The spread of the disease has claimed 160 lives so far. But there are positive signs of prevalence declining in Mexico – the hypothesized origin of the infections.
As with any virus, the spread needs to be monitored and disease burden managed, to minimize infection. Luckily, accumulated experience from previous contagions has provided an effective platform for the WHO and CDC to help control the infection. As a society, we can effectively contain this particular strain of influenza, but there are other sources of political contamination spreading virulence as well.
In response to the overwhelming popularity of Obama, a few domestic voices are infecting Presidential hatred, and transmitting the messages to millions. The communication is perhaps not as deadly as A-H1N1 but noxious nevertheless. These ultra-conservative voices represent a particularly vehement strain of conservatism whose goal is exclusion of swaths of the US population and misrepresentation of current events.
On principle, the expression of these viewpoints must be supported unless they infringe on individual rights. But, could these voices be more harmful than swine flu?
Ann Coulter a self-described polemicist uses her strong Christian beliefs to defend viewpoints ranging from the need for Jews to be perfected to declaring that any Muslim attending a Mosque in Europe must have an affiliation with radical fundamentalist Islamic group. In her own words, “I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it.”
Her recent statements have attempted to counter Obama’s astoundingly strong approval ratings which have been reported by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. She has argued in a column in the Washington Times that he is the second least popular president, 100 days in, we've had in 40 years. Her comments have been criticized for fallacy in the analysis which compares apples-to-oranges questions from different poll samplings. This is not the first time she has been criticized for spreading misrepresentations, but the damage is done amongst those who take her statements without question and accept them as accurate representations of reality.
Rush Limbaugh the conservative TV and Radio host has proved to be a good foil for the current administration. Referring to Obama as “Barack the Magic Negro” and demonstratively stating that he hoped the President would fail, he represents a strong voice of societal fear of the other. Differing from Ann Coulter’s denigration of cultures outside of Christianity, Limbaugh’s perspectives ring as exclusionary and divisive on numerous fronts. On the front page of his website, there is a pictorial commentary of the criteria for Supreme Court nomination:
Being several of the above categories myself, it is incredible to imagine that this is seen as a joke. Why shouldn’t someone from all the above categories be a Supreme Court judge as long as they are capable? Inherently it represents a belief that only rich, white and male candidates are qualified for the High Court further denigrating the diversity that our country represents.
These folks have every right to express their views, and it is our responsibility to counter when we hear them. Spreading misrepresentation and divisiveness may not be killing lives, but they are painful infections against which we need inoculation. A constructive interpretation is that these perspectives are the necessary ills needed by society to gain immunity for the next wave of challenge to the system.
May 2, 2009
As with any virus, the spread needs to be monitored and disease burden managed, to minimize infection. Luckily, accumulated experience from previous contagions has provided an effective platform for the WHO and CDC to help control the infection. As a society, we can effectively contain this particular strain of influenza, but there are other sources of political contamination spreading virulence as well.
In response to the overwhelming popularity of Obama, a few domestic voices are infecting Presidential hatred, and transmitting the messages to millions. The communication is perhaps not as deadly as A-H1N1 but noxious nevertheless. These ultra-conservative voices represent a particularly vehement strain of conservatism whose goal is exclusion of swaths of the US population and misrepresentation of current events.
On principle, the expression of these viewpoints must be supported unless they infringe on individual rights. But, could these voices be more harmful than swine flu?
Ann Coulter a self-described polemicist uses her strong Christian beliefs to defend viewpoints ranging from the need for Jews to be perfected to declaring that any Muslim attending a Mosque in Europe must have an affiliation with radical fundamentalist Islamic group. In her own words, “I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it.”
Her recent statements have attempted to counter Obama’s astoundingly strong approval ratings which have been reported by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. She has argued in a column in the Washington Times that he is the second least popular president, 100 days in, we've had in 40 years. Her comments have been criticized for fallacy in the analysis which compares apples-to-oranges questions from different poll samplings. This is not the first time she has been criticized for spreading misrepresentations, but the damage is done amongst those who take her statements without question and accept them as accurate representations of reality.
Rush Limbaugh the conservative TV and Radio host has proved to be a good foil for the current administration. Referring to Obama as “Barack the Magic Negro” and demonstratively stating that he hoped the President would fail, he represents a strong voice of societal fear of the other. Differing from Ann Coulter’s denigration of cultures outside of Christianity, Limbaugh’s perspectives ring as exclusionary and divisive on numerous fronts. On the front page of his website, there is a pictorial commentary of the criteria for Supreme Court nomination:
Being several of the above categories myself, it is incredible to imagine that this is seen as a joke. Why shouldn’t someone from all the above categories be a Supreme Court judge as long as they are capable? Inherently it represents a belief that only rich, white and male candidates are qualified for the High Court further denigrating the diversity that our country represents.
These folks have every right to express their views, and it is our responsibility to counter when we hear them. Spreading misrepresentation and divisiveness may not be killing lives, but they are painful infections against which we need inoculation. A constructive interpretation is that these perspectives are the necessary ills needed by society to gain immunity for the next wave of challenge to the system.
May 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)