Thursday, June 11, 2009
Europe failing in foreign aid?
BBC News has a strong article up today accusing France and Italy of completely failing in meeting their pledges to provide assistance and debt relief to African countries. The accusations come from the anti-poverty group ONE, as well as former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and refer to the pledges made by G8 countries during the 2005 Summit in Scotland. While I, like many others, tend to believe that European countries are at the forefront in terms of foreign aid, this article clearly shows that the United States, Canada and Japan are closest to meeting their aid commitments. Just some food for thought.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Amazing in Egypt
I'll write about this in greater detail when I have more time, but Obama's speech in Cairo today was truly one of the most powerful moments in recent political history. Whatever your opinions are on the various policy arguments he presented, Obama undeniably shifted America's dialogue with the Islamic world towards civility and even mutual respect. A variety of things he did in this speech - his tone, use of Qu'ranic verses, a historic re-telling of Muslim achievements, choosing to say "violent" extremists, instead of "Islamic" extremists - demonstrated that our policies and politics regarding Muslims will no longer be fixed in the post-9/11, War on Terror framework. While we will have to wait and see if hard policy changes follow, I for one am optimistic about America's new, empathetic approach towards the Arab and Islamic world.
P.S. While earlier reports indicated that Obama would not mention the struggle for more democracy in Egypt by opposition movements (the focus of my senior thesis), I am glad that Obama gave some time to this issue, guaranteeing support for "the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose". However, he was generally vague, and did not go far in calling upon the Mubarak regime to open up the political system and civil society in Egypt. Hopefully this speech just marks the first engagement with an issue that is of vast importance to Egyptians, and Arabs in general.
P.S. While earlier reports indicated that Obama would not mention the struggle for more democracy in Egypt by opposition movements (the focus of my senior thesis), I am glad that Obama gave some time to this issue, guaranteeing support for "the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose". However, he was generally vague, and did not go far in calling upon the Mubarak regime to open up the political system and civil society in Egypt. Hopefully this speech just marks the first engagement with an issue that is of vast importance to Egyptians, and Arabs in general.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
"The Mellowing of William Jefferson Clinton"
An amazing article in the NYTimes Magazine by Peter Baker, I recommend everyone to give it a look. It really gives you a look inside Clinton's life and mind as he is further and further from his time as President. Check it out.
And just for fun, here is a favorite photo of the man himself:
And just for fun, here is a favorite photo of the man himself:
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
A new approach to Israel-Palestine doomed to fail?
A very important shift is occurring under the Obama Administration in America's approach to the everlasting Israel-Palesetine peace/conflict process. To a degree unseen in recent history, the President is taking a forceful line on Israel, demanding it to adhere to its various commitments under international agreements such as the Road Map. Hillary Clinton's comment that Americans intend to "press the point" that Israel must halt all settlement activity is definitely a radical departure from the Bush Administration's unwavering acceptance of Israeli politices. It wil be interesting to see if Obama will be able to sustain this approach in the face of the pro-Israel lobby, which surely will be motivated to act in response to what the Guardian calls the lowest point in US-Israel relations in two decades.
The ironic aspect of the new, and in my opinion, superior, United States approach is that in terms of the peace process, both Israel and Palestine are in the worst shape in recent history. Netanyahu's new government is heavily influenced by the far-right policies of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, as seen by their recent moves to impose a loyalty oath on Israeli Arabs and punish commemoration of the Nakba (mourning over the Palestinian displacement in 1948) with a three-year jail term. It is difficult to see how Palestinians would be willing to negotiate with an Israeli side that has still not expressed support for a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel, not to mention potentially engaging in discrimination against Arabs in violation of their Basic Laws.
Palestinians are also severely weakened in their ability to work towards peace. The difficulties arising from the division between Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in West Bank are well-known and at this time seem intractable. A Hamas-Fatah unity government is unlikely to materialize, and even if it were created, would cause Israel to immediately leave the negotiating table. Furthermore, Abbas' own movement has voiced no confidence in his current government, causing friction within the West Bank. An unstable and fractious Palestinian leadership will be unable to gather the support to even begin substantive negotiations, let alone present a set of coherent and persuasive demands towards a "final status" deal.
Whether Obama's more engaged approach will yield peace dividends requires time, patience and bold ideas between Israel and Palestine--things that both sides don't seem to have these days.
The ironic aspect of the new, and in my opinion, superior, United States approach is that in terms of the peace process, both Israel and Palestine are in the worst shape in recent history. Netanyahu's new government is heavily influenced by the far-right policies of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, as seen by their recent moves to impose a loyalty oath on Israeli Arabs and punish commemoration of the Nakba (mourning over the Palestinian displacement in 1948) with a three-year jail term. It is difficult to see how Palestinians would be willing to negotiate with an Israeli side that has still not expressed support for a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel, not to mention potentially engaging in discrimination against Arabs in violation of their Basic Laws.
Palestinians are also severely weakened in their ability to work towards peace. The difficulties arising from the division between Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in West Bank are well-known and at this time seem intractable. A Hamas-Fatah unity government is unlikely to materialize, and even if it were created, would cause Israel to immediately leave the negotiating table. Furthermore, Abbas' own movement has voiced no confidence in his current government, causing friction within the West Bank. An unstable and fractious Palestinian leadership will be unable to gather the support to even begin substantive negotiations, let alone present a set of coherent and persuasive demands towards a "final status" deal.
Whether Obama's more engaged approach will yield peace dividends requires time, patience and bold ideas between Israel and Palestine--things that both sides don't seem to have these days.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Tweet tweet?
So I have to admit, I have been curious and a bit dumbfounded by the Twitter craze over the last couple months. I had heard a lot about it, but never really checked it out...until now. I must admit that I had been very confused by Twitter: is it a place to share unimportant details of one's everyday lives (e.g. AIM away messages and G-chat status), a source of pithy insight and inspiring (or cliche) quotes, or merely a venue where extensive use of online short-form ("lol ill brb b4 u no it tweet tweet tweet") is not only appropriate but encouraged. I really don't know, it's probably so popular because it's all of the above.
I guess I'm still confused. I'm pretty sure that the rise of Twitter signifies the end of complex thinking and writing, a massive increase in people's attention-deficit, a further movement towards a media system that displaces facts with opinions, and perhaps the downfall of intelligent and informed society. But it's also very cool to me, at least for now.
So here you go: http://www.twitter.com/flonard
I guess I'm still confused. I'm pretty sure that the rise of Twitter signifies the end of complex thinking and writing, a massive increase in people's attention-deficit, a further movement towards a media system that displaces facts with opinions, and perhaps the downfall of intelligent and informed society. But it's also very cool to me, at least for now.
So here you go: http://www.twitter.com/flonard
Friday, May 1, 2009
Bachmann Strikes Again!
Representative Michele Bachmann is back with some more delving insight, commenting on how she found it an "interesting coincidence" that the last outbreak of swine flu happened under another Democratic president, Jimmy Carter. The Republican representative from Minnesota is perhaps the darling of blogs, and the source of many late-night TV jokes, from calling Barack Obama and other Congressmen anti-American to naming the expanded AmeriCorps as "youth re-education camps".
As Jon Stewart notes below (around 2 minutes in), the last outbreak of swine flu actually occurred during Gerald Ford's term as President.
As Jon Stewart notes below (around 2 minutes in), the last outbreak of swine flu actually occurred during Gerald Ford's term as President.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Snoutbreak '09 - What to Call Swine Flu | ||||
| ||||
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
More on Specter
The NYTimes has a good little discussion on its website about what type of Democrat Arlen Specter will turn out to be. A couple quotes that indicate to me that this move by Specter is a potential gamechanger, and really exemplifies the current declining state of the GOP.
"The sclerotic far-right has a death-grip on the Republican Party. Meanwhile, a third party has emerged within the Democratic party. Moderate “Rockefeller Republicans” in the North, like Senator Specter and, arguably, Joseph Lieberman, Democrats like Bobby Bright in the South and Jon Tester and Max Baucus in the Rocky Mountains have brought independents into the Democratic Big Tent...Senator Specter’s switch is based on shrewd politics, on unique voting factors in Pennsylvania. But his move is good for America." (Rachel Kleinfeld)
"Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele today mocked what he called Mr. Specter’s “left-wing record.” But the claim that Senator Specter is “liberal,” “left-wing” or even “moderate” reflects how far to the right both the G.O.P. and our overall political spectrum has shifted." (Glenn Greenwald)
"Senator Specter’s statement noted that he has been a Republican since 1966. If he were just starting out his political career today, does anyone doubt that he would be a Democrat? In 1966, Republicans were the more socially liberal of the two parties and the G.O.P. had plenty of room for politicians who were skeptical of tax cuts and friendly to new government programs." (Ramesh Ponnuru)
"The sclerotic far-right has a death-grip on the Republican Party. Meanwhile, a third party has emerged within the Democratic party. Moderate “Rockefeller Republicans” in the North, like Senator Specter and, arguably, Joseph Lieberman, Democrats like Bobby Bright in the South and Jon Tester and Max Baucus in the Rocky Mountains have brought independents into the Democratic Big Tent...Senator Specter’s switch is based on shrewd politics, on unique voting factors in Pennsylvania. But his move is good for America." (Rachel Kleinfeld)
"Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele today mocked what he called Mr. Specter’s “left-wing record.” But the claim that Senator Specter is “liberal,” “left-wing” or even “moderate” reflects how far to the right both the G.O.P. and our overall political spectrum has shifted." (Glenn Greenwald)
"Senator Specter’s statement noted that he has been a Republican since 1966. If he were just starting out his political career today, does anyone doubt that he would be a Democrat? In 1966, Republicans were the more socially liberal of the two parties and the G.O.P. had plenty of room for politicians who were skeptical of tax cuts and friendly to new government programs." (Ramesh Ponnuru)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
