Believe it or not this was the main Obama speech of the week. Notwithstanding all the asinine nonsense about the school speech where, horror, President Obama told students to study hard and stay in school...this speech tonight is going to be the really critical one, perhaps one of his most critical speeches so far as President.
So what better thing to do than to resurrect the health of this blog, celebrate the somewhat returned health of my computer (though I'm keeping a close watch) and to renew a noble 'wandering through' tradition- live blogging!
A few caveats are in order:
1. I know very little about the health care debate. I know it is important and long over due and that I support Obama's plan (but the details of the plan itself are a little fuzzy in my head- and apparently in the heads of millions of others).
2. But I do know the American health care system is abysmal, inefficient, unbelievably misconceived and morally and fiscally bankrupt.
3. I'm not terribly interested in the debate itself- again, it's important but I don't get too excited about watching it
4. So this may be short, uninformed and poor in analysis and insight. In other words - lots of value added. Excited?
And away we go:
8:11 The pomp and ceremony that preceeds these speeches is a lot of fun to watch- I like the mingling beforehand and I wonder 'how aware are they of people watching? Is this why the smiles are extra large?"
And we have George Stephanopolous on too- what's not to like?
Random thought: Everything in America is ultimately a spectator sport- they could be cheering at the superbowl for all we know.
8: 15 Obama always looks very presidential. Great starting note- goes straight into it and reminds us of how far we've come even though there is still lots to go
8:19 First great line- "I am determined to be the last". I like the idea of talking about the length of this whole effort. This is not Obama's hobby horse- its an idea way past its time.
8: 21 Absolutely smart to appeal to America's pride "We are the only advanced democacy" to have such a shitty system. This is a such a winning discourse in America.
8: 28 I'm usually skeptical of the narrative style of telling disconnected persoanl stories - it seems to be a favored tactic in American speech making but when it comes to health care it really works- because these stories are really horrific. Shameful.
8: 29 So far he is hitting all the right notes- balanced but sharply pointing out the destructiveness and vindictiveness of the partisan nature of this debate. And now to the meat of it- the plan...
8: 30 Clear outlining of the plan- of course the usual nay sayers (read the fanatical right) will say that he was vague, no matter what he does- even if he had a power point behind him combined with interpretive dancers . But, unequivocally- he is not vague- he is clearly outlining the plan. Even I get it.
8: 34 Smart nod to McCain. And we see the old thumbs up (Wow McCain thumbs up, me live blogging = total election deja vu)
8: 36 Notes of dissoannce- people opening laughing at the line 'some details need to be ironed out'. To them I ask 'what's so funny?' Plans like these do need details ironed out. And has anyone else had a clearer plan so far? I think not.
And what was that shouting, I hear? Indian parliament flashback - warms the cockles of my heart :)
8: 41 Ummm Barack, you're asking for open mindedness and balance from extreme ideologues. That's harder than getting this plan passed.
8: 44 YES! 'Won't back down'- those are the words and that is the tone that needs to be struck. Finally some combativeness- I'm glad he's reminding us of why this deficit happened in the first place.
8: 46 I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to the deficit- that was needed to be said. Realistic? No but it needs to be said.
8: 50 So far I'm impressed by four themes and tactics:
1. Reminding us how long and overdue this struggle has been and how he is one in a long line of people who have tried to tackle this.
2. Appealing to what I see as classical tropes in American political discourse- individual choice and interest (we don't want to pay for other irresponsible people, you keep your choice etc.) and also the idea that this is unacceptable in America
3. A continual effort at making the plan and its various dimensions clear- he's explaining it to us like we're 5 year olds and it works.
4. He's meshing vintage Obama (balance, open mind, listening to views etc. ) with a new, determined, no-nonsense tough Obama...much needed. I liked his style- clear, succint, blunt and utterly balanced.
9:00 Perfect note to end on- Ted Kennedy, the ultimate way to get over the partisanship. You would have to be utterly churlish to boo that and he ends with the moral high ground firmly in his grasp.
Great move. Great speech.
9: 03 "I still believe that acrimony can be replaced by civility" hmmm...I don't but I'd like to.
Never knew a speech on health care reform could be this riveting and passionate- that's Obama for you. Too bad it's hardly going to shut the ideologues up at all- they'll carry on like the speech never happened.
Now back to the circus...
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
N. Korea and Aretha Franklin
Many of the IR/ foreign policy blogs have commented on Henry Kissinger's criticisms of Bill Clinton's visit to N. Korea last week which resulted in the release of two American journalists who had strayed into N. Korean territory. Kissinger argues that by sending a high profile (and Bill Clinton is definitely as high profile as it gets, even out of power) figure who just happens to be the husband of the Secretary of State - the US gave Pyongyang just what it wanted- a photo op and some much desired legitimacy.
Two reactions to this:
First, what's interesting to me here is precisely the question of what N. Korea, or more specifically Kim Jong Il wants in the first place. It's too easy and too rote to view N. Korea's behavior within two lenses- either within the deterrence/proliferation lens or the 'mad man' lens. Sure, there are elements of both but what this episode, just the latest in a series of otherwide baffling provocations by N. Korea, signifies is ultimately legitimacy and respect that a state like N. Korea desires. I doubt that N. Korea seriously sees itself as a challenger to the US geo-strategically, what it does want is the perception of being a powerful player that the US has to take seriously and contend with - more for domestic consumption than anything else. Kissinger is right that the photo op with Clinton is perhaps the biggest thing Kim Jong Il got out of the visit but if it hadn't been this one - it would have been some other piece of propoganda showing the US journalists kow towing to N. Korea.
As someone personally fascinated by the fantastic oddness of the N. Korean regime, I have read the few rare accounts of what it is like to visit and travel in the country. The most dominant image that emerges is just how concerned the N. Korean government is with image itself. The cult of Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung is reinforced on a constant, larger than life level. And it appears to be targeted mostly for domestic consumption to a people already battered and indoctrinated into the cult.
The quest for respect as Aretha Franklin knows, is powerful. It's up the US to use this realization wisely and harness it to get N. Korea to behave reasonably and minimally with regard to non-proliferation.
Second, the episode underlines one quite simple thing- Bill Clinton's still potent and effective charisma. I know that this is likely to be an unpopular opinion but I think it would be a serious waste of sheer talent and built up political capital if Bill Clinton were to be wasted by the White House. It's a pity that the domestic discourse about 'too many heads' in the White House or the personal rivalry between the Clintons or between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were to minimize his potential role as a special envoy. Already, the Kissinger piece as well as other commentary in the US is focusing on whether this overshadows the Secretary of State or even the President, which is ridiculous and more a function of US media preoccupations than anything else. Clinton has demonstrated his ability to be restrained, follow guidelines and has not actively tried to hog the limelight in the aftermath of this success. And as far as I'm concerned, this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as his appeal and popularity in the rest of the world goes. Again, using him wisely can only be a positive thing...
Update: Although as this video shows- Hilary might not agree.
Two reactions to this:
First, what's interesting to me here is precisely the question of what N. Korea, or more specifically Kim Jong Il wants in the first place. It's too easy and too rote to view N. Korea's behavior within two lenses- either within the deterrence/proliferation lens or the 'mad man' lens. Sure, there are elements of both but what this episode, just the latest in a series of otherwide baffling provocations by N. Korea, signifies is ultimately legitimacy and respect that a state like N. Korea desires. I doubt that N. Korea seriously sees itself as a challenger to the US geo-strategically, what it does want is the perception of being a powerful player that the US has to take seriously and contend with - more for domestic consumption than anything else. Kissinger is right that the photo op with Clinton is perhaps the biggest thing Kim Jong Il got out of the visit but if it hadn't been this one - it would have been some other piece of propoganda showing the US journalists kow towing to N. Korea.
As someone personally fascinated by the fantastic oddness of the N. Korean regime, I have read the few rare accounts of what it is like to visit and travel in the country. The most dominant image that emerges is just how concerned the N. Korean government is with image itself. The cult of Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung is reinforced on a constant, larger than life level. And it appears to be targeted mostly for domestic consumption to a people already battered and indoctrinated into the cult.
The quest for respect as Aretha Franklin knows, is powerful. It's up the US to use this realization wisely and harness it to get N. Korea to behave reasonably and minimally with regard to non-proliferation.
Second, the episode underlines one quite simple thing- Bill Clinton's still potent and effective charisma. I know that this is likely to be an unpopular opinion but I think it would be a serious waste of sheer talent and built up political capital if Bill Clinton were to be wasted by the White House. It's a pity that the domestic discourse about 'too many heads' in the White House or the personal rivalry between the Clintons or between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were to minimize his potential role as a special envoy. Already, the Kissinger piece as well as other commentary in the US is focusing on whether this overshadows the Secretary of State or even the President, which is ridiculous and more a function of US media preoccupations than anything else. Clinton has demonstrated his ability to be restrained, follow guidelines and has not actively tried to hog the limelight in the aftermath of this success. And as far as I'm concerned, this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as his appeal and popularity in the rest of the world goes. Again, using him wisely can only be a positive thing...
Update: Although as this video shows- Hilary might not agree.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
#Neda*
Yesterday I, along with thousands of other people, watched a young girl die before my very eyes. I'm talking about the footage of a young girl in Iran, shot by a Basij as she watched the protests on the streets. We don't know much about her - she has been given the name 'Neda' or 'the voice'. The footage is very graphic- you can find it very easily on the internet and there are hundreds of links to it on facebook and twitter so I'm not going to embed it here.
Within seconds you see people trying to revive her, while she is dimly aware of the camera and then just like that- life goes from her eyes and blood starts seeping from her eyes, mouth and ears, joining the pool of blood she is lying in. It is very disturbing - not least because of the surreal realization that you are watching the life snuffed out of someone. This is probably the first person I have seen die and as I thought about it, it began to trouble me for a host of reasons other than the obvious ones.
On one hand this video has galvanized people and has given a real, concrete image to the brutality of what the Iranian government is doing to its own people. Despite it's best efforts, the government cannot stem the steady flow of words and images coming from the people in Iran. And through our various global connections, these words now can spread faster than any government can anticipate. This has its value and is no doubt important- many Iranians are exhorting people to publicize and spread such stories and images.
But at the same time, I'm deeply disturbed by the whole phenomenon of connectedness that the Neda video symbolizes. This connectedness is a double edged sword. Why should it be so easy for us to watch someone die before our eyes? Will Neda be forever reduced to a 'trending topic', as she currently is on twitter? Will we watch these images of inhuman brutality, express our anguish for a few minutes, maybe even a day and then go on with making lunch or doing the laundry? Like I did and perhaps had to. There is something wrong about that to me and yet what is the alternative?
I'm struck with the parallels to the Tiananmmen Square massacre which we recently observed the 20th anniversary for. The Neda of that uprising was a young man, called the 'Tank man' who we all remember bravely standing up to the force of Chinese tanks. The immediate ending to that story was much more hopeful though many believe that tank man was executed shortly after- but I think the reason that image stays with us is that it was so rare and so difficult to get that kind of insight into an event like that. Now insight, commentary and images are ubiquitous. And I'm not sure how I feel about that.
I think this connectedness both immunizes us and lulls us into thinking that we are participating and 'making a difference' in this uprising. Are we? I'm at a loss for words as to what the alternative is. Would I prefer for us not to be able to see and share these images? am I advocating no action at all? I think those alternatives are surely worse but there is something about the celebration of our new global 'connectedness' as a force for social good that leaves me ambivalent at best and frightened at worst.
The image of Neda's last moments on earth is haunting but also troubling for all the ethical questions it raises. I've seen over the last hours many promises on twitter, facebooks and blogs not to forget her- I can only hope this is true and that not only Neda's murder but also the indignity of it being broadcast all over the world is not in vain.
RIP Neda.
*#Neda refers to the key word that people on twitter are using to keep her death a twitter 'trending topic'.
Within seconds you see people trying to revive her, while she is dimly aware of the camera and then just like that- life goes from her eyes and blood starts seeping from her eyes, mouth and ears, joining the pool of blood she is lying in. It is very disturbing - not least because of the surreal realization that you are watching the life snuffed out of someone. This is probably the first person I have seen die and as I thought about it, it began to trouble me for a host of reasons other than the obvious ones.
On one hand this video has galvanized people and has given a real, concrete image to the brutality of what the Iranian government is doing to its own people. Despite it's best efforts, the government cannot stem the steady flow of words and images coming from the people in Iran. And through our various global connections, these words now can spread faster than any government can anticipate. This has its value and is no doubt important- many Iranians are exhorting people to publicize and spread such stories and images.
But at the same time, I'm deeply disturbed by the whole phenomenon of connectedness that the Neda video symbolizes. This connectedness is a double edged sword. Why should it be so easy for us to watch someone die before our eyes? Will Neda be forever reduced to a 'trending topic', as she currently is on twitter? Will we watch these images of inhuman brutality, express our anguish for a few minutes, maybe even a day and then go on with making lunch or doing the laundry? Like I did and perhaps had to. There is something wrong about that to me and yet what is the alternative?
I'm struck with the parallels to the Tiananmmen Square massacre which we recently observed the 20th anniversary for. The Neda of that uprising was a young man, called the 'Tank man' who we all remember bravely standing up to the force of Chinese tanks. The immediate ending to that story was much more hopeful though many believe that tank man was executed shortly after- but I think the reason that image stays with us is that it was so rare and so difficult to get that kind of insight into an event like that. Now insight, commentary and images are ubiquitous. And I'm not sure how I feel about that.
I think this connectedness both immunizes us and lulls us into thinking that we are participating and 'making a difference' in this uprising. Are we? I'm at a loss for words as to what the alternative is. Would I prefer for us not to be able to see and share these images? am I advocating no action at all? I think those alternatives are surely worse but there is something about the celebration of our new global 'connectedness' as a force for social good that leaves me ambivalent at best and frightened at worst.
The image of Neda's last moments on earth is haunting but also troubling for all the ethical questions it raises. I've seen over the last hours many promises on twitter, facebooks and blogs not to forget her- I can only hope this is true and that not only Neda's murder but also the indignity of it being broadcast all over the world is not in vain.
RIP Neda.
*#Neda refers to the key word that people on twitter are using to keep her death a twitter 'trending topic'.
Monday, May 4, 2009
'Inspired': The Anu Malik-ization of Election Ads
Back in November after the U.S. elections were over, I was leafing through an India Today with Barack Obama on the cover when one of our department's staff remarked wonderingly "Wow...look at that- Obama on the cover of India Today." Mixed with the optimism and relief we all felt in early November (remember that?) there was bemusement in her voice: indeed, the persona of the US President went almost overnight from being the object of derision and ridicule to one that people around the world celebrate and even emulate...suddenly American politics is glamorous again. Move over Carla Bruni, Michelle is here.
Of course, the election of the US President is a pretty big deal in general and not just because of the (admittedly rare) Obama factor. US politics is so damned entertaining. Think about the last elections-the drama of Hilary vs. Obama, the Palin spectacle, the showmanship of the conventions, the side characters like Ron Paul or Joe the plumber. There were holograms on election night. I rest my case!
So maybe it's only natural that some of this glitz transfers to the ongoing elections in India (insert obligatory line about worlds largest democracy and world's most powerful one). While, there are no Obama's on the horizon- I've been interested and amused to see the message of 'get the vote out' lifted almost directly from the US election discourse. In a country where 'chalta hai' (a combination of 'whatever' and 'let it be'- what do you think of that translation, fellow Hindi speakers?) is a way of life, there's a new, discernibly pious sense of duty evident amongst the 'glitterati' and upper classes (who tend to be less electorally active than poor, rural citizens). Getting 'inked' on election day is cool in a way that I don't recall it being before. I can't help thinking that the language of 'rock the vote' and 'make a difference' is familiar but somehow inorganic. My nagging intuition got confirmed when I saw this:
Lets see...
Full of hot stars? check
Slickly shot? check
well meaning? check
earnest? check
slightly holier than thou and annoying? check.
WHERE have I seen this before? Hmmm...
I KNEW it!!! There's less swearing in the Indian one, which is also mercifully shorter but there it is...continuing a fine tradition of bollywood copying stuff it likes with its own je ne sais qoui. Ah, the triumph of American packaging- they make even Indian elections sexy.
Now lets just find our Obama...
Of course, the election of the US President is a pretty big deal in general and not just because of the (admittedly rare) Obama factor. US politics is so damned entertaining. Think about the last elections-the drama of Hilary vs. Obama, the Palin spectacle, the showmanship of the conventions, the side characters like Ron Paul or Joe the plumber. There were holograms on election night. I rest my case!
So maybe it's only natural that some of this glitz transfers to the ongoing elections in India (insert obligatory line about worlds largest democracy and world's most powerful one). While, there are no Obama's on the horizon- I've been interested and amused to see the message of 'get the vote out' lifted almost directly from the US election discourse. In a country where 'chalta hai' (a combination of 'whatever' and 'let it be'- what do you think of that translation, fellow Hindi speakers?) is a way of life, there's a new, discernibly pious sense of duty evident amongst the 'glitterati' and upper classes (who tend to be less electorally active than poor, rural citizens). Getting 'inked' on election day is cool in a way that I don't recall it being before. I can't help thinking that the language of 'rock the vote' and 'make a difference' is familiar but somehow inorganic. My nagging intuition got confirmed when I saw this:
Lets see...
Full of hot stars? check
Slickly shot? check
well meaning? check
earnest? check
slightly holier than thou and annoying? check.
WHERE have I seen this before? Hmmm...
I KNEW it!!! There's less swearing in the Indian one, which is also mercifully shorter but there it is...continuing a fine tradition of bollywood copying stuff it likes with its own je ne sais qoui. Ah, the triumph of American packaging- they make even Indian elections sexy.
Now lets just find our Obama...
Saturday, December 27, 2008
On Samuel Huntington (1927- 2008)
In my world there is no figure that people love to hate more than Samuel Huntington, who passed away earlier this week. Much of this is targeted at Huntington's last few works, most notably 'The Clash of Civilizations' and 'Who are We'. The common charges are that Huntington is a (perhaps 'the') neo-conservative, is a shoddy academic because he makes grand, sweeping arguments without the requisite research, that he is anti-Islam and anti-multi-ethnic societies and has that agenda for US foreign policy, that he is arrogant etc.
What this translates into in classes is an all too easy dismissal of Huntington even before one has the chance to talk about the work at hand. A snigger here, a snarky comment there and we're done with our 'discussion'. I have rarely seen a group of otherwise argumentative and opinionated people fall into such complete agreement than when it's time to bash Huntington. I predict that in the weeks after we all come back to school, there will be much of the same reaction.
While there are some substantial reasons for some of this derision, the quality of it has always troubled me. At the very real risk of alienating or annoying professors and peers, I and a few of my peers have tried to address this in class only to be met by a unified response of incredulity and half-joking accusations at being secretly conservative! And I don't even really agree with the man on his core hypotheses.
Don't get me wrong- Huntington was too influential, powerful and successful to need defending. His work was at its best powerful and insightful and at all times enormously provocative and designed to spark debate and dissent, which by all accounts he enjoyed. Secondly, I agree that some of the arguments about the flaws in his research are valid and his conclusions, while provocative, can be troubling for those who see themselves as fundamentally liberal. So this is not a blanket statement to rescue a scholar who needs no rescuing. Instead this post is to make two observations on Huntington's legacy:
First, I think (and this is not very social-sciency of me) that Huntington's role as a public intellectual far supersedes his role as an academic political scientist or a social scientist. To those of my interlocutors who point to the flaws in his 'research design' or 'case selection' and bemoan the lack of theoretical or literature review, I can only say that that was not Huntington's aim in his later work. His early work has all of that and those are still powerful and important works in political science. But the later work, for which he is most often criticized, was all about larger ideas. Surely we can agree as constructivists that there is a core place for and a power of large ideas in the world?The charge that Huntington cannot account for Case A or Case B ignores that he is often pointing his finger at, in a prescient way, large, complex and abstract forces and phenomena in society. The role of holding up those larger patterns, and even shaping the contours of the debate on huge issues such as identity, religion and violence or immigration is a pivotal one. And it is different from the important work of 'normal science', to twist that term.
Secondly, many criticize Huntington's influence on guiding the shaping of contemporary U.S. foreign policy, specially in the post 9/11 period. The argument is that Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' idea predisposed a certain (misguided) interpretation of those events and strengthened the idea that this was a religious struggle rather than one over concrete political conflicts. This is a huge and un-resolvable debate in many ways and I'm not sure that we can easily separate the domain of the religious from the political in any of the conflicts Huntington was talking about; but at a very minimum shouldn't his influence on U.S.policy mean that we should engage with his ideas in a much deeper sense? How can dismissing Huntington out of hand help us truly understand the making of U.S. (or indeed other) foreign policy? Huntington's passing alerts us to the enduring problem of the harmful mutual disengagement of scholars of international relations with practitioners of foreign policy. Both see the other as misguided and out of sync with reality and because each side thus has their pet intellectuals, the bridge is harder to divide.
Thirdly, and related to the points above, to truly understand the workings and deeper sociological roots of foreign policy anywhere requires us to give up the rote conventions of academia, to be wary of political correctness and to take more seriously the arguments of those we disagree with. We owe it to ourselves as members of academia as Kanti Bajpai reminds us in a fairly devastating piece he wrote on the Clash of Civilizations in 1998. To 'pirouette dismissively' from Huntington, Bajpai says, is lazy.
Thus, I, like many others, have my differences with Huntington but I respect his contributions to our discipline, will engage with his many insights and admire his always provocative, always challenging mind.
And, in true Huntingtonian spirit, I relish any and all arguments that this post might provoke!
ETA: Here's the NYT obit
on him
What this translates into in classes is an all too easy dismissal of Huntington even before one has the chance to talk about the work at hand. A snigger here, a snarky comment there and we're done with our 'discussion'. I have rarely seen a group of otherwise argumentative and opinionated people fall into such complete agreement than when it's time to bash Huntington. I predict that in the weeks after we all come back to school, there will be much of the same reaction.
While there are some substantial reasons for some of this derision, the quality of it has always troubled me. At the very real risk of alienating or annoying professors and peers, I and a few of my peers have tried to address this in class only to be met by a unified response of incredulity and half-joking accusations at being secretly conservative! And I don't even really agree with the man on his core hypotheses.
Don't get me wrong- Huntington was too influential, powerful and successful to need defending. His work was at its best powerful and insightful and at all times enormously provocative and designed to spark debate and dissent, which by all accounts he enjoyed. Secondly, I agree that some of the arguments about the flaws in his research are valid and his conclusions, while provocative, can be troubling for those who see themselves as fundamentally liberal. So this is not a blanket statement to rescue a scholar who needs no rescuing. Instead this post is to make two observations on Huntington's legacy:
First, I think (and this is not very social-sciency of me) that Huntington's role as a public intellectual far supersedes his role as an academic political scientist or a social scientist. To those of my interlocutors who point to the flaws in his 'research design' or 'case selection' and bemoan the lack of theoretical or literature review, I can only say that that was not Huntington's aim in his later work. His early work has all of that and those are still powerful and important works in political science. But the later work, for which he is most often criticized, was all about larger ideas. Surely we can agree as constructivists that there is a core place for and a power of large ideas in the world?The charge that Huntington cannot account for Case A or Case B ignores that he is often pointing his finger at, in a prescient way, large, complex and abstract forces and phenomena in society. The role of holding up those larger patterns, and even shaping the contours of the debate on huge issues such as identity, religion and violence or immigration is a pivotal one. And it is different from the important work of 'normal science', to twist that term.
Secondly, many criticize Huntington's influence on guiding the shaping of contemporary U.S. foreign policy, specially in the post 9/11 period. The argument is that Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' idea predisposed a certain (misguided) interpretation of those events and strengthened the idea that this was a religious struggle rather than one over concrete political conflicts. This is a huge and un-resolvable debate in many ways and I'm not sure that we can easily separate the domain of the religious from the political in any of the conflicts Huntington was talking about; but at a very minimum shouldn't his influence on U.S.policy mean that we should engage with his ideas in a much deeper sense? How can dismissing Huntington out of hand help us truly understand the making of U.S. (or indeed other) foreign policy? Huntington's passing alerts us to the enduring problem of the harmful mutual disengagement of scholars of international relations with practitioners of foreign policy. Both see the other as misguided and out of sync with reality and because each side thus has their pet intellectuals, the bridge is harder to divide.
Thirdly, and related to the points above, to truly understand the workings and deeper sociological roots of foreign policy anywhere requires us to give up the rote conventions of academia, to be wary of political correctness and to take more seriously the arguments of those we disagree with. We owe it to ourselves as members of academia as Kanti Bajpai reminds us in a fairly devastating piece he wrote on the Clash of Civilizations in 1998. To 'pirouette dismissively' from Huntington, Bajpai says, is lazy.
Thus, I, like many others, have my differences with Huntington but I respect his contributions to our discipline, will engage with his many insights and admire his always provocative, always challenging mind.
And, in true Huntingtonian spirit, I relish any and all arguments that this post might provoke!
ETA: Here's the NYT obit
on him
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Arundhati Roy and the voices in my head
It's hard to be neutral about Arundhati Roy.
I loved (in an unqualified way) 'The God of Small Things' (GOST). I was just out of high school when the book came out, to tremendous hype and I was determined to find it over-rated. Instead, the book blew me away - at this point it's almost a cliche to say how inventive the language is but I'll just say that it captured smells, sounds and textures in a way I have rarely seen since, though there are many bad imitations. The plot is beautifully paced, the narrative device felt utterly genuine and organic. I still feel tension and sadness as the book reaches its climax...and I still marvel at her small insights - this particular feeling of unease that I have always associated with her image of the fluttering moth in your chest since the book.
I don't think Roy could have topped GOST and so in a sense I'm glad she hasn't written more fiction.
Since GOST, Roy has become passionately committed to many causes, general and specific- the enviornment and anti-dam movement in India, taking on the neo-liberal order, anti-Indian nuclear tests, anti-Iraq war and American imperealism. Most of this is done via writing in a series of articles that have found wide circulation internationally, many of which are first found in Outlook India.
While I loved GOST, the articles - not so much. But still, I can't be ambivalent about them....
This is the internal dialogue I wrestle with when thinking about Arundhati Roy:
Pro-Arundhati voice: She really can write well- she just has a way with words.
Anti-Arundhati voice: 1. What's the point of writing well, if you're just ranting and raving. She has no sense of proportion or balance. Everything is really, really black and white for her. 2. So much of it is her marketability and persona- I get really annoyed by academics in the west who think she is the real voice of the 'Indian masses'. 3. Plus Ramachandra Guha says she's unoriginal and frequently gets things wrong (in much better words than I can muster) and I am inclined to trust his opinion.
Pro-Arundhati voice: But are you saying that because 1. she says some really uncomfortable, unflaterring things about India and 2. exposes deep rooted facets about your own privileged existence. At the end of the day, isn't she speaking truth to power? Isn't your vehemence born out of your own discomfort at being confronted by the ugly truths about the parts of of the neo-liberal world order that benefit you?
Anti-Arundhati Roy: Yes, she does make me uncomfortable for those reasons. In fact, I don't disagree with much of her agenda and where she's coming from. I want to be on her side but she's just annoyingly simplistic, quick to take umbrage and just a little smug. Not to mention a little rabid. She could make her argument so much more credibly and intelligently if she was just more balanced, nuanced and open to alternative perspectives. Also, she's intellectually lazy- by making the 'they're fascists/like Hitler' argument for anyone she doesn't agree with.
Pro-Arundhati: Why should she give more space and credence to already powerful players and voices? She has courage and she backs up her words with her deeds. You need voices like hers in the forums she has access to. We are kept honest by someone with her ability with language and her visibility to press our conscience and to give voice to people ...
Anti-Arundhati: I'll give her the courage part- but really, she is supported and lionized by the same systems and people she criticizes. I would just like to see her acknowledge that just once. I'd be more willing to listen to her if she would be willing to have a dialogue with people she disagrees with. You can't have a dialogue with Arundhati- she's an ideologue in the same way as G.W. and she is so convinced by her own stance that she is unwilling to question her own mistakes
And so it goes on....
Mostly, as I've read her work over the years (increasingly more incoherent and badly edited), the anti-Arundhati side of me has prevailed over the pro-Arundhati side...
So, after reading her latest article in Outlook entitled '9 is not 11', the debate has restarted and surprise...the pro-Arundhati voice is winning.
Yes, it needs an editing job and it lapses into her usual rant against America and also a somewhat inappropriate but understandable tirade against neo-liberalism when discussing (rightly) the excessive coverage of the Taj versus other, less glamorous targets. It's also way too rambly. But she does make some good points and in the language and style that she does like no one else.
Some interesting lines/points:
1. First, can we just agree that the '9 is not 11' title is vintage Roy- clever, simple, stark. On this desire to brand 11/26 'India's 9/11' she writes:
I agree. Calling 26/11 out 9/11 is easy and understandable but dangerous. Yes, the Bombay attacks were on an unprecedented scale symbolically but they were not a bolt from the blue in the same sense. It should not undermine the unacceptability of the series of attacks India has suffered. More importantly, we should be wary of equating responses to 11/26 with that of 9/11. The domestic and strategic context is different, India's identity is distinct and different and so we need to recognize and work with those differences.
2. A provocative but useful discussion on the politics of calling Muslim versus Hindu groups terrorists. This is a debate that is very much alive in India and she raises the important question - does discussing the context or root causes of terrorism amount to excusing it (Side A) or is it necessary to understand the deeper bases of violence (side B). She chooses side B. I've always struggled between Side A and Side B. I don't buy her reasoning getting to that point. or her simplistic and predictable linking of the Bombay attacks solely to domestic politics (though that no doubt fuels movements in Pakistan) but....she goes there and she juxtaposes the ugly side of 'context' with all that is 'magnificent' about the idea of the India. It is uncomfortable, perhaps too early to talk about but I think it is only by asking ourselves the questions about our own 'context' instead of just pointing the finger at Pakistan that we truly live up to all that we pride in ourselves as a secular, inclusive democracy.
Again, instead of constructing barriers to asking tough questions about our own legacy and place in the world, as happened in the US after 9/11, we would do well to have a discourse about these questions. Certainly in the non-inflammatory and less sensitive arenas that public intellectuals occupy.
3. Most of all I like the end:
Amen Sister. The choice is pretty clear to me.
Soon, no doubt you will write some crazy 50 page essay comparing Bill Gates to Pol Pot. And I'll feel vindicated in my irritation with you. But tonight, Arundhati, I'll give you half a thumbs up.
I loved (in an unqualified way) 'The God of Small Things' (GOST). I was just out of high school when the book came out, to tremendous hype and I was determined to find it over-rated. Instead, the book blew me away - at this point it's almost a cliche to say how inventive the language is but I'll just say that it captured smells, sounds and textures in a way I have rarely seen since, though there are many bad imitations. The plot is beautifully paced, the narrative device felt utterly genuine and organic. I still feel tension and sadness as the book reaches its climax...and I still marvel at her small insights - this particular feeling of unease that I have always associated with her image of the fluttering moth in your chest since the book.
I don't think Roy could have topped GOST and so in a sense I'm glad she hasn't written more fiction.
Since GOST, Roy has become passionately committed to many causes, general and specific- the enviornment and anti-dam movement in India, taking on the neo-liberal order, anti-Indian nuclear tests, anti-Iraq war and American imperealism. Most of this is done via writing in a series of articles that have found wide circulation internationally, many of which are first found in Outlook India.
While I loved GOST, the articles - not so much. But still, I can't be ambivalent about them....
This is the internal dialogue I wrestle with when thinking about Arundhati Roy:
Pro-Arundhati voice: She really can write well- she just has a way with words.
Anti-Arundhati voice: 1. What's the point of writing well, if you're just ranting and raving. She has no sense of proportion or balance. Everything is really, really black and white for her. 2. So much of it is her marketability and persona- I get really annoyed by academics in the west who think she is the real voice of the 'Indian masses'. 3. Plus Ramachandra Guha says she's unoriginal and frequently gets things wrong (in much better words than I can muster) and I am inclined to trust his opinion.
Pro-Arundhati voice: But are you saying that because 1. she says some really uncomfortable, unflaterring things about India and 2. exposes deep rooted facets about your own privileged existence. At the end of the day, isn't she speaking truth to power? Isn't your vehemence born out of your own discomfort at being confronted by the ugly truths about the parts of of the neo-liberal world order that benefit you?
Anti-Arundhati Roy: Yes, she does make me uncomfortable for those reasons. In fact, I don't disagree with much of her agenda and where she's coming from. I want to be on her side but she's just annoyingly simplistic, quick to take umbrage and just a little smug. Not to mention a little rabid. She could make her argument so much more credibly and intelligently if she was just more balanced, nuanced and open to alternative perspectives. Also, she's intellectually lazy- by making the 'they're fascists/like Hitler' argument for anyone she doesn't agree with.
Pro-Arundhati: Why should she give more space and credence to already powerful players and voices? She has courage and she backs up her words with her deeds. You need voices like hers in the forums she has access to. We are kept honest by someone with her ability with language and her visibility to press our conscience and to give voice to people ...
Anti-Arundhati: I'll give her the courage part- but really, she is supported and lionized by the same systems and people she criticizes. I would just like to see her acknowledge that just once. I'd be more willing to listen to her if she would be willing to have a dialogue with people she disagrees with. You can't have a dialogue with Arundhati- she's an ideologue in the same way as G.W. and she is so convinced by her own stance that she is unwilling to question her own mistakes
And so it goes on....
Mostly, as I've read her work over the years (increasingly more incoherent and badly edited), the anti-Arundhati side of me has prevailed over the pro-Arundhati side...
So, after reading her latest article in Outlook entitled '9 is not 11', the debate has restarted and surprise...the pro-Arundhati voice is winning.
Yes, it needs an editing job and it lapses into her usual rant against America and also a somewhat inappropriate but understandable tirade against neo-liberalism when discussing (rightly) the excessive coverage of the Taj versus other, less glamorous targets. It's also way too rambly. But she does make some good points and in the language and style that she does like no one else.
Some interesting lines/points:
1. First, can we just agree that the '9 is not 11' title is vintage Roy- clever, simple, stark. On this desire to brand 11/26 'India's 9/11' she writes:
"We've forfeited the rights to our own tragedies. But November isn't September, 2008 isn't 2001, Pakistan isn't Afghanistan, and India isn't America. So perhaps we should reclaim our tragedy and pick through the debris with our own brains and our own broken hearts so that we can arrive at our own conclusions."
I agree. Calling 26/11 out 9/11 is easy and understandable but dangerous. Yes, the Bombay attacks were on an unprecedented scale symbolically but they were not a bolt from the blue in the same sense. It should not undermine the unacceptability of the series of attacks India has suffered. More importantly, we should be wary of equating responses to 11/26 with that of 9/11. The domestic and strategic context is different, India's identity is distinct and different and so we need to recognize and work with those differences.
2. A provocative but useful discussion on the politics of calling Muslim versus Hindu groups terrorists. This is a debate that is very much alive in India and she raises the important question - does discussing the context or root causes of terrorism amount to excusing it (Side A) or is it necessary to understand the deeper bases of violence (side B). She chooses side B. I've always struggled between Side A and Side B. I don't buy her reasoning getting to that point. or her simplistic and predictable linking of the Bombay attacks solely to domestic politics (though that no doubt fuels movements in Pakistan) but....she goes there and she juxtaposes the ugly side of 'context' with all that is 'magnificent' about the idea of the India. It is uncomfortable, perhaps too early to talk about but I think it is only by asking ourselves the questions about our own 'context' instead of just pointing the finger at Pakistan that we truly live up to all that we pride in ourselves as a secular, inclusive democracy.
Again, instead of constructing barriers to asking tough questions about our own legacy and place in the world, as happened in the US after 9/11, we would do well to have a discourse about these questions. Certainly in the non-inflammatory and less sensitive arenas that public intellectuals occupy.
3. Most of all I like the end:
The only way to contain – it would be naive to say end – terrorism is to look at the monster in the mirror. We're standing at a fork in the road. One sign says "Justice," the other "Civil War." There's no third sign and there's no going back. Choose.
Amen Sister. The choice is pretty clear to me.
Soon, no doubt you will write some crazy 50 page essay comparing Bill Gates to Pol Pot. And I'll feel vindicated in my irritation with you. But tonight, Arundhati, I'll give you half a thumbs up.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
What good PR looks like
Watching This Week with George Stephanopolous and they had the Ambassador of Pakistan Hussain Haqqani. Haqqani is a very intelligent scholar and diplomat and an excellent choice for Ambassador in my opinion. I heard him speak once at the Council of World Affairs in San Francisco a few years ago and came away extremely impressed.
He showed how such situations should be handled: hit all the Pakistan talking points (Pakistan is a democracy, also a victim of terrorism, we feel India's pain, acknowledges the Pakistani roots of the problem but blames it on non-state actors).
At the same time he acknowledged that there is a problem with Pakistan and Afghanistan being the locus of 'Jihad central'. He also did not make any pejorative claims or arguments against India.
He also made the very important point that these attacks should not be viewed in the usual India-Pakistan prism.
Throughout he was calm, progressive in thinking and articulate.
Good PR and diplomacy 101.
He showed how such situations should be handled: hit all the Pakistan talking points (Pakistan is a democracy, also a victim of terrorism, we feel India's pain, acknowledges the Pakistani roots of the problem but blames it on non-state actors).
At the same time he acknowledged that there is a problem with Pakistan and Afghanistan being the locus of 'Jihad central'. He also did not make any pejorative claims or arguments against India.
He also made the very important point that these attacks should not be viewed in the usual India-Pakistan prism.
Throughout he was calm, progressive in thinking and articulate.
Good PR and diplomacy 101.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The importance of enemies: Al Qaeda's statement on Obama
Its been a while since I posted something (you know how it is, life intervened) so it's fitting that I should write about something close to my mind, if not my heart- yes, my area of academic interest: the discourse of political-violence.
ETA: Not writing for a while really shows. Sorry for the clunky text that follows (though it is International Relations so how exciting could it have been anyway?)
Al Qaeda released its first statement after the election of Barack Obama and it is not pretty. Most of the media reports have been focusing on the use of racial epiteths against Obama in the statement. I think the real story is in the way AQ has wasted little time in signaling that it is business as usual for them. Those, such as Andrew Sullivan for instance, who thought that the Obama era would make it more difficult for radical groups to rail against the USA, the statement puts an end to that sort of thinking. It shows that all that will happen is that al Qaeda and other groups will adapt their rhetoric in the service of the same position against America and try to undermine the positive feeling in the US and elsewhere.
The trope that the media has focused on is that Obama is simply a stooge of 'whites' and of the establishment. This is mildly interesting to me. I don't think being politically correct is particularly important to groups like these. What is more interesting (and alarming) to me is that the statement actively states that Obama's polices are a continuation of previous policies and that there will be no let up in the 'Islamic' movement against the US. Basically, there's no trial waiting period here folks...the statement seems designed to address voices that said that having a US President with the middle name of Hussein would seriously stymie fundamentalists. Bosh.
This should not surprise those of us who take theories of identity about the fundamental self/other relationship seriously. Simply put, actors (states, groups, people) become attached and entrenched in adversarial relationships because it is a source of fundamental stability and sense of purpose to juxtapose oneself against an 'other'. In the realm of the political, the key distinction is the 'friend/enemy' distinction as Carl Schmitt told us writing in 1927. Having a stable enemy, despite the many costs it ay bring, gives actors a better and more coherent sense of self in the political arena and this is why there was never any way that there would be any active reconsidering of the US by Al Qaeda and vice versa....it's just interesting to see it all play out so starkly. It doesn't fundamentally matter who the President is, the rhetoric would have adapted but stayed the same. So if we had had Hilary Clinton, the tropes would have been undeniably sexist and violent, if it had been McCain, the trope would have been more triumphalist and Bush-centric....but the essential stance will not change.
For those who place a premium on theories of leadership, this kind of episode once again highlights my fundamental unease with theories that place too much explanatory power on leaders. It's just a lot more complex than that.
OK IR musings done... apologies to Carl Schmitt for massacring his theory, though he was a Nazi figurehead which makes me considerably less sorry.
In the end, the only comfort this statement brings me is that it makes those people that pushed the 'pals around with terrorists' argument look pretty darn stupid...once again. But oh wait, they probably don't read the papers. Or maybe they read them all but can't name a single one.
ETA: Not writing for a while really shows. Sorry for the clunky text that follows (though it is International Relations so how exciting could it have been anyway?)
Al Qaeda released its first statement after the election of Barack Obama and it is not pretty. Most of the media reports have been focusing on the use of racial epiteths against Obama in the statement. I think the real story is in the way AQ has wasted little time in signaling that it is business as usual for them. Those, such as Andrew Sullivan for instance, who thought that the Obama era would make it more difficult for radical groups to rail against the USA, the statement puts an end to that sort of thinking. It shows that all that will happen is that al Qaeda and other groups will adapt their rhetoric in the service of the same position against America and try to undermine the positive feeling in the US and elsewhere.
The trope that the media has focused on is that Obama is simply a stooge of 'whites' and of the establishment. This is mildly interesting to me. I don't think being politically correct is particularly important to groups like these. What is more interesting (and alarming) to me is that the statement actively states that Obama's polices are a continuation of previous policies and that there will be no let up in the 'Islamic' movement against the US. Basically, there's no trial waiting period here folks...the statement seems designed to address voices that said that having a US President with the middle name of Hussein would seriously stymie fundamentalists. Bosh.
This should not surprise those of us who take theories of identity about the fundamental self/other relationship seriously. Simply put, actors (states, groups, people) become attached and entrenched in adversarial relationships because it is a source of fundamental stability and sense of purpose to juxtapose oneself against an 'other'. In the realm of the political, the key distinction is the 'friend/enemy' distinction as Carl Schmitt told us writing in 1927. Having a stable enemy, despite the many costs it ay bring, gives actors a better and more coherent sense of self in the political arena and this is why there was never any way that there would be any active reconsidering of the US by Al Qaeda and vice versa....it's just interesting to see it all play out so starkly. It doesn't fundamentally matter who the President is, the rhetoric would have adapted but stayed the same. So if we had had Hilary Clinton, the tropes would have been undeniably sexist and violent, if it had been McCain, the trope would have been more triumphalist and Bush-centric....but the essential stance will not change.
For those who place a premium on theories of leadership, this kind of episode once again highlights my fundamental unease with theories that place too much explanatory power on leaders. It's just a lot more complex than that.
OK IR musings done... apologies to Carl Schmitt for massacring his theory, though he was a Nazi figurehead which makes me considerably less sorry.
In the end, the only comfort this statement brings me is that it makes those people that pushed the 'pals around with terrorists' argument look pretty darn stupid...once again. But oh wait, they probably don't read the papers. Or maybe they read them all but can't name a single one.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Proposition hate
Proposition 8 on the California ballot aims at reversing gay marriage. I think this would be a real shame and should be defeated but it is going to be close, even in California. Regardless of our sexual and gender orientations, I think we should be concerned about proposition 8 going through for its adverse implications on justice and equality in our society.
This got me thinking: I can understand conservative arguments on many things- on fiscal matters, on abortion, on the death penalty and even gun rights. Apart from the death penalty (and even here I have my doubts), I don't really agree with any of those arguments or find them convincing but I can appreciate that there are arguments there, some more solid than others.
But I cannot truly think of a single intelligent argument against gay marriage. I'm not being sarcastic but I just can't think of one- the closest one is that it would involve opening up economic breaks etc. to gay married people too. Is that the reason why people oppose gay marriage? Are there other reasons? Whose rights does it harm? What is a good, rational argument against it? Is there one?
I'm genuinely curious....
So until I hear a good reason (and I'm not holding my breath) I'm thinking of this as proposition hate.
ETA: As we celebrate Obama's victory, the prop 8 race seems to be too close to call BUT it does not look good. What is particularly disheartening is the way the vote has broken down racially, by age and by religious background. What is wrong with people? How can you vote for equality in one direction, and deny others the same. A sad sad note (and a big one) on a wonderful night.
This got me thinking: I can understand conservative arguments on many things- on fiscal matters, on abortion, on the death penalty and even gun rights. Apart from the death penalty (and even here I have my doubts), I don't really agree with any of those arguments or find them convincing but I can appreciate that there are arguments there, some more solid than others.
But I cannot truly think of a single intelligent argument against gay marriage. I'm not being sarcastic but I just can't think of one- the closest one is that it would involve opening up economic breaks etc. to gay married people too. Is that the reason why people oppose gay marriage? Are there other reasons? Whose rights does it harm? What is a good, rational argument against it? Is there one?
I'm genuinely curious....
So until I hear a good reason (and I'm not holding my breath) I'm thinking of this as proposition hate.
ETA: As we celebrate Obama's victory, the prop 8 race seems to be too close to call BUT it does not look good. What is particularly disheartening is the way the vote has broken down racially, by age and by religious background. What is wrong with people? How can you vote for equality in one direction, and deny others the same. A sad sad note (and a big one) on a wonderful night.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Score Sheet Debate 2: 'That one' won
Quickly, before the talking heads start:
Winner: I would say it was pretty even but Obama was far more focused, more clear and more of a gentleman.
Loser: Tom Brokaw, Sheesh.
Ach! the talking heads have started and David Brooks gives it (narrowly) to Obama.
Winner: I would say it was pretty even but Obama was far more focused, more clear and more of a gentleman.
Loser: Tom Brokaw, Sheesh.
Ach! the talking heads have started and David Brooks gives it (narrowly) to Obama.
Live Blogging Debate No. 2: Q and A
9: 05 And we're off...
This time I'm going to change the rules a bit, befitting the changed (town hall) format of the debate. Since the debate revolves around audience questions, I will post questions pertaining to the debate (and then proceed to answer them).
Q: How soon before I yawned and nearly dozed off?
A: 28 minutes.
Q: Does McCain do better in town hall settings?
A: Yes, and no. McCain has maintained that he prefers town hall formats - so the pressure is on him tonight for that reason too. His first answer is interesting in his body language, engagement of the questioner and audience. He's clearly going for that connection, with his body language, using first names repeatedly etc. The problem is he sounds like he's lecturing a bunch of kids.
I would like to think McCain's potshots at Obama would alienate people- it came across as churlish, unfair and petty. But the 'talking heads' are baying for blood and so maybe this works. Shudder.
Obama tried not to sound too professorial but he can't help it- he's just too smart to deal in sound bytes. He clearly has a disadvantage in this sort of setting- his voice and demeanour work better in bigger, grander settings than more intimate ones.
Q: Did the town hall setting work?
A: No, not at all. It was intensely annoying that the candidates didn't get to rebut the arguments- the 'discussion' after questions was just another related question. It left the first speaker (Obama) with no chance to address the charges (read blatant lies and misrepresentations) leveled at him- and he was then forced to take time from his next answers. Two thumbs down.
Q: How annoying was Tom Brokaw's repeatedly telling the candidates to stick to time?
A: Very. First of all, they're politicians, they're going to talk- get used to it. Secondly, what's more important? Flashing lights or a detailed discussion and an opportunity to discuss things with some degree of nuance. Two thumbs down Mr. Brokaw.
10:18 Brief hope when the candidates tried to change the rules but no, Mr. Brokaw held firm and forged ahead...
Q: Most annoying thing about Obama?
A: Barack, was I not clear enough last time? Stop saying you agree with McCain and that he's right. He will just spin it in egregious ways..he actually did so tonight when you called him responsible. ..you know what they say about nice guys.
Q: What was the most enraging thing McCain said?
A: Sigh....how many hours do I/you have?
1. First of all, what is with the sarcasm, Johnny? "I've got some news Senator Obama, the news is bad". This from the man who claimed that the fundamentals of the economy were strong as wall street was collapsing??
2. Casually proclaiming that giving up veterans programs would be one of the sacrifices he would ask for? Are you kidding me?
3. 'My friends'
4. The numerous (rude and ludicrous) pot shots at Obama- 'that one', really?
5. The bad jokes
6. Calling himself the 'cool hand'
Q: Stupidest moment?
A: Came at 10: 15 So let me get this straight Mr. McCain, you won't telegraph that you'll get Bin Laden but you'll announce that intention in the debate. Hmmm...what's the flaw in logic there?
Q: Best part of watching the debate?
A: Live blogging while reading other live blogs and reactions. Best comment of the night goes to my friend Patrick "Damn it, McCain I'm not your friend" Amen, my...um...pal.
Q: Best Question?
A: The one about Pakistan, the one about sacrifices the candidates will ask for, and the last question 'What don't you know?'
Q: Best Answer?
A: Obama on Iran- intelligent, clear, within the bounds of American discourse.
Q: Worst Answer?
A: McCain on the 'sacrifice' answer. Made no sense at all. For sheet tediousness, Obama's energy policy answer.
Q: Best closing statement?
A: Pretty even actually. Both end well- with large statements and stories of humility.
This time I'm going to change the rules a bit, befitting the changed (town hall) format of the debate. Since the debate revolves around audience questions, I will post questions pertaining to the debate (and then proceed to answer them).
Q: How soon before I yawned and nearly dozed off?
A: 28 minutes.
Q: Does McCain do better in town hall settings?
A: Yes, and no. McCain has maintained that he prefers town hall formats - so the pressure is on him tonight for that reason too. His first answer is interesting in his body language, engagement of the questioner and audience. He's clearly going for that connection, with his body language, using first names repeatedly etc. The problem is he sounds like he's lecturing a bunch of kids.
I would like to think McCain's potshots at Obama would alienate people- it came across as churlish, unfair and petty. But the 'talking heads' are baying for blood and so maybe this works. Shudder.
Obama tried not to sound too professorial but he can't help it- he's just too smart to deal in sound bytes. He clearly has a disadvantage in this sort of setting- his voice and demeanour work better in bigger, grander settings than more intimate ones.
Q: Did the town hall setting work?
A: No, not at all. It was intensely annoying that the candidates didn't get to rebut the arguments- the 'discussion' after questions was just another related question. It left the first speaker (Obama) with no chance to address the charges (read blatant lies and misrepresentations) leveled at him- and he was then forced to take time from his next answers. Two thumbs down.
Q: How annoying was Tom Brokaw's repeatedly telling the candidates to stick to time?
A: Very. First of all, they're politicians, they're going to talk- get used to it. Secondly, what's more important? Flashing lights or a detailed discussion and an opportunity to discuss things with some degree of nuance. Two thumbs down Mr. Brokaw.
10:18 Brief hope when the candidates tried to change the rules but no, Mr. Brokaw held firm and forged ahead...
Q: Most annoying thing about Obama?
A: Barack, was I not clear enough last time? Stop saying you agree with McCain and that he's right. He will just spin it in egregious ways..he actually did so tonight when you called him responsible. ..you know what they say about nice guys.
Q: What was the most enraging thing McCain said?
A: Sigh....how many hours do I/you have?
1. First of all, what is with the sarcasm, Johnny? "I've got some news Senator Obama, the news is bad". This from the man who claimed that the fundamentals of the economy were strong as wall street was collapsing??
2. Casually proclaiming that giving up veterans programs would be one of the sacrifices he would ask for? Are you kidding me?
3. 'My friends'
4. The numerous (rude and ludicrous) pot shots at Obama- 'that one', really?
5. The bad jokes
6. Calling himself the 'cool hand'
Q: Stupidest moment?
A: Came at 10: 15 So let me get this straight Mr. McCain, you won't telegraph that you'll get Bin Laden but you'll announce that intention in the debate. Hmmm...what's the flaw in logic there?
Q: Best part of watching the debate?
A: Live blogging while reading other live blogs and reactions. Best comment of the night goes to my friend Patrick "Damn it, McCain I'm not your friend" Amen, my...um...pal.
Q: Best Question?
A: The one about Pakistan, the one about sacrifices the candidates will ask for, and the last question 'What don't you know?'
Q: Best Answer?
A: Obama on Iran- intelligent, clear, within the bounds of American discourse.
Q: Worst Answer?
A: McCain on the 'sacrifice' answer. Made no sense at all. For sheet tediousness, Obama's energy policy answer.
Q: Best closing statement?
A: Pretty even actually. Both end well- with large statements and stories of humility.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
More Lists, Political One Liners and a mini-rant
Just the other day, I was confessing my love of lists and look what I find...Vanity Fair is celebrating its 25th anniversary with lists of top 25 everything- books, songs, hotels..you name it. So far they just have a few categories including best book and album covers but more will be added as time goes by. The categories are interesting in themselves because they're not obvious like 'best actor' or 'best music video'. You can vote for your favorites and see how they are doing in an online poll. So a lot of fun!
Since this is sorta turning into a politics blog, I thought I'd focus on their ongoing poll of 25 best political one liners.
Some are obvious candidates for inclusion ("Ask not what your country can do for you" ...JFK or "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Reagan or "Read my lips, no new taxes" Bush Senior) and others are more dubious but equally infamous "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"...Bill Clinton.
Of course the list is heavily skewed (actually totally skewed) towards American Presidents. What happened to the rest of the world, Vanity Fair? No Churchill? No De Gaulle? No Mao? No Saddam Hussein, even. They said some memorable/important/crazy stuff.
This brings me to one of my pet peeves: the assumption that American history/ culture is world history/ culture. Putting aside all the intellectual arguments about Eurocentrism, the interconnections of power/knowledge etc.- lets just look at it from a commonsensical point of view. I totally understand that given that this is America and Vanity Fair is an American magazine, it is natural to focus on American history and culture but why not just call it that? Call it top 25 American Political One-Liners and be done with it.
Ok, my mini-rant is done.
Anyway to correct this imbalance, I'm going to ask you (my imaginary but beloved readers) the following question (this might be something to comment on- hint hint):
What's your favorite political one liner? Extra points for non-American submissions.
I'll start with mine, it's a little cliche but I think its humor and sophistication endures:
"I think it would be a good idea" - Gandhi on being asked what he thought about Western Civilization.
Other notes:
I'm pleased to see the Secret History by Donna Tartt getting a mention for book cover. I never really noticed the cover but I have loved the book for more than 10 years now.
Since this is sorta turning into a politics blog, I thought I'd focus on their ongoing poll of 25 best political one liners.
Some are obvious candidates for inclusion ("Ask not what your country can do for you" ...JFK or "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Reagan or "Read my lips, no new taxes" Bush Senior) and others are more dubious but equally infamous "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"...Bill Clinton.
Of course the list is heavily skewed (actually totally skewed) towards American Presidents. What happened to the rest of the world, Vanity Fair? No Churchill? No De Gaulle? No Mao? No Saddam Hussein, even. They said some memorable/important/crazy stuff.
This brings me to one of my pet peeves: the assumption that American history/ culture is world history/ culture. Putting aside all the intellectual arguments about Eurocentrism, the interconnections of power/knowledge etc.- lets just look at it from a commonsensical point of view. I totally understand that given that this is America and Vanity Fair is an American magazine, it is natural to focus on American history and culture but why not just call it that? Call it top 25 American Political One-Liners and be done with it.
Ok, my mini-rant is done.
Anyway to correct this imbalance, I'm going to ask you (my imaginary but beloved readers) the following question (this might be something to comment on- hint hint):
What's your favorite political one liner? Extra points for non-American submissions.
I'll start with mine, it's a little cliche but I think its humor and sophistication endures:
"I think it would be a good idea" - Gandhi on being asked what he thought about Western Civilization.
Other notes:
I'm pleased to see the Secret History by Donna Tartt getting a mention for book cover. I never really noticed the cover but I have loved the book for more than 10 years now.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Do Norms Matter part 2: the N deal
Congress approved the US's nuclear deal with India today. Under the agreement, India will be able get material and technical support for its civilian nuclear program and in return will open up 14 of its nuclear sites to inspections.
This move is note worthy for several reasons:
First, it is a rare victory for the Bush administration's foreign policy, and particularly in a very bad week for the administration. I mean congress actually passed something Bush wanted- weird. Relations with India have been one of very few foreign policy successes of the Bush administration in general so we should take note of this moment.
Second, if you believe the hyperbole, this is a 'tectonic' moment in not only Indo-US relations but also in the development of the nuclear non-proliferation regime itself. Making an exception of India signals many things - it validates the idea that liberal democracies stick together (a variant on the 'democratic peace' thesis), it opens up the pressing question of demonstration effects on other undeclared nuclear states and it recognizes that there is a range of behaviors within the category of nuclear non-proliferation norm violators, eroding the salience and the legitimacy of the non-proliferation regime itself. The deal jolts the shaky foundations of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, while still showing that states want to abide by it. Third, despite the easy passage of the bill, there is much disagreement on the impact and moral salience of the bill. We are not done with this at all.
So, does this mean that nuclear non-proliferation norms have comprehensively failed? Sure looks like it- the US is actually rewarding 'bad' behavior like testing nuclear weapons, right? Not if you read Karthika Sasikumar's fascinating work on India and the non-proliferation order. According to Sasikumar, the 'norms worked' by forcing India to act in regime compliant ways, even as an outsider to the regime. By this interpretation, India should be seen as an exception that proves the efficacy of a set of still stringent rules. It will not be easy for other states to make the same case that India did and thus the standards of acceptable nuclear behavior remain high.
Of course, the counter-argument is the one that will get the most coverage in the next few weeks. This is the argument that the deal sets a dangerous precedent and will encourage other states, including 'rogue' states to also openly violate non-proliferation norms. Rebutting such behavior will be hard to justify, given the preferential treatment given to India.
My take on this: This is a toughie. On the one hand, I agree that India is a special case, given its record which stands out against the behavior of the usual suspects (A Q Khan anyone?). I also understand the benefits that the deal brings in both material and symbolic terms- not the least of which is the promise it holds for India's rapidly growing energy needs. Thirdly, the deal exposes the sham that the structure of the nuclear regime was which was built on the discriminatory premise of freezing into place the power hierarchies of the post second world war period. Out of the weakening architecture of the non-proliferation regime, comes an opportunity to rethink what non-proliferation means in todays day and age.
What I'm concerned about is the reaction from two quarters- the jingosm that I predict in India and the reaction of other undeclared states. I fear that the deal will dilute the already waning nuclear non-proliferation order.
Let me explain. No doubt there will be a lot of celebration in certain quarters in India - validating the enormous expense of developing nuclear weapons programs and the risk that comes with testing nuclear weapons with Pakistan as a neighbor. There are few things I find as disagreeable as Indian jingoism and we will see a lot of it in the days to come, specially from those that will tout India's growing relations with the US as validation of India's arrival as a great power.
Apart from the crude spectacle of excessive nationalism, we should be wary of such self-congratulation for other reasons. Even while acknowledging that India's nuclear record has been exemplary in terms of responsibility in upholding non-proliferation norms, we should worry about the resentment this will breed in the subcontinent. More importantly for me, the deal signals India's growing embrace of 'real politik'. India's great strength in the nuclear non-proliferation order was not its material capability but its ethical argument about the in built discrimination or 'apartheid' of the regime. We should not lose this moral ground by touting our 'power'.
Moving beyond India, the precedent this sets for other undeclared nuclear powers is troubling. Not because the US will be compelled to similarly reward other states (which it won't) but because this decision will erode the 'nuclear taboo' that has held strong for 50 years, despite the flaws of the non-proliferation regime. We should be alert to the demonstration effects the deal will have on other regimes and the arguments that will become 'thinkable'.
To put it mildly, the process of negotiating the deal has been turbulent - it nearly brought the current coalition government down in India when the CPIM bailed out in protest. It has been furiously opposed by left liberals in India and by Democrats in the U.S. This passage is probably not the end of the story - but it is a landmark day in the ongoing saga. It's too early to predict the long-term effects of the deal but that won't stop all of the talking heads ( including me!)
Bottom line: I don't know yet.
Edited 10/02/08 to add: According to the BBC, already Pakistan is arguing that Washington needs to extend a similar deal to Islamabad. Now this is just a bit rich. I'm no Pakistan basher (making fun of lecherous Presidents does not count) but with its rather dodgy chain of command, history of proliferation and you know, just that little matter of A Q Khan, I think this smells of a little boguosity...but, it just underlines the point about precedents set.
This move is note worthy for several reasons:
First, it is a rare victory for the Bush administration's foreign policy, and particularly in a very bad week for the administration. I mean congress actually passed something Bush wanted- weird. Relations with India have been one of very few foreign policy successes of the Bush administration in general so we should take note of this moment.
Second, if you believe the hyperbole, this is a 'tectonic' moment in not only Indo-US relations but also in the development of the nuclear non-proliferation regime itself. Making an exception of India signals many things - it validates the idea that liberal democracies stick together (a variant on the 'democratic peace' thesis), it opens up the pressing question of demonstration effects on other undeclared nuclear states and it recognizes that there is a range of behaviors within the category of nuclear non-proliferation norm violators, eroding the salience and the legitimacy of the non-proliferation regime itself. The deal jolts the shaky foundations of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, while still showing that states want to abide by it. Third, despite the easy passage of the bill, there is much disagreement on the impact and moral salience of the bill. We are not done with this at all.
So, does this mean that nuclear non-proliferation norms have comprehensively failed? Sure looks like it- the US is actually rewarding 'bad' behavior like testing nuclear weapons, right? Not if you read Karthika Sasikumar's fascinating work on India and the non-proliferation order. According to Sasikumar, the 'norms worked' by forcing India to act in regime compliant ways, even as an outsider to the regime. By this interpretation, India should be seen as an exception that proves the efficacy of a set of still stringent rules. It will not be easy for other states to make the same case that India did and thus the standards of acceptable nuclear behavior remain high.
Of course, the counter-argument is the one that will get the most coverage in the next few weeks. This is the argument that the deal sets a dangerous precedent and will encourage other states, including 'rogue' states to also openly violate non-proliferation norms. Rebutting such behavior will be hard to justify, given the preferential treatment given to India.
My take on this: This is a toughie. On the one hand, I agree that India is a special case, given its record which stands out against the behavior of the usual suspects (A Q Khan anyone?). I also understand the benefits that the deal brings in both material and symbolic terms- not the least of which is the promise it holds for India's rapidly growing energy needs. Thirdly, the deal exposes the sham that the structure of the nuclear regime was which was built on the discriminatory premise of freezing into place the power hierarchies of the post second world war period. Out of the weakening architecture of the non-proliferation regime, comes an opportunity to rethink what non-proliferation means in todays day and age.
What I'm concerned about is the reaction from two quarters- the jingosm that I predict in India and the reaction of other undeclared states. I fear that the deal will dilute the already waning nuclear non-proliferation order.
Let me explain. No doubt there will be a lot of celebration in certain quarters in India - validating the enormous expense of developing nuclear weapons programs and the risk that comes with testing nuclear weapons with Pakistan as a neighbor. There are few things I find as disagreeable as Indian jingoism and we will see a lot of it in the days to come, specially from those that will tout India's growing relations with the US as validation of India's arrival as a great power.
Apart from the crude spectacle of excessive nationalism, we should be wary of such self-congratulation for other reasons. Even while acknowledging that India's nuclear record has been exemplary in terms of responsibility in upholding non-proliferation norms, we should worry about the resentment this will breed in the subcontinent. More importantly for me, the deal signals India's growing embrace of 'real politik'. India's great strength in the nuclear non-proliferation order was not its material capability but its ethical argument about the in built discrimination or 'apartheid' of the regime. We should not lose this moral ground by touting our 'power'.
Moving beyond India, the precedent this sets for other undeclared nuclear powers is troubling. Not because the US will be compelled to similarly reward other states (which it won't) but because this decision will erode the 'nuclear taboo' that has held strong for 50 years, despite the flaws of the non-proliferation regime. We should be alert to the demonstration effects the deal will have on other regimes and the arguments that will become 'thinkable'.
To put it mildly, the process of negotiating the deal has been turbulent - it nearly brought the current coalition government down in India when the CPIM bailed out in protest. It has been furiously opposed by left liberals in India and by Democrats in the U.S. This passage is probably not the end of the story - but it is a landmark day in the ongoing saga. It's too early to predict the long-term effects of the deal but that won't stop all of the talking heads ( including me!)
Bottom line: I don't know yet.
Edited 10/02/08 to add: According to the BBC, already Pakistan is arguing that Washington needs to extend a similar deal to Islamabad. Now this is just a bit rich. I'm no Pakistan basher (making fun of lecherous Presidents does not count) but with its rather dodgy chain of command, history of proliferation and you know, just that little matter of A Q Khan, I think this smells of a little boguosity...but, it just underlines the point about precedents set.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Do Norms Matter?
IR bloggers are taking an interest in the ongoing saga of the Somali pirates who have hijacked a Ukranian ship and are demanding millions of dollars (20 at last count) in return. The pirates (I can't get over how old-school the whole concept of pirates seems- blame Johnny Depp) gave an interview to the NYT.
In it they employ some arguments that should be of interest to all of us who argue that discourse is a good gauge of the salience of particular international norms. For instance,
The Somali pirates are using arguments that appeal to our sense of justice in several ways - comparing themselves to legitimate law enforcers such as the coast guard and behaviors such as 'patrolling', appealing to our environmental concerns, and contesting language that is pejorative.
Yet, they are holding the Ukranian ship and its crew hostage and are demanding a ransom that is incommuserate with their stated reasons for wanting money.
So this begs the question, what use is it to know that actors acknowledge or (instrumentally) appeal to international norms? In the blogs I've read, the consensus seems to be that this is a case of insincere rhetoric, because it is belied by the actions of the pirates.
How, then, should we interpret the desire of the pirates to be seen as legitimate human beings? Should this guide the way the situation is handled? For instance, if the pirates said that they wanted the money to buy rum, eye patches and sail the high seas- would the ship have been stormed by now? If the pirates subscribed to a set of norms that were even less palatable, how would it effect responses?
These are the difficulties in thinking about how norms work in real life. It's a much bandied about term but it leaves us with little substance with which to think about how to formulate policy in crises.
I'm trying to grapple with these questions in my own work, so no real answers...just thinking aloud.
In it they employ some arguments that should be of interest to all of us who argue that discourse is a good gauge of the salience of particular international norms. For instance,
We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits,” he said. “We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard.”
The Somali pirates are using arguments that appeal to our sense of justice in several ways - comparing themselves to legitimate law enforcers such as the coast guard and behaviors such as 'patrolling', appealing to our environmental concerns, and contesting language that is pejorative.
Yet, they are holding the Ukranian ship and its crew hostage and are demanding a ransom that is incommuserate with their stated reasons for wanting money.
“Killing is not in our plans,” he said. “We only want money so we can protect ourselves from hunger.”
When asked why the pirates needed $20 million to protect themselves from hunger, Mr. Sugule laughed and said, “Because we have a lot of men.”
So this begs the question, what use is it to know that actors acknowledge or (instrumentally) appeal to international norms? In the blogs I've read, the consensus seems to be that this is a case of insincere rhetoric, because it is belied by the actions of the pirates.
How, then, should we interpret the desire of the pirates to be seen as legitimate human beings? Should this guide the way the situation is handled? For instance, if the pirates said that they wanted the money to buy rum, eye patches and sail the high seas- would the ship have been stormed by now? If the pirates subscribed to a set of norms that were even less palatable, how would it effect responses?
These are the difficulties in thinking about how norms work in real life. It's a much bandied about term but it leaves us with little substance with which to think about how to formulate policy in crises.
I'm trying to grapple with these questions in my own work, so no real answers...just thinking aloud.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Experiment: Live Blogging the First Presidential Debate
10: 38
DONE! That was tough but fun! Now lets see how I compare to the talking heads....
Edited to add: Now that I've blogged about it, I find I'm not as interested in the analysis of others immediately. Interesting.
10:35
Barack, Barack, Barack...McCain just said you had no experience and he is the most experienced politician alive. And your retort? "My father came from Kenya, which is why I have my name". ?? You just let that slide? Why?
10: 28
Chaos, interruption- Indian Parliament news flashback....before Obama politely moves on....
I spaced out and when I snapped back Obama was trying to get a word in edgewise....wha??
10:18
Wow....McCain suddenly woke up and went on a little McCain rant.... Heeeeeeerrree's Johnny.......!!!
(Obama spluttered in amazement....I nearly choked on my drink...)
10:06
Obama needs to stop saying "John is right". You only play nicely with those who play nicely with you...
Clear answer from McCain about Iran as an existential threat. Clear but scary. Brings Russia in immediately, proposes "painful" sanctions on the "lousy" Iranian government....Bush the 3rd anyone?
10:04
" I got a bracelet too?" Rise above this nonsense Barack....come on....
Oh Yawn......McCain pulls out the old bracelet story now...
10:00
BURN! Obama: "coming from you who has talked about exterminating N. Korea and sung songs about bombing Iran, I'm not sure how credible that is' (on McCain talking about Obama's willingness to attack Pak)
9:55
So far if I was grading these two I would give McCain points for sticking to the question, articulating simply and effectively and for his consistency. Avoid redundancy and repetition.
Obama A- "Pay closer attention to the question and be more clear. On the positive side: Good, complex reasoning and nuanced understanding of the issues. Also extra credit for being able to pronounce Pakistan.' Points taken/ warning for saying "We have to be able to take them out"
9: 50
Now we're talking - Iraq still remains the real issue here for these two....they both look a lot more confident here. National Security and Foreign Policy is clearly much more of a comfort zone for both of them.
9: 42
McCain just repeated that he was not chosen as Miss Congeniality (which is worth another blog post, coming soon)- which is just begging for some sort of joke about Palin.
9:35
Dominant themes:
Obama: McCain is mini-Bush, Bush the 3rd, Bush's best pal.... please don't believe their lies
McCain: Talking the talk, does not mean walking the walk, cut spending, cut spending, cut spending!
Lehrer: Focus and please answer the question directly
9: 33
I'm struck by just how remarkably better both of these candidates speak than Bush. At least this is a real debate. And both men can pronounce nuclear- hallelujah for that. They also don't smirk/ grin sheepishly
9: 30
Ah! the familiar trope of Chinese children forging ahead, a perennial favorite- and it comes from Obama.
So far McCain has had the better one liners and the better campaigning buzz words (maverick, spending) , Obama sounds a lot more detailed and focused on policy- maybe too much?
Obama laughs at McCain's jokes, McCain grins as Obama speaks....much amusement.
It's getting heated now- calling each other liars, talking directly at each other, interrupting etc. That didn't take long.
Ooohh...watch out Barak- don't antagonize small business. McCain's cracking up in the corner for some reason- he's explaining why now.
9:20
This is harder than I thought- you have to listen, reflect and type while not missing what's going on- my respect for live bloggers of random awards shows has shot up.
9:16
First good punch line of the night- goes to McCain...He's already made two jokes about his age...ok, strike that, three. If you can't beat em, join em, I guess.
Obama's using first names and McCain is refusing to warm up to that usage- it's a cold Sen. Obama....I wonder how micro-planned such strategies are...
He also looks at McCain when he talks to him and McCain stares straight ahead (and now I'm done with my imitation of FOX news body language analysts)
Edited to add at 11:00- lots of the media analysts also picked up on this. Not bad for your not-so-humble blogger...
9:10
5 minutes in and I have the same comment for Sen. Obama that I often do for my undergraduate students - answer the question, please.
9:00
We're off and in the hands of the eminently capable Jim Lehrer who gets straight to the heart of the matter- the economy. The new format allows both back and forth debating as well as follow ups by Lehrer. Let's see if it gets nasty with this format- I doubt it.
My first live blogging attempt: This will be fun not only for the experience but also to see how my immediate judgement differs from that of the talking heads and media who will analyze this tomorrow.
DONE! That was tough but fun! Now lets see how I compare to the talking heads....
Edited to add: Now that I've blogged about it, I find I'm not as interested in the analysis of others immediately. Interesting.
10:35
Barack, Barack, Barack...McCain just said you had no experience and he is the most experienced politician alive. And your retort? "My father came from Kenya, which is why I have my name". ?? You just let that slide? Why?
10: 28
Chaos, interruption- Indian Parliament news flashback....before Obama politely moves on....
I spaced out and when I snapped back Obama was trying to get a word in edgewise....wha??
10:18
Wow....McCain suddenly woke up and went on a little McCain rant.... Heeeeeeerrree's Johnny.......!!!
(Obama spluttered in amazement....I nearly choked on my drink...)
10:06
Obama needs to stop saying "John is right". You only play nicely with those who play nicely with you...
Clear answer from McCain about Iran as an existential threat. Clear but scary. Brings Russia in immediately, proposes "painful" sanctions on the "lousy" Iranian government....Bush the 3rd anyone?
10:04
" I got a bracelet too?" Rise above this nonsense Barack....come on....
Oh Yawn......McCain pulls out the old bracelet story now...
10:00
BURN! Obama: "coming from you who has talked about exterminating N. Korea and sung songs about bombing Iran, I'm not sure how credible that is' (on McCain talking about Obama's willingness to attack Pak)
9:55
So far if I was grading these two I would give McCain points for sticking to the question, articulating simply and effectively and for his consistency. Avoid redundancy and repetition.
Obama A- "Pay closer attention to the question and be more clear. On the positive side: Good, complex reasoning and nuanced understanding of the issues. Also extra credit for being able to pronounce Pakistan.' Points taken/ warning for saying "We have to be able to take them out"
9: 50
Now we're talking - Iraq still remains the real issue here for these two....they both look a lot more confident here. National Security and Foreign Policy is clearly much more of a comfort zone for both of them.
9: 42
McCain just repeated that he was not chosen as Miss Congeniality (which is worth another blog post, coming soon)- which is just begging for some sort of joke about Palin.
9:35
Dominant themes:
Obama: McCain is mini-Bush, Bush the 3rd, Bush's best pal.... please don't believe their lies
McCain: Talking the talk, does not mean walking the walk, cut spending, cut spending, cut spending!
Lehrer: Focus and please answer the question directly
9: 33
I'm struck by just how remarkably better both of these candidates speak than Bush. At least this is a real debate. And both men can pronounce nuclear- hallelujah for that. They also don't smirk/ grin sheepishly
9: 30
Ah! the familiar trope of Chinese children forging ahead, a perennial favorite- and it comes from Obama.
So far McCain has had the better one liners and the better campaigning buzz words (maverick, spending) , Obama sounds a lot more detailed and focused on policy- maybe too much?
Obama laughs at McCain's jokes, McCain grins as Obama speaks....much amusement.
It's getting heated now- calling each other liars, talking directly at each other, interrupting etc. That didn't take long.
Ooohh...watch out Barak- don't antagonize small business. McCain's cracking up in the corner for some reason- he's explaining why now.
9:20
This is harder than I thought- you have to listen, reflect and type while not missing what's going on- my respect for live bloggers of random awards shows has shot up.
9:16
First good punch line of the night- goes to McCain...He's already made two jokes about his age...ok, strike that, three. If you can't beat em, join em, I guess.
Obama's using first names and McCain is refusing to warm up to that usage- it's a cold Sen. Obama....I wonder how micro-planned such strategies are...
He also looks at McCain when he talks to him and McCain stares straight ahead (and now I'm done with my imitation of FOX news body language analysts)
Edited to add at 11:00- lots of the media analysts also picked up on this. Not bad for your not-so-humble blogger...
9:10
5 minutes in and I have the same comment for Sen. Obama that I often do for my undergraduate students - answer the question, please.
9:00
We're off and in the hands of the eminently capable Jim Lehrer who gets straight to the heart of the matter- the economy. The new format allows both back and forth debating as well as follow ups by Lehrer. Let's see if it gets nasty with this format- I doubt it.
My first live blogging attempt: This will be fun not only for the experience but also to see how my immediate judgement differs from that of the talking heads and media who will analyze this tomorrow.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Hilarious
On a sad day, I thought of bringing some levity to politics.
Here starts a series I shall hopefully return to many times: "Reasons to love John Mayer"
Reason no. 34756: Talented, funny and just the right amount of cynical...
And Steve Jordan's laugh is just infectious...
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
"Don't know whether to laugh or cry" moment
This is a conversation I had a couple of days with an ex-student of mine. She's always struck me as earnest, opinionated and very, very liberal from almost everything she said in class and outside. She's almost a stereotype in the stuff white people like mold- vaguely hippyish, vegan, back packing through Chile, artistic type who loudly denounces men, marriage, meat, Western hegemony and walmart all in one go...in other words the perfect person to have a friendly political rant with the day after the Palin speech...
Or so I thought...
The conversation made me long for a large white flag and a pole from which to wave it.
(With a little poetic license)
Me: (brightly and slightly conspiratorially) "Have you been following the political news lately?"
Student: (eagerly) "Yes, I'm sooo excited about it all"
Me: (Feeling happy about evidence of political activism in the youth) "Cool, what parts?"
Student: "Well, I think it's awesome that we have a woman running for VP. She's going to be awesome."
Me: (back peddling in my mind) "Hmmm? Interesting....so, do you find her views on the issues convincing? What things do you like about her?"
Student: "It's just really important to have women- they would change stuff, and make things better.."
Me: "Hmm....So what kind of stuff do you think she will change?"
Student: "She's going to make things.... better and she'll be great for women's rights"
Me: ('polite' voice) "Umm....Ok... Well, you do know that she's very pro-Iraq war, pro-gun, anti global warming as a concept, pro-life, anti-gay rights etc. right?"
Student: "Yeah, that's true but she's a woman and I think that's cool. We really need that right now."
Me: (smiling tightly): "Interesting....well, it's going to be.....interesting"
And then I slunk away....
It's working! Oh god, it's working!
Now I'd like to think I'm sufficiently open minded not to judge people for their political views. Some of my brightest students have been conservative in intelligent and thought provoking ways. But this is just not very smart, is it?
It bothers me that I did not try to gently disabuse her of those notions- but its hard to do without sounding condescending, patronizing and rude. No wonder the dems are bafflingly polite in the face of blatant lies.
Another day, another reminder of the 'jackass problem' in democracies, as a professor once eloquently put it.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Songs for Tibet
Since my last post shows how I'm all for exposing the excesses of power etc, here's my last post of the day. China has blocked access to itunes because of its promotion of this CD. On itunes reviews of the CD fluctuate wildly, with many suspicious 1 star ratings from guess where?
So here's my bit to promote it..... to all of the 1.5 people that know about this blog.
It's got some great music by a pretty huge line up of musicians, including John Mayer singing a great stripped down version of belief.
: )
Need I say more?
China and the Olympics
Inspired by this site, I'm going to try to make sense of my jumbled up thoughts about the Olympics in China.
On the one hand, I bristle at the jingosim of the U.S. media when it comes to describing the Olympics and the Chinese handling of it. Story after story has focused on the scandals, the lack of democracy, the curbing of individual rights at every point etc. From the two old ladies being sent to labor camp for protesting the treatment of Chinese citizens to the enormous pressure placed on Chinese hurdler Liu Xiang and the way that slums and low income areas were hidden overnight in walls. On the other hand, all of this stuff should raise our hackles. Why should we excuse such behavior, just because this is a developing country. That's an Ayoobian argument that I find difficult to buy.
Case in point for me was the story about the lip-syncing switch with the two little girls. Yes, it was callous to have switched the girl with the voice with the girl with the angelic face. Yes, it was another indicator of the Chinese obsession with national image. But as my friend pointed out, do we really think it would have been any different in the US? I thought about it and I agree that it is not like the US is any more altruistic than China but I do think on balance, that such a switcheroo would not have taken place. Why? Not because of any more moral reason, though that is debateable too, but because such a thing would simply fire up too much of a media fire storm in the US. The media would have been all over it, the kids would have been hounded, the olympic committee would have been crucified by Tyra and Oprah and all the rest of them. They just could not have gotten away with it.
And that's, on balance, a good thing.
At the risk of often being over played and over-hyped, it is a good thing for governments, people in power etc. to not be able to ride roughshod over people with impunity, to not be able to get away with abuses of power without protest and shaming. Power will often prevail but our greatest triumphs as a global citizenry have come when we speak truth to it, to use a cliche.
What is disturbing to me is the implicit agenda behind the sustained coverage of the Olympics in the U.S. where the media seems to delight in exposing such stories, all the while marveling in a distinctly envious tone about the spectacle and efficiency of the opening ceremony and the prowess of Chinese athletes. At each turn praise has been accompanied by qualifiers...
Yes, China leads the gold medal tally but you know they send athletes away as little kids contrasting with Shawn Johnson who got to go to prom in a sparkly yellow dress. Yes, the opening ceremony was amazing, but they handpicked only the best looking people. Yes, the architecture in Beijing is stunningly innovative but ordinary citizens do not have a voice in this development.
All true, no doubt, but amplified by decidedly mixed intentions.
It's been a tough one- these Olympics. As a fellow third-world citizen, I sympathize with those who feel that singling out China smacks of jingoism and first world condescension coupled with just a tinge of panic. But as a citizen of the world with some basic respect for human rights and fairness, I cannot help but agree that these very episodes need to be highlighted, for things to change even a bit.
Tough indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
