The Obama Tour

I have a massive headache, but I haven't written in so long. I will suffer through.

This post will be broken into three major parts: the G20 London summit, the NATO address, and North Korea.



G20

It was an economic summit, so it stands to reason that the only real issue was the global recession. The French and Germans beforehand had let it be known that they wanted to focus on really strict international oversight. This shouldn't come as any surprise. This two countries have the most pull in the European Union. The Germans are really big fans of regulation and have really suffered the least of all of the European countries (of the G20 leaders, it is arguable that they and Brazil are the only ones who may actually see a turn out of the red really soon). It is in their best interest to not dump money into the global economy, opting instead to be good stewards of everyone else's mess. Sarkozy just runs left when he gets scared.

Other little controversies: China keeps yapping about going off the American dollar standard. They'll shut up if things turn around; it's just posturing. But if things keep heading this way the massive loans we have with China will be called in, and America may be in for a world of hurt. The Londoners protested, but I heard an interesting perspective on the protest. One onlooker said it looked like every sign said something different. Were this president Bush, I can guarantee it'd be all "Fuck Bush" signs. The far left movement suffers from a major weakness. Its a massive coalition of a whole lot of special interests. That's why people were so worried with Obama's naivety. He has a lot of special interests to stand up to for a guy with so little experience doing so.

• US$500 billion for the IMF to aid struggling economies,
• US$250 billion to boost world trade,
• US$250 billion for a new IMF overdraft facility,
• US$100 billion to assist international development banks in lending to poor countries.

There it is. $1.1 trillion. That's all they could really settle on. It, like all UN resolutions, was fucking weak. The real sum of it is something to the effect of "We're helping the parts of the world that can't help themselves. We don't need to help ourselves. Everyone has already done what they're supposed to do."



NATO

It's the sixtieth anniversary of NATO. Anders Fogh Rasmussen is the new Secretary General. He was prime minister of Denmark. Well, he's actually more of a cog for the United States. He leans left socially, but tugs the foreign policy line of America, so I guess things could be worse. But I fear that's what keeps NATO from really being effective. There's no political dynamism or compromise.

Back to the accomplishments (because I'm not covering Obama's fucking speeches). The only thing people really cared about here was the war in Afghanistan, and as I expected, Europe was willing to say they were willing to help, but anything substantial remains to be seen. It won't be coming. America has committed another 30.000 troops and assured everyone else in the world community that they are just looking for emotional support.



North Korea

I have done enough research on the six party talks. I may give you a run down later. I need to read a few more articles. But what I can gather is that this is not a big deal and not something we need to take lightly. The problem is not the missile and not the potential for it to hit America. Those are astonomically improbable if you take them to the first imaginable worst cases. The problem is much more indirect. If North Korea postures itself to be a nuclear power three things will happen. Near Eastern/ North African countries will have a legitimate supplier of information that can really escalate major crises around the world. Japan will preemptively attack North Korea. China will feel the need to step between the two countries in the second point. The first point is the most serious. The second will encourage individual vigilanism to fuel the first's fire. The third will send a political rift through the Far East and jeopardize some really important financial ties.

Dear World.
Don't provoke giants. Don't tell dirty secrets.

Matt

miranda july and chuck bukowski

I won't be finishing the Mao biography any time soon, but before I forget, here's a review of the last two books I read: No one belongs here more than you and Post Office.

No one belongs here more than you
Miranda July

You may recognize the name of the author for a different reason. A young rising face in the field of independent cinema, Miranda is the winner of the 2005 Camera d'Or prize from the Cannes Film Festival and was recently named the number one New Face of Indie Film by Filmmaker Magazine.

But I can attest, she's gifted in more than just cinema; this collection of short stories on the whole is one of the most riveting pieces I've read from a modern author. Admittedly, I don't read enough modern fiction, but I'm willing to stake my reputation on your enjoying this collection.

Most of the stories seem entirely implausible from an outside look, but July uses what I presume must be some sort of mysticism to draw you into the situation and accept conventions as if you were watching a stage performance. All of the characters a delightfully insecure and sometimes inarticulate, but always full of heart. There's an androgyny to the feeling of "belonging," and it shines through these pieces. It's rare that an author uses sex not to distract or arouse, but to involve the reader and distance the characters from their own situations; by the end of the collection, I felt like I was on the outside (along with all of the characters whose lives I had just invaded) looking in on everyone's place in the world.

The only real criticism is that the voice never really changes too drastically. Were you not given explicit descriptions off the bat, its hard to draw anything distinguishable from the overriding author's voice. It only bothered me when I came back to it after a reading break. It takes a story or two to get back into the switch of characters, but hell, I reread most of it anyway.


Post Office
Charles Bukowski

Charles Bukowski is without a doubt one of my three favorite writers in any genre, and Post Office was his first novel. Written in about a month, Chuck recalls his work for the United States Post Office, and the miseries of the life that accompanies it.

Bukowski's style is gritty and straightforward. He, to the discomfort of the reader at some points, refuses to beat around the bush. As his autobiographical counterpart spiraled down into the depths of depression and sexual debauchery and twin addictions to whiskey and gambling, I couldn't help running after him. The novel is not his best prose, and it drags through spells of aimlessness, but it gives a pretty good feeling of his voice.

If you're going to read Bukowski, the other books are much richer reads. If you're looking for a book you can finish in a long evening, Post Office should be on your list, if nothing more than for a couple of cheap laughs and a chance to feel like your life isn't so shitty after all.

the islamic republic of iran

I'm writing on this particular nation because I feel they are the greatest threat to American tolerance in the broader world. Of all countries in the world, American people seem least informed about the government and history of Iran, and by the same token, a fair number (52% according to a late October 2007 Zogby poll) are in favor of resolving issues with Iran with violence.

I know there's a new administration in place and that sentiment changes over the course of a year or so, but the latent anti-Iranianism is something that I feel stems from one real point: ignorance of the culture (both political and historical) of Iran.

Let us first establish the situation of the region. I'll try to do this in as few brushstrokes as necessary. Iran is the second most populous country in the Near East with a total of about 70 million people (7 million shy of Egypt, 30 million more than number 3 Sudan and 40 million more than number 4 Iraq). As far as I can tell, they are the only Shiite country in the broader region, and this is the major reason the country seems so aggressive. More than ethnic or wealth gaps, their religious self-segregation seems to create a regional strain. Iran has made it clear, also, that they take a fairly radical (to an American audience) stance in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Now is the part where we take a quick step back and re-evaluate. We know Iran is a very large country exercising a fair amount of influence in the region. And we know that their religious composition isolates them to a certain extent from the other powers of the region. It stands to reason that their stances would be aggressive when in harmony with the region and moderate enough to avoid tribal wars when their opinions are at odds with neighbors.

Insofar as Iran being a nuclear threat, the most recent intelligence report I looked over suggests with moderate to high confidence that the country would like to be a nuclear power and gives a likely time table of 2010 to 2015 for when they could have the capability to construct such a weapon. I don't wish to downplay this fact in any way. It is not in very many peoples' interests to see Iran as a nuclear power, but we do need to understand the motivation. What may come as a surprise to those 52% who wanted to bomb Iran is that Iran has very little interest in attacking (with nuclear force) a country with a large enough arsenal to wipe their country off the face of the earth a thousand times over. Bear in mind, Iran has no real warheads right now. Their desire for them is of much bigger concern locally. Any attempts at gathering the material to construct a nuclear weapon is simply posturing. If you have a smaller neighbor (Israel) who you are completely incompatible with religiously, ethnically, and economically, and that neighbor may or may not have nuclear weapons, you'd be very interested in procuring weapons of your own. The whole program is a regional power play that we're all giving a world stage. All Iran is looking for is a tighter grip on the region, to be seen as the defining power of it. As South Africa is to the Sub-Sahara or the USA is to the Americas, Iran would like to be to the Near East. It's all a trade game.

That went a little longer than I expected it to, but I'd like to continue on to the figure who has come to embody the Iranian population, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Too many make one of two major major assumptions based on what they know of trends in the region: 1) He is an oppressive dictator, 2)He holds the power our president holds. Of course, these two are contradicting, but more than that, they are both incorrect. Ahmadinejad was freely elected and, though much of his popularity has started to dry up, he has at points in his career been held in very high regard by the people who elected him. Domestically, he cut interest rates and opened up wealth to a larger segment of the population. And on an aside, he is also the first non-cleric president in the history or Iran which may explain a little bit of the excitement around his election in 2005.

In regard to the second misconception, the title of president more accurately refers to only a domestic policy high official. He was elected by the people, but his election was subject to the approval of a higher authority, the Guardian Council. When regarding the name Islamic Republic of Iran, the operative word is Islamic. Atop all hierarchies is the Supreme Leader, a position held currently by Ali Khamenei. He is in turn put in place by an elite group of pre-screened elected officials known as the Assembly of Experts. Its a little convoluted. The people select from pre-screened candidates to determine the Assembly in charge of determining the competency of a Supreme Leader, so we have the first step. Just think indirect democracy. This Leader in turn appoints a Council in charge of overseeing the positions of government elected by the people (including the president) as well as the heads of major government agencies. Just think... well council is in the name. The real power in international affairs lies in the last two bodies (the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council) as they have the right to essentially veto anything.

[If only I had a chart to illustrate this...]

The religious authority, though subject to a revolt from the Assembly of Experts, really isn't responsible to any sort of secular authority, so it becomes a bit of a mess trying to untangle the leadership from their ideology in the interest of compromise. This is where sensitivity comes into play. It is very much important to approach the leadership of Iran respectfully and tactfully, mindful of the difference in their structure. The more we try to demonize the secular figures and distance ourselves from the out-of-touch religious authority, the less we will accomplish.

I know it doesn't count for much, but the more informed we are about the situation of this country and their equally legitimate governmental structure, the more likely we are to maturely and rationally sit down with a group of great people in a region whose deep history really tells the beginning of civilization.

a new beginning

im bringing this blog back to its roots and talking strictly politics and literature and history and all of that jazz. there is no point in boring people with little status updates every six months. if im going to keep this blog, im going to use it more consistently and for its original purpose.

you may have noticed a few renovations. there are more to come :)

heres what im trying to accomplish:
-at least 3 substantive posts a week
-no more pointless blogs about how im not blogging
-a few more viewers?
-actually tag my blogs

bill richardson is a bitch (and israel palestine explained)

bill richardson withdrew himself from consideration for secretary of commerce. as you see below, im not too thrilled with him in the first place or rather what he was billed as. if youd like to know the why, its because hes under investigation and he thought it was just about over. turns out it was just getting started. and the obama folks kind of nudged him out. works for me. but i do hope everything goes alright for him. hes one of the better governors out there.

i havent really been specifically asked to post a blog on the issue, but i think the recent bombing in the gaza strip may merit a little explanation. heres the set up in the israel.

a couple of years after world war ii, it was proposed, or demanded rather, that the territory that is now israel be settled so there would not be dispute over the shit. proposition 1: divide the land into autonomous israel and palestine. run jeruselum through the governing un body. why it failed: because some people (looks at lady liberty) are way too eager to not see palestine be independent. and those some people had veto power.

so the result was an independent israel and an unofficially recognized palestine with israel in charge of jeruselum and lots of pissy people.

here recently (im skipping over lots of conflict) the palestinians elected hamas, a known terrorist organization, to head their government. hamas are evil in that they want to wipe lots of people off the face of the earth. and good in that they are well managed and have made palestine a livable place unlike the fata which was thoroughly corrupt and thrown out like republican senators in 2008. hamas bombs israel.

israel responds by declaring all out war on palestine, specifically the gaza strip, a little area of land completely distinct from the rest of palestine in that it doesnt really share close borders. yeah. the lines are fucked. i guess gerrymandering is allowed. hahaha. state politics joke no one thought was funny.

so step back and heres what we have:
-a people in palestine who are looking out for their best interest and in so doing appointed thugs to the head of government because the former ruling party thought they were invincible
-jackasses in israel still unwilling to compromise and presently unable because of the point before
-a paralyzed un
-innocent people dying

theres not really a solution either. unless the leadership of palestine decides to make huge concessions after an election down the road or israel decides to sacrifice its security or america decides to step up to the plate and stop blocking anything dealing with israel from the un floor and force some shit to get done by their bitches at the un.

oh wait. that last thing can be done. fuck off israel. fuck off palestine. nut up america. end.

the long awaited cabinet review

ok... i dont think any of you were actually waiting, but ive certainly wanted to get this done for the longest time. im not sure how im going to grade, just kind of going with the gut. i dont have any scoring system in mind.

economics:

treasury of secretary: timothy geithner
admittedly, i didnt know too much about this guy before the announcement was made, but after a little research i came to find the pick incredibly thoughtful and stunningly appropriate. the guy is a prodigy, the young former head of the new york federal reserve bank. hes very much aware of the global impact of the current crisis and has relatively extensive experience grappling with international negotiations from his time in the nineties. i think he has his finger on the pulse of this problem, the paralysis in medium sized loans and the decreased interest in encouraging private investment in crumbling (but necessary) markets. i hope something innovative comes from this guy. i think he may have the chops.

also present at the announcement of timothy geithner were

economic advisers: larry summers and paul volcher
summers worries me a bit. i think hes more focused on remedying the symptoms, trying to stop the hemorrhaging in the housing market, rushing to the aide of manufacturers. i dont much care for him. but paul volcher is a seasoned pro. the only fed chair, ive really had any respect for. he didnt just inject money he had created out of nothing into the system. he adjusted rates and kept in close contact with the private sector. i secretly think he was in the federal reserve to try to limit its sway. and that thrills me to no end for those of you who have heard me rant on economics before.


foreign affairs:

secretary of state: hilary clinton
i dont hate this choice. it was a little too political and there were a fuck of a lot more folks that i wouldve put ahead of her, but she does bring a certain level of credibility. i think she will be dynamic, and i think that she pairs well with the secretary of defense. but with such crises as what we are seeing in the former soviet union, south asia, the gaza strip, and central/eastern africa, there is no way the secretary of state really gets too much power. there needs to be a solid team around her. and i think hilary will be able to assemble such a team. so ill give her a very cautious approval. i want to start seeing this team assembled quickly.

secretary of defense: robert gates
an excellent choice. i wanted hagel, but gates has an advantage in that he doesnt strike me as a back talker. hagels too mouthy. and i think gates not only has a certain authority over his field, but also a humility in his job. with so many big heads around washington, i think that gates' biggest positive is that he may not make a splash.

national security adviser: jim jones
a conventional pick, not a bad one. i worry that he may be a little hot-headed. that he may bring too much credibility with allies and too little with others.hes phyisically imposing in stark contrast to a young waffy obama. i dont know how those styles are going to mesh. i think obama tried a little too hard to just bring in a bunch of people who hate the war in iraq more than he does without giving enough thought to how people will mesh.

commerce secretary: bill richardson
give me a break? thats all i could think to say for a second there. i dont buy for a second that richardson will have any authority, even over latin american relations and finding markets for US goods. it remains to be seen. i hope im wrong, because the little speech sounded impressive. i just dont see interstate commerce as something that will be relegated to an energy sec/ small state gov.

homeland security: janet napolitano
fuck this pick. youre going to give this job to the fuckign governor of arizona. really? because of their outstanding record on the issue. the governor has shown a complete incompetence in the field, was bound to not get elected because of the border security issue. take it back obama. take it back

health and human services: tom daschle
for some reason we're on a "czar" kick in america. we want magnanimous people to jsut run the show in certain fields. i thought this pick was moderate at best. let it be known right now, health care is not going to be improved in the next four years. we will be lucky if it is in ten years.


that should cover the big ones. ill be back with others if i get bored again.