Tonight the President of the United States of America will stride into a joint session of Congress to thunderous, bipartisan applause and take to the lofty dais from which he will deliver an address filled with goals, inspiration, conviction and occasional poetry to a waiting nation.
Then theres the other guy.
Giving the response to the State of the Union address is an unenviable task. The pageantry of the presidency gives way to the comparatively modest and lonely address of a member of the opposition party. The State of the Union is all grandeur and Hail to the Chief, and the SOTU response is a sad trombone.
But, alas, someone has to do it, and in recent years, the national parties have seen fit to push their rising stars into the slot. This year is no different, as Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, a symbol of number-crunching confidence and youth from the competitive purple state of Wisconsin, will give the response.
But as those whove gone before Ryan prove, following the president is a task fraught with pitfalls.
In 2006, it was newly elected Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine responding to George W. Bush for the Democrats. He was the embodiment of a red state painted blue, the face of Democratic promise. Unfortunately, no one checked the face of promise for facial ticks, and Tim Kaines wandering eyebrow became the most memorable part of his address a wayward chestnut caterpillar trying to exit stage left as Kaine spoke from the governors mansion in Richmond.
Ousted Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali has left his hometown of Sousse (meaning 'weevil' in Arabic). However, The infamous However... Tunisians have quickly discovered that the real weevil was in fact the President's entourage. During Ben Ali's extended rule, an influential mob was created, exploiting the country's economy via a network of accomplices and supporters, who monopolized all Tunisian walks of life, enforcing the president's autocracy. Such autocracy always breeds corruption.
Thus the departure of the President was in fact bittersweet. The chapters of the Tunisian scene continue to unfold. Today there are concentrated attempts to destroy the ruling party and bury its icons, just like what happened to the notorious Baath party in Iraq, and the Arab Socialist Union in Egypt, and what seems will happen soon in Sudan and Yemen. As political score settling takes on its familiar form, lessons still need to be learnt from Tunisia.
The Tunisian snowball continues to roll. Some preachers and holy mans have tried to capitalize on the current scene, but instead have stuttered in confusion. They have stood divided between blessing Mohammed Bouazzi's self-immolation as a selfless act that sparked the revolution, and condemning the deed as suicide. Yet it was these preachers and holy mans who justified, hailed, and glorified suicide kabooms years ago. Up until this day, we are still paying in blood for their endorsement of such action.
Committing suicide is the same in every case, regardless of the motive. A sin is a sin no matter how much someone tries to embellish it. There can be no justification, just as those who try to consolidate and institutionalize social discrimination within society cannot be justified. They are expressing views and issuing fatwas akin to the Nazi ideology, rather than Islam. Unfortunately, such acts are committed in the name of religion as a result of ignorance and radicalism.
[Away from Tunisia] the secession of Southern Sudan is officially underway, via an internationally-observed referendum, yet al-Bashir remains in power. As the referendum was being conducted, his troops sought to eliminate the military presence of all factions in Darfur. Thus al-Bashir exploited the referendum period to temporarily gain an advantage in Darfur, as being in power is more important than peace!
Soddy Arabia's Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal recently sounded his famous warning about the division of Leb, (just as he previously forewarned of foreign parties embarking on 'small adventures' within the country), and has predicted forthcoming dangers. It is ironic today that the Lebanese issue lies in the hands of Michel Aoun ...a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hizbullah... and Walid Wally Jumblatt. ... who's been on every side in Leb at least four times... I don't think I need to elaborate on this!
Yemen is now witnessing new signs of civil unrest and rebellion, which have surfaced recently. The government is trying to hold fresh rounds of dialogue, but there is a clear lack of trust between the parties involved, and negotiations will therefore be an impossible task.
Meanwhile, ...back at the ranch... Soddy Arabia has washed its hands of the whole Lebanese affair. I personally believe that the time was right to do so. Let the Lebanese deal with their own issues for a while, for they have worn us out extensively.
The poor Lebanese are either tools of Iran and/or Syria, and respond only to their conflicting desires, or they're on the outside, trying to maneuver for space while waiting for their masters to decide. What the Lebanese might want really isn't the issue, since they haven't gotten it since the civil war of the '70s.
Thus the Arabs wake up every day in a state of anxiety and suspicion, with only one question on their minds: Where will the next incident occur today?
Posted by: Fred ||
01/25/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It is more complex then this, China is measured per person a very poor country, it will continue to be so for quite a long time. It is hard to use your economic muscle when so much of your resources is required for basic items. The other problem is like Japan, China has a massive aging population problem.
The United States still has formidable strengths. Its economy will eventually recover. Its military has a global presence and a technological edge that no other country can yet match. But America will never again experience the global dominance it enjoyed in the 17 years between the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 and the financial crisis of 2008. Those days are over.
#5
I don't believe we have to decline just because China is doing well. We are declining because we have become fat, lazy, immoral and corrupt. If the Chinese take advantage of our weakness, who can blame them? Give us another Great Depression and we might smarten up a little bit. Either that or we'll slip into permanent Third World status.
#6
because we have become fat, lazy, immoral and corrupt.
Well, some of us have E.bbang, who's in need of a pointer on who they voted for in the last two decades. Actually, Clinton is to blame for making it too easy for China to take advantage of the trade imbalance. Americans are not lazy we work longer and more than most western countries, just because China is a money grubbing kung pow weasel is not Joe's Blow's fault.
Posted by: Fire and Ice ||
01/25/2011 15:11 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Actually, Clinton is to blame for making it too easy for China to take advantage of the trade imbalance.
Didn't the majority of us vote for Clinton? Even after we all knew how Monica's dress got soiled? That's fat, lazy, immoral and corrupt if you ask me. Might as well add ignorant while you're at it. True, there are still some who are lean and mean and serve with honor. Some of us still put in an honest day's work. But I'm afraid there are too many who are looking for an easy way out, too many couch potatoes, too many welfare moms and deadbeat dads. I don't see it getting any better either.
#8
Mo, the majority did not vote for Clinton. In each election he won a plurality with a big assist from H. Ross Perot. More than any other person we have him to thank for BJ
#9
Nimbel, I knew I was gonna get pinged on that. But the fact remains the sleazoid got elected. That's disturbing. And then Bummer gets elected. Think I'm gonna walk the dog tonight just to get away from the TV.
The first to seize on the political potential of government workers was New York's Mayor Robert F. Wagner. The Kennedy White House took notice of his success.
#1
He was right then & he's right now. FDR noted that "a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."
Outlawing unions of federal & state employees would be a huge step in the right direction to economic recovery.
#2
Democratic governments by definition represent the people as a whole. It therefore is sovereign in its nature. Unions which represent but a small portion of the population can not negotiate as an equal for such acts grant the few rule over the many without the consent of the many.
People have the right of free assembly, association and to petition the government. Unions do not have the right to strike or to tax by mandatory withholding of earnings by government connivance to subsidize those aforementioned acts.
#3
The latest numbers indicate that 11.9 of wage and salary workers belong to a union. Public unions are included in that number. About 1/3 of publically-employed workers belong to a public union.
How is it democratic that such a small number of people have so much power and influence? How is it democratic that they call the shots for the entire country? Either do away with public unions or have a national-right-to-work law that does not require a worker belong to a union as a condition of employment. I'd prefer the former solution.
It is generally assumed that states, like individuals, benefit from their mistakes, and evaluate their experiences, especially when dealing with particular issues. However, The infamous However... this is not the case with the Syrian position, in terms of dealing with Leb, specifically the International Tribunal, and nominations for the next Prime Minister.
Regarding the parliamentary ruling [in 2004] to extend former Lebanese President Emile Lahoud's term in office, Damascus insisted on him staying in power at any price, knowing that it would then be easier to bring in another pro-Syrian President afterwards. At the time, Damascus seemed as if it was playing in accordance with the rules of the game in Leb. Syria ignored all warnings and extended Lahoud's term in office, in what was considered to be a landslide Syrian victory. However, The other infamous However... what actually happened was to the contrary. The move was costly for Damascus and brought serious consequences, consequences which ultimately came to a head when the Syrian President announced, in front of his parliament, that his country had made mistakes in Leb. On that same day, he even announced his intention to withdraw the Syrian army from there!
Today, Lebanese affairs are following the same pattern, whereby Damascus is repeating its mistakes. In the event that Hezbullies's project is victorious, in its attempt to seize the whole of Leb, Syria will be the loser. If the situation erupted -- and this is both likely and expected -- then the Syrians will pay the price and take the blame. If Hezbullies's project is victorious, Tehran will be in control, and Iran will reap the fruits of this success, not Damascus. In such a case no one would go to Syria to negotiate, but instead everyone -- yes everyone -- would negotiate with Iran, instead of Syria. Why would there be a mediator so long as Iran is the dominant force? This is what Iran is explicitly seeking, and has told the West very clearly, amidst the backdrop of negotiations surrounding its nuclear program. Tehran's search for a regional role must be recognized by the West, because it holds the keys to the troubled areas of the region, and this is no secret!
If the Iranian project was to fail in Leb, the situation may still erupt, and this [eruption] is expected as I said previously. Damascus would bear the consequences of this, faced by the Lebanese first and foremost. This would deepen the gap between the two neighbors, and it would subsequently be difficult to build any wall of confidence between the Syrians and the Arabs, and matters would worsen. Arabs will deal with Damascus in accordance with past experiences, rather than listening to its promises and the same can be said of the West. Furthermore, such a scenario would also create tensions within Syria itself, and this is an obvious matter which does not require further analysis.
Hezbullies's control over Leb would inevitably fuel sectarian sentiments, and awaken the Sunni fundamentalist giant, which is currently stirring and has a genuine presence. Then it would not matter whether Hezbullies had light or heavy arms with which to intimidate its opponents, for it only takes one thug to have the same impact as an artillery assault. This is something we have seen in sectarian conflicts throughout the Arab and Islamic world, and we have witnessed the extent of its damage.
Syria's interpretation of the current situation is a dangerous one, because it is an old interpretation of a new case; or rather it has not developed over time. The current situation comes in light of changing global conditions, and dramatic changes in the rules of the game, while following up on the daily occurrences will stop many from asking the question; when will they learn?
Posted by: Fred ||
01/25/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
...In 1950, the literary critic Lionel Trilling wrote that "Liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition." Conservatives, by contrast, didn't have ideas, only "irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." But then came William F. Buckley and the National Review, and then Irving Kristol and the Public Interest, and then Robert Bartley of this editorial page. And then came Fox News, and Fox Sports, and Fox Business, and Fox Everything.
With each new iteration of conservative thought, every new conservative encroachment on a previously placid domain, the liberal reaction began to evolve, from indifference to condescension to irritation to tantrum. By the time Mr. Olbermann got into the business, the tantrum had given way to something stronger. Intellectual eclampsia. His genius was to embody it.
That's something conservatives can applaud, even if they aren't exactly grateful for it. At least until the last couple of years, when President Bush's retirement deprived Mr. Olbermann of his premier foil, "Countdown" consistently passed the market test. He served his audience. He put MSNBC on the map. He pushed CNN into third place. He earned his $30 million contract.
Nor was Mr. Olbermann only good for capitalism. For a long time, the dominant mode of liberal argument was to ironize, or tut-tut, or dissemble, or manipulate the terms of discourse, or stack the deck in debates that are supposed to be balanced. The "Countdown" host did away with the old-fashioned liberal snigger and replaced it with a full-frontal snarl.
Put simply, Mr. Olbermann had a genuine faith in populism, something liberals more often preach than practice. Say what you will about his on-air rants, I'll take them any day over the subterfuges used by NPR to fire Juan Williams.
All this matters in an era in which the greatest threat to public discourse isn't "incivility," as was so preposterously claimed after Tucson....Rather, the real threat is Good Morning America-style niceness, USA Today-style consensus-seeking, all-round squeamishness when it comes to words like "Islam," the political masquerade of "news analysis" from papers like the New York Times, and so on. In today's media landscape, audiences are being presented with a choice between voices who are honest (at least about their biases) but not objective, and those who claim to be objective but are rarely honest. Not surprisingly, Americans increasingly prefer the former.... For much the same reason, I kind of prefer the likes of Alan Grayson to the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Grayson said out loud in public what people like Reid and Pelosi truly believe, but which they only say behind closed doors, and only when they think the rest of us aren't paying attention.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/25/2011 08:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why I'll Miss Keith Olbermann.
That's one. I'm not surprised at the underwhelming numbers.
Unanimously reversing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the third time in a week, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that state prisoners have no constitutional right to be paroled.
The decision rebuked the San Francisco-based appeals court for ordering the parole of several inmates who had been convicted of murder or attempted murder.
All three of the opinions overturned in the past week were written by veteran liberal Judge Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles.
In Monday's decision, the justices said Reinhardt and the 9th Circuit were wrong to second-guess the California parole board and the state courts for denying parole to Damon Cooke of Los Angeles, who was convicted of the attempted murder of a friend in Berkeley in 1991.
Cooke was given a term of up to life in prison, and the parole board said he "would pose an unreasonable risk to society if released from prison."
Cooke appealed and lost in the state courts, but last year, Reinhardt and the 9th Circuit said parole officials did not have enough evidence to justify denying him parole. The California attorney general's office appealed and, without hearing arguments in the case, the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit in an unsigned opinion.
"There is no right under the federal Constitution to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the states are under no duty to offer parole to their prisoners," the justices said in Swarthout vs. Cooke. "That should have been the beginning and the end" of the matter in the federal courts.
California prosecutors said that since Reinhardt's ruling last June, several dozen state inmates had won parole from federal judges, and several hundred more appeals were pending. Reinhardt is a piece of work. Appointed by Carter, he is known is known as one of the most liberal judges in the country. And perhaps the most overturned-by-the-SCOTUS judge in the country. He is the one who overruled California voters in overturning Prop 8.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
It is generally assumed that states, like individuals, benefit from their mistakes, and evaluate their experiences, especially when dealing with particular issues. 
