thepoliticalnoise http://virb.com/2632158994574256 Virb 2.0 (@2632158994574256) en You Can Take Your Bi-Partisanship and... http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/1079336
What makes me so angry is that this hope and change guy who Republicans are crying wolf about might be saying that he is too liberal that he is trying to change too much have not figured out that he wants to govern from the center. Frankly, I do not care what they think. The great republican talking point has been that he is repeating the same mistakes that FDR had made and it took the WWII to get us out of the horrible situation. Well that is a lie. What are lies? The are little truths stuck with a made up story to go around them. What they do not understand that is after the election in 1936 when FDR raised taxes and cut spending (in an act of bi-partisanship) the economy went in such a free fall that it took a WORLD WAR to get them out of the situation.

The last major mandate the American people had happened during Reagan's first term. Except this time interest rates cannot be cut anymore to help stimulate economy because they are already at record levels. Also he cut the tax rate on the highest tax bracket from 70 to 27 percent which at the time did stimulate the economy some but did not bring sustained growth and thus by end of his term he raised taxes multiple times (gasp!) and he did not make government smaller. In fact he added cabinet level offices and expanded the government.

Which brings me today. In the big picture the stimulus/spending bill that will help jump start the economy is not going to be the magic pill for all of our woes. It does not have enough infrastructure in it and at a time where the United States needs new bridges and roads this bill fails miserably. There are many a district where there party splitters in this election. Where the people of the district split the ticket because many of the members are moderate and they campaigned on bi-partisanship and change. My view is let them kick up dust, cry wolf and threaten to filibuster. I want them to do that. I want to see how it would play out. They will not filibuster at all and the empty threats. Let them vote no. Let them have to run on the record of the next two year of obstruction. My guess is that they will not, for they will be scared. Scared that someone will call their bluff and they will have to find somewhere else to spread their anti-government rhetoric, you know somewhere that is not government.

James]]> Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:26:53 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/1079336 Shoe Throwing, Round Two http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/1068731 Muntadar al-Zaidi, was praised by some for his courageous action. I thought it was a decision made in poor taste, it was insolent, and clearly showed the man had a lack of restraint. I actually think he was a coward and doesn't deserve this praise. But my entry isn't about this event.

China's Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, just had a shoe thrown at him when he was at Cambridge University. My reaction was, "He may be a jerk, but he didn't do anything to warrant a shoe being thrown at him." China hasn't had any new tricks in a while. What could it have possibly done in a time like this that it would make the news for something non-economy related? Turns out it really wasn't something China has done recently.

My second reaction was, "Really? A shoe? That's the best they could do?" Why can't people be original with their insults? When Nikita Kruschev took his shoe off at the United Nations and said he would bury the United States, was there an outbreak of political figures copying him? No. The author mentions that the protestor, who threw his shoe at Prime Minister Wen Jiabo, was angry about China's handling of Tibet. The situation with Tibet has been going on for more than 8 years. What, all of a sudden it takes an Olympic game to make people take action?

So this brings me to my third reaction: "I hate people who jump on the political bandwagon." They think it's cool and bad-ass to throw shoes because of one moron. And you know what, of all people to throw a shoe at next, the Prime Minister of China?? It just makes no sense to me. Why not someone who has screwed up majorly? This shoe throwing thing is like a Trojan Horse. It only works the first time around. As it was said in the article, "The first one who threw shoes was a genius...The second one was a pig-head."

- Nathalie]]> Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:27:00 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/1068731 Iceland: Failure or Future http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/1068730 Netherlands. The Netherlands are to seem very peaceful about such animosity and have called for the Iceland to join the European Union but with some provisions. They are worried about Iceland's high interest rates and ambitions on joining the European Union which they believe is happening too fast. It was about time they focused their hatred on something other then hating Turkey for not being European enough.
The government in Iceland which has been center-right and in power for eighteen years has prevented talks and overtures from mainland Europe to join The Union. This is important because the culture shift in Iceland is astounding. The left government will more then likely win power in the emergency elections held in May. It should be stated it usually takes years for countries to join the EU and Iceland is going to do it in less then two years.

Iceland might be setting a precedent. It is the first industrial nation to go under and have their currency wiped out. The EU is doing this to help bring the Euro to Iceland and give the country some stability in their uncertain time. The government has turned has done a one-eighty. There are many countries though that might be seeing large scale changes within the next year to two years and they include but are not limited to: Italy, Ireland, Spain, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Portugal and Canada. This does not mean the Head of State or even the Head of Government will change but the make up for government especially at the lower levels will almost certainly experience change.

James
]]> Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:26:59 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/1068730 Going Prorogue, Canada's Political Game http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/985538 Canada. Yes, that's correct, Canada. Most people (Americans) aren't aware that they recently had an election in which the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, was re-elected. Well his administration has barely been in place for 2 months when they were maple syrup slapped with the threat of a no-confidence vote.

I can see the questions already on your faces. I'm going to try and break it down as simply as I can.

What the hell is a no-confidence vote?
- In parliamentary style governments, instead of impeaching their head of state/chief executive, they have a no-confidence vote.

Why is this happening?
-Apparently Harper didn't show enough concern over the economy during these hard times. The opposition parties got pissed enough to want to oust him.

Well the plot thickens. This no-confidence vote would have happened last week had Harper not run crying to Canada's Governor General Michaelle Jean (representative of the Queen, the British one) asking her to suspend (prorogue) parliament until next month so that he could keep his job a little while longer. She decided to grant his wish, so this is to be continued until late January. This is the most excitement Canada has seen in perhaps forever.

You know how those surveys that show us how much knowledge the average American has about U.S. government (which don't have very inspiring results)? Well Canadians aren't any better. Apparently some don't even know they have a constitutional monarchy.

Is the call for a no-confidence vote an appropriate response for Harper's failure to adequately address Canadian economic worries? From what I can tell, this is all politically driven and it's not coming from the people. As you will see from the clip I've included, Harper has a 46% approval rating. However I can't help but agree with the critics who say that Harper is acting cowardly in this situation. On the other hand, the situation reeks of dysfunction if his government has to be questioned so soon.


- Nathalie]]> Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:12:46 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/985538 League of Democracies http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/985537
In the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs Charles A. Kupchan writes against supporting a league of democracies. I found that I agreed with many of his points.

Upon first hearing this "league of democracies," the name itself sounds fantastic. It evokes a positive image, perhaps things will get done if there was a league of democracies around. It is supposed to be a more effective option than the UN. However this shining ideal of a league of democracies assumes if countries have democracy in common, they will have the same goals. One only need to look at the current political scape to see that isn't true. Having democracy in common does not guarantee that countries want the same thing or that they would take the same course of action.

The countries that would most likely be included already work together. Is it really necessary to form another elite group when they already flock to one another? If anything, shouldn't they try to work with these non-democratic countries? Kupchan writes, "shutting down nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, fighting terrorism, curbing global warming, managing energy supplies, and building regional security orders in East Asian and the Persian Gulf will require the help of illiberal regimes." Democracies can't do it all on their own, that much is clear. A league of democracies in these cases may limit their options for a course of action.

By creating an official "democratic vs. non-democratic" divide, there are those who believe this will make the non-democratic countries want to be more democratic. I think it will only serve to make the countries which are left out to retaliate with the creation of a "Rival Plastics" clique (Yes, I did use a Mean Girls reference. I'm ashamed, I'm sorry readers). So where does that leave the world? And what does one do with the countries who think they're legitimate democracies, when they're upset they didn't get the embossed invitation?

By having a league of democracies, some believe that it will make countries more active because they will be unable to "shirk their responsibilities." They have to carry their weight since there will not be a Russia or China to get in their way. My response to this is that freeloading isn't something one can get rid of, and who's to say that other countries won't step up to become substitutes for Russia and China.

It sounds like a good idea at first, having a league of democracies, but I believe it will only create more problems.

- Nathalie]]> Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:12:46 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/985537 Hot Rod http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/975426 tried to sell President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat.

Can I really add anything to the comments already circulating about this incident? No. I won't even try to maintain a somewhat scholarly attitude about it. The guy was a dumbass. Straight up dumbass. That was my initial reaction upon waking up and seeing the headlines. I can't say that I was surprised. I've been waiting for scandals to pop up. When people want to split hairs because they're sore losers and they want to create "born" conspiracies, I'm just glad that something of substance came along. Most people believe all politicians are corrupt, so on some level this does anger me because I know there are good people who trying to make a difference. Hot Rod is living up to the stereotype. It is also unfortunate that it has to be a scandal taking place in Illinois, a place with a history for corrupt politics. Let's hope that justice is adminstered and Mr. Hot Rod is punished for being crooked.

- Nathalie]]> Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:10:45 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/975426 Trouble in Bangkok http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/961434 Somchai Wongsawat must step down. His party, the People Power Party (PPP), must also disband and all its leaders are banned from politics for 5 years.

I find it sweetly ironic. When Thailand used to be Siam, it was able to resist being conquered by the West while its neighbors fell one by one, and were incorporated into what was known as Indochina. Thailand, a country known for its hookers and narcotics with Buddhist temples in the middle of an exotic paradise, is now rotting from the inside because of the corruption in its government. Up until recently, it has only operated as a democracy in name only. This is a country known for having coups. They just can't seem to get corruption out of the system.

And now onto a slight hang up I have.

Issan, a northern province, has long been the butt of jokes in Thailand because they are too much like the people of Laos, with whom they share a border with. However this rural area counts for 1/3 of the votes. Most people have never heard of Laos. If you're an avid King of the Hill watcher, then perhaps it may ring a bell-Khan and "What ocean?" Most people don't understand how closely connected Thailand and Laos are. They have similar customs, languages, and people. It was only a mere twist of fate or a fluke that it was Laos who fell under French imperialism instead of Thailand. How dare they belittle Laos when it is Thailand who is falling apart? This once and mighty country of Siam who was strong enough to keep the West out?

The people of Issan never mattered in elections and politicans never cared about them. The state ignored them and never gave them opportunities. That is until the day now exiled and military ousted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (from the PPP) went to Issan and directly courted their votes. My feelings on this? Just because someone smiles at you and offers you a cow, doesn't make you smart. These people sold out and were willing to overlook a devil.

The number one qualm of the People's Alliance for Democracy (anti-failing government) is that the followers of the PPP are uneducated. They are ignorant and don't know who or what they are voting for. Of course this will ruin any democracy. And of course the rural ignorant folk hate being called out for actually being a spade. Are the grassroots of PPP ignorant and uneducated? These people didn't care about politics before Thaksin Shinawatra came along. After having been touched by him, they claim to have a new politcal self awareness. Oh Thaksin, you have made these country bumpkins see what democracy can do for them!

My parting thought then is this: if these people were so educated, and maybe this is an American/Western bias, they should have known that you have to assert your rights and fight to make your voice matter when you're marginalized or stepped upon, because it won't be given to you.

-Nathalie]]> Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:25:50 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/961434 Georgia Said, Russia Said http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/959522 same commission and denies that Georgia started it, and also he says that Kitsmarishvili has no idea what he's talking about.

I think the world was quick to vilify Russia for its role. Many condemned Russia's aggression because its actions violated Georgia's sovereignty. Up until now it has been a game of "Georgia said, Russia said" as to who really initiated the fighting. As documented by Olesya Vartanyan and Ellen Barry of the New York Times, "Georgia said it launched an attack on the South Ossetian captial, Tskhinvali, because a Russian invasion was under way. Russia says it sent combat troops into the enclave to protect civilians and peacekeepers after Georgia's offensive had begun."

The West has been too willing to place the blame on Russia because of the rivalry, or the ghost of an old rivalry between the two countries. The West in wishing to further keep Russia down, glosses over the fact that Georgia was firing on civilians- President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered the attack himself. Georgia is walking away from this incident with not even a slap on the wrist. I find this utterly ridiculous. While Russia is the runt of the liberal democracy litter, this doesn't mean the world should be so quick to condemn Russia when it is actually doing something right, such as protecting innocent civilians.

I am by no means a Russophile. I think the hope we all had for Russia to better itself under President Dmitry Medvedev died when this incident happened. I am just sick and tired of everyone thinking and saying that Russia is in the wrong just because they can't get out of the 1950s and need a reason to continue hating Russia.


-Nathalie]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 06:51:30 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/959522 Candidates for Secretary of State http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942553
Hillary Clinton
  • Former First Lady
  • Lost the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination to Barack Obama
  • Currently a Senator (D) from New York
  • Serves on the following committees: Armed Services; Environment & Public Works; Health, Education, Labor & Pensions; and Aging

Chuck Hagel
  • Currently a Senator (R) from Nebraska
  • Served in Vietnam, recipient of 2 Purple Hearts
  • Serves on the following committees: Foreign Relations; Banking; Housing and Urban Affairs; Intelligence and Rules

John Kerry
  • Currently a Senator (D) from Massachusetts
  • Democratic Candidate for President in 2004
  • Also served in Vietnam
  • Serves on the following committees: Foreign Relations; Finance; Commerce, Science and Transportation

Bill Richardson
  • Currently Governor (D) of New Mexico
  • Was in the race to be the 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate
  • Former Energy Secretary, former Ambassador to the United Nations (both during the Clinton Administration)
  • Nominated 5 times for the Nobel Prize

Despite consistently being brought up, I think John Kerry has the least chance of being offered this position. Being in the Foreign Relations Committee certainly awards points in his favor because he is already well versed on the issues that America and the world faces. But as Michael Tomasky of the The Guardian writes, when he named Kerry as a viable candidate, a good portion of the audience reacted negatively. While this was a selective setting, I really feel the reaction would only be mirrored when put to the people. The election of 2004 left a sour taste in our mouths. How relevant can he be if he has become the party's punchline? Kerry has expressed a wish to be the next chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and I think the best decision would be to keep him there.

I also do not believe that Chuck Hagel is a contender. Just like Kerry, Obama and Biden, Hagel serves on the Foreign Relations Committee. However I believe that Hagel's name is only being thrown around simply because he is a Republican. In fact, his is the only Republican name that is murmured overwhelmingly as a candidate for Secretary of State. Obama has made statements saying that he would like to have a mixed cabinet of Democrats and Republicans, and by offering this position to Hagel, Obama would certainly do just that. But is Hagel the right choice? I feel there are two other candidates who are more qualified.

That leaves us with Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson. Obama has met with both of them this week, so we already know he is seriously considering them for this position. Word has yet to come out about other meetings with any other candidates.

Let's start with the obvious problems when it comes to Clinton. She comes off more hawkish than Obama. Yes we need a strong character for dealing with the world, but I'm worried that in this position she will do more harm than good. We just had 8 years of warmongering, is it really necessary to continue with that trait in foreign policy? I'm not at all advocating that we become passive, but we cannot perpetuate these militaristic tendencies if we are to rebuild ourselves in the way other nations perceive us. When speaking of Hillary, we must bring up Bill. Is it too far fetched to think that he would be somewhat of nuisance, being an ex-president and being so close( via Hillary) to the White House again that he's not going to want to put his 2 cents in? Perhaps it will be like a sequel to the Bill Clinton Administration, he's always going to be there with "advice" and stories such as "That one time I was in the Oval Office..."

As a former First Lady, Hillary has been there and knows what is expected. It is a very strong point for her having been across the globe with Bill and meeting with other world leaders. It would not be that daunting of a task if she were to become Secretary of State. Obama knows that Hillary would be a very good asset to him. He also wants to pull a page out of President Abraham Lincoln's book and build his own team of rivals. Hillary was definitely one of his biggest rivals on the road to this election. Can one blame Obama for wanting to emulate one of the greatest presidents we've ever had?

Moving on to Bill Richardson, I will be the first to admit that I would be a little worried because I don't think he's one of the best speakers around. His somewhat disastrous term as Energy Secretary under Bill Clinton is also a mar on his record, however where he does excel is that he has experience negotiating with leaders from nations like Sudan and North Korea. In fact, out of all these candidates he is the only one who has had any real experience in doing this. As Secretary of State he will be putting his diplomatic skills to great use. Because of his continued efforts in this area, he was nominated not once, but 5 times for a Nobel Prize. The international community recognized his accomplishments. He also was ambassador to the United Nations in Bill Clinton's administration, so that is evidence right there that Richardson was deemed capable and competent by the United States in representing the country and our interests when working with an international body.

Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson are the big contenders for this position. My pick would be Bill Richardson.

-Nathalie]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:10:41 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942553 No Time For Mistakes. http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942552 here . Why is this current story important? It shows that this is a past mistake that America keeps making. These are things that leaders around the world know about but they are too afraid to make public because the general public are usually....not the brightest.

The point to make is that in these uncertain times, and I generally do not believe media hype to drive fear to their channels just so they can promote advertising but in this case, I do not think that Americans generally understand the severity of America being in an actual crisis. They hear routinely that were are on the wrong path especially in times of election, but this is different. This is not the early eighties or early nineties. The problem with the United States is that we are just getting into a recession. We are not actually there yet. In order to be there we have to have two or more quarters of negative growth.

What does the first story with the ongoing rant have to do with this post. It is to remind people that even though America has the smartest, and best, and brightest, that we do stupid things that bring us back to world ridicule. Moving forward with the new administration it does not matter who is in what post or whom is leading the United States, it's about being that best and brightest beacon of light for the rest of the world. We need not to make mistakes as we have done in other war times or crisis, we must be better. And we cannot just be good, we have to be perfect. Then, only then, will people respect the fact that we are the best country, not because we say we are, but because we proved it....again.

James]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:10:41 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942552 Playing With My Liberal Fantasies http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942551
DEFENSE SECRETARY
Current: Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

New One: Chuck Hagel - The soon to be former senator from Nebraska has shown staunch position from Iraq war for a while now and while being a friend of John McCain had no problem chastising him in the press for perceived naivety.

TREASURY SECRETARY

Current: Henry Paulson
New One: Paul Volcker- He worked under Presidents Carter and Reagan as Federal Reserve Chairman and although this would be only one term (as most of these appointments tend to be and he is 81) has insight that is needed in a time of crisis.

SECRETARY OF STATE
Current: Condoleezza Rice

New One- It may be Hillary Clinton and more power to her, she does more for standing then actually substance in this position but I think that she would be better served as Ambassador to the UN, but I do not think that position is sexy enough for her. I think it should be Daniel Inouye. Who you might ask? He is only the third highest ranking democratic senator, the first representative of Hawaii after it became a state and it does one of two things: Brings a man of great military experience into an office that I believe should have it and it softens relations with Hawai'i which has a growing sentiment that it should be independent. Problem is that Hawai'i has a republican governor (and thus changing the balance in the new senate) and he is a big friend of Ted Stevens which has put him on icy terms with Senate Leader Harry Reid. ]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:10:40 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942551 Making Noise- KGB Style http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942550 http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/10290

One of my problems with Sarkozy is that he tries to prove France is still a relevant world power, that the European Union isn't the only place he can puff out his chest because he's overcompensating. It's not enough that he struts around Brussels and Paris, he must strut across the world stage with that puffed out chest of his. Does he think because of this overcompensation that France's former colonies will sway and come running, wanting to be conquered again? I don't know what else it's going to take for France to realize that it is not what it used to be.

Can I just say how tickled I am that we are shown Putin's true colors in a situation like this. I mean is this just the old KGB in our buddy Putin coming out? He somehow thought this was an appropriate thing to say to another head of state and he got caught saying it. But then to top it off, it is Sarkozy who winds up putting Putin in his place! Really? The French are going to get the last word?

Putin has done a lot of things that have made Russia less of a liberal democracy and many people (the West) fear that even with Medvedev as President, it's really Putin making the calls. The Russian people have been more than willing to relinquish their rights, it will be interesting to see if it will turn out just as Sarkozy said, "Yes but do you want to end up like [President] Bush?" When the Russians wake up from their pseudo democratic slumber, will they still think of Putin in a favorable light?


-Nathalie]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:10:38 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942550 Push It To The Limit, Algeria http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942549 Algeria's legislators voted to rid itself of its presidential 2 term limit. This would allow current President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who is serving his second term, to run for re-election in April. My gut reaction on not having a presidential term limit is that THIS IS BAD. Algeria is taking a step back in terms of democracy, and it is giving an opportunity for a tyrant/dictator to step in. Bouteflika is 71 years old and has already been in power for 10 years. He could quite possibly be president of Algeria for the rest of his life. While he has not yet explicitly said he will run again, it is to be expected that he will. The presidential elections of 1999 and 2004 were riddled with suspicious activity, and if it were not for the military backing Boutflika would not even be president.

Those who "support" Algeria having no limit on presidential terms feel that this will somehow "strengthen" the politcal system in Algeria (forget about democracy!). It has been racked with terrorism and the government's response has been to use a firm hand to deal with it. Perhaps by having someone else step in as president Algeria will only spiral into chaos. Or perhaps it won't. By allowing Bouteflika another term, Algeria may be able to pursue any form of stability as it continues to rebuild itself. It was only 40 years ago that it won its independence from France, but the internal fight for control over the country has never stopped.

Supporters also said that by having no term limit it would not affect the "balance of powers." This would be laughable in our democracy and just about any other democracy that is working well. I think it would disrupt the balance of powers somewhat. Just somewhat. How they came up with this idea, I'd like to know. How does the reasoning behind that make any sense? Well I suppose if the legislature and the courts are controlled by Bouteflika, that allowing him to stay in office will not affect them at all because he is the source of power.

Maybe I've got the wrong idea here, but what's the point of having a constitution if it isn't going to be followed? It was made very clear that they bypassed the will of the people by only having parliament vote on this. What were they afraid of?

Algeria has prided itself on being a secular democracy and has served as a liaison between the West and the Muslim world. It is because Algeria is the middle man that it is important we pay attention to what happens here. It is an influential member of many international groups, among them the United Nations, the African Union, OPEC, and the Arab League. It also serves as a model for other countries who are hoping to become secular democracies. If Algeria fails, what happens then?


-Nathalie

]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:10:38 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942549 Candidates for Secretary of State http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942548
Hillary Clinton
  • Former First Lady
  • Lost the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination to Barack Obama
  • Currently a Senator (D) from New York
  • Serves on the following committees: Armed Services; Environment & Public Works; Health, Education, Labor & Pensions; and Aging

Chuck Hagel
  • Currently a Senator (R) from Nebraska
  • Served in Vietnam, recipient of 2 Purple Hearts
  • Serves on the following committees: Foreign Relations; Banking; Housing and Urban Affairs; Intelligence and Rules

John Kerry
  • Currently a Senator (D) from Massachusetts
  • Democratic Candidate for President in 2004
  • Also served in Vietnam
  • Serves on the following committees: Foreign Relations; Finance; Commerce, Science and Transportation

Bill Richardson
  • Currently Governor (D) of New Mexico
  • Was in the race to be the 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate
  • Former Energy Secretary, former Ambassador to the United Nations (both during the Clinton Administration)
  • Nominated 5 times for the Nobel Prize

Despite consistently being brought up, I think John Kerry has the least chance of being offered this position. Being in the Foreign Relations Committee certainly awards points in his favor because he is already well versed on the issues that America and the world faces. But as Michael Tomasky of the The Guardian writes, when he named Kerry as a viable candidate, a good portion of the audience reacted negatively. While this was a selective setting, I really feel the reaction would only be mirrored when put to the people. The election of 2004 left a sour taste in our mouths. How relevant can he be if he has become the party's punchline? Kerry has expressed a wish to be the next chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and I think the best decision would be to keep him there.

I also do not believe that Chuck Hagel is a contender. Just like Kerry, Obama and Biden, Hagel serves on the Foreign Relations Committee. However I believe that Hagel's name is only being thrown around simply because he is a Republican. In fact, his is the only Republican name that is murmured overwhelmingly as a candidate for Secretary of State. Obama has made statements saying that he would like to have a mixed cabinet of Democrats and Republicans, and by offering this position to Hagel, Obama would certainly do just that. But is Hagel the right choice? I feel there are two other candidates who are more qualified.

That leaves us with Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson. Obama has met with both of them this week, so we already know he is seriously considering them for this position. Word has yet to come out about other meetings with any other candidates.

Let's start with the obvious problems when it comes to Clinton. She comes off more hawkish than Obama. Yes we need a strong character for dealing with the world, but I'm worried that in this position she will do more harm than good. We just had 8 years of warmongering, is it really necessary to continue with that trait in foreign policy? I'm not at all advocating that we become passive, but we cannot perpetuate these militaristic tendencies if we are to rebuild ourselves in the way other nations perceive us. When speaking of Hillary, we must bring up Bill. Is it too far fetched to think that he would be somewhat of nuisance, being an ex-president and being so close( via Hillary) to the White House again that he's not going to want to put his 2 cents in? Perhaps it will be like a sequel to the Bill Clinton Administration, he's always going to be there with "advice" and stories such as "That one time I was in the Oval Office..."

As a former First Lady, Hillary has been there and knows what is expected. It is a very strong point for her having been across the globe with Bill and meeting with other world leaders. It would not be that daunting of a task if she were to become Secretary of State. Obama knows that Hillary would be a very good asset to him. He also wants to pull a page out of President Abraham Lincoln's book and build his own team of rivals. Hillary was definitely one of his biggest rivals on the road to this election. Can one blame Obama for wanting to emulate one of the greatest presidents we've ever had?

Moving on to Bill Richardson, I will be the first to admit that I would be a little worried because I don't think he's one of the best speakers around. His somewhat disastrous term as Energy Secretary under Bill Clinton is also a mar on his record, however where he does excel is that he has experience negotiating with leaders from nations like Sudan and North Korea. In fact, out of all these candidates he is the only one who has had any real experience in doing this. As Secretary of State he will be putting his diplomatic skills to great use. Because of his continued efforts in this area, he was nominated not once, but 5 times for a Nobel Prize. The international community recognized his accomplishments. He also was ambassador to the United Nations in Bill Clinton's administration, so that is evidence right there that Richardson was deemed capable and competent by the United States in representing the country and our interests when working with an international body.

Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson are the big contenders for this position. My pick would be Bill Richardson.

-Nathalie]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:10:38 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942548 Little Japanese City vs. Yakuza http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942547 Kurume with AK-47s. The Dojinkai gang had been gathering at their headquarters since 1986. There were no real complaints other than sometimes talking loudly on cell phones and not properly disposing garbage. The yakauza are known for keeping disputes between themselves and not involving civilians. But once the AK-47s showed up, there was a change in the ballgame.

The people of Kurume suddenly grew bold and decided they wanted the yakuza out of their town because they wanted to live in peace. So what did they do? They brought up a lawsuit against the Dojinkai, trying to make the Dojinkai leave. This is the first case of its kind in Japan. No one has ever tried taking a legal stand against the yakuza. The citizens just want the problem (yakuza) to leave. However this would only move the problem to another town and not solve it. Not everyone agrees that the yakuza should be outed. Why should the burden fall on another town? Some say that the yakuza also have the right to earn a living too and no good will come out of trying to push them out of the town.

For those of you who aren't aware how the mafia rolls in Japan, these guys don't have to hide. In fact, many yakuza have official headquarters with flashy doors within residential neighborhoods and they even are listed in the telephone book for anyone to reach them. The yakauza are glorified through movies and various forms of media. They can walk around without slinking in the shadows because they are considered members of society. The state hasn't done much to combat the yakuza. The way they see things, there is no political gain from doing so. In America the police would be able to wiretap, have plea bargaining and offer witness protection. Japan has none of those tools available to their police. The politicians are not concerned with the day to day activities that the yakuza engage in, and they feel it is in their best interest to make alliances. Often you can find a yakuza member working as a bodyguard or on a campaign for some politican.

The yakuza have been around a long time. Everyone came to accept them as a "necessary evil." These are people who engage in illegal activities such as drug trafficking and sex slaving, they've managed to get inside corporations, and they're in bed with politicans (figuratively speaking). They have their fingers in lots of projects and as scary as this might sound, they can even influence Japan's economy. However they are not complete villains. These same people will give large monetary donations to orphanages, and senior homes, they have even contributed to disaster relief funds. So yes, they can do very bad things and they can also do very charitable things. There are many other reasons for why they are not complete villians, and it really is because of the cultural differences, but I will not get into detail about these differences in this post.

I don't know how the court will decide this case. In Japan, the courts only serve to rubberstamp the Diet (parliament)'s decisions. Ultimately it is up to the politicans and the state. They are deeply linked the yakuza, it would be like cutting off a limb if they were to suddenly become anti-yakuza. One of the reasons the state has tolerated the yakuza is that by having these gangsters out in the open, the state can keep an eye on them. Are the citizens of Kurume doing the right thing? I don't know. A simple lawsuit is not going to fix the hold the yakuza has on Japanese society. To be fair, the Japanese did this to themselves by allowing the yakuza to become something akin to an interest group/non-profit organization/classy fraternity.


In Norimitsu Onishi's IHT interview with Dojinkai leader Shinozuka, the latter makes a point in saying, "It's up to the state...If the state feels it no longer needs us, it can pass a law banning the yakuza. But if it feels even a little bit that it still needs us to survive, then we'll find some way to survive."

-Nathalie

]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:10:38 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942547 The Audacity of Turks http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942546 "Yes We Cem"

Cem Ozdemir, an ethnic Turk was elected to co-lead Germany's Green Party. I think this is a wonderful breakthrough for Germany. In Germany, he is now the highest-ranking politician with Turkish origins. The Turks are a large minority and there has been tension between Germans and Turks, which stems from Germans not being too comfortable with many Turks being Muslim. I think Germany is headed in the right direction. Don't get me wrong, it will be a while before a Turk ever becomes Chancellor, but for now good things are happening in Germany.

And now to nitpick:

1. Seriously? You had to rip off Obama and his "Yes we can" slogan? How good can this Cem Ozdemir guy be if he couldn't even come up with his own campaign slogan? Or hire creative people to do it for him? That is not where the similarities to Obama end. Ozdemir has also written books, made his presence known on Facebook, and it seems he has become the media's darling by making appearances on t.v. shows and making the cover of newspapers.

2. Not to be the Debbie Downer, but the Green Party? I mean, it's great that an ethnic Turk is running a party in Germany of all places, but think of how this small step could be bigger if it were a larger party. The Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats get the majority of Germany's votes and the Green Party only gets about 10%. Not to mention that while he is now running the party, the party itself does not want to put him into Parliament.

3. Cem Ozdemir says, "He's [Obama] not one to let himself be victimized. And he's not selecting his partners based on race...I would love to do the same thing here. It's not about Turks versus Germans, it's not about us as victims." To some extent this is the right attitude, however I think that is a rather insensitive thing to say and not quite a fair comparison to the situation with African Americans in America. There is a longer, brutal history than what the Turks have ever faced in Germany.

I think when Ozdemir came to the U.S. in 2003 for the German Marshall Fund, he was greatly inspired by Obama- so much that he went and tried to do the same things that Obama has done. In which case, did Ozdemir win because he is Cem Ozdemir or were the people swept up in a wave of Obamamania? I'm hoping that he had support because he is Cem Ozdemir. I also hope that he was chosen becuase he is the right person for the job, and that his Turkish background wasn't the sole deciding factor.


-Nathalie

]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:10:37 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942546 EXPOSE: Mitt Romney http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942545
For example, on the losing side there were a few gentlemen that were very forthright on what they believed and although they did not win the idea that people said it; is one to be respected. For example there is former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. He did not get wishy washy on his positions which were positions with a focus towards social conservatives.

Next is Ron Paul. This sorta libertarian with social conservative views (you cannot be anti-abortion and be a libertarian)was steadfast in his belief about the economic times and how to change how America does business. He had MASSIVE support from people who were getting involved for the first time or who had finally come back to politics after feeling shut out for many years.

The one I want to put the spotlight one today is Mitt Romney. I had a former roommate who could care less about politics call him Mint Romney just because he thought it was funny. And now looking back on it he had a point. He came from money (that is not a slight) and made that money into even more by making business decision for Bain Capital. Which if one must grade him on how he performed compared to company profit, then he did beyond great. He had a failed run at Senate from Massachusetts by running to the left of Ted Kennedy (who knew you could do that) and was a semi-success at eventually governing the state.

So you would think that he were to run for President he would run as center-right? No that would be too smart of Mitt Romney. Why run on the centrist platform that was vacated on the Republican side? He changed all his views to skew more conservative and thought that with his power of persuasion from the business world and gobs of money he could dust it off as politicians in the past have as saying he has now changed with the times.

2005
For Stem Cells

2007
Against Stem Cells

That is not even his biggest blunder. As a citizen this guy should almost debate himself. The only thing is I want former Mitt to win and he might pay for new Mitt beat himself. It all gets so confusing. The thing is there is always wiggle room to learn something more and use that as an excuse on why ones views have changed. I respect Mitt for his business decisions, they affected many upon many of jobs but he made the companies more profitable in the long run.

Mitt Romney won Michigan in the primaries as to be expected. His father was a former automotive executive whom was a popular governor from the state. He won with a faux populism that was needed to win the state. He said things such as "Michigan is going through a 10-year recession, and Washington says we're aware of it, and instead of helping just heaps on mandates."

Fast forwarding to yesterday Mitt Romney had changed his tune about Michigan jobs. And in one flailed swoop lost the 2012 primary in Michigan by posting an op-ed about how to let the automakers go into bankruptcy and reorganize. The problem Mitt is not that your grasp for power is ruining what you have done in the past, it is that your actions speak louder then any words you might speak. This is the thing that others in 2012 will use against you and you will become the Republican John Edwards. You are probably someone very likable but you like start acting different as when for instance John Edwards wanted to run on Russ Feingold's platform, you cannot run John Kyl's .

To conclude it is not premature who will be the sacrificial lamb for 2012 but advice for Mitt "DON'T RUN." The only thing you could of done to win in 2012 in the case that Obama is the fail (it is an honest argument) is to have run on your Massachuettes platform which would of made the Republicans deem you as McCain 2.0 (with a smarter running mate), but you cannot anymore. You have from now to 2016 to reinvent yourself or we can just call you the next William Jennings Bryan.

James]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:10:36 -0800 http://virb.com/2632158994574256/posts/text/942545