BBC Blog Network

User Profile

expertsceptic

Listed below are comments made by expertsceptic between Friday, 14th August 2009 and Monday, 19th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Is small still beautiful? 07:07am on 19 Oct 2009 This is an interesting question that I have been giving some thought to recently. Agree with rochcarlie above that many people living in bigger states would love to be given a chance to live in the "miserable" small state of Switzerland. There are of course many pros and cons to a broad question like this. Iceland's recent financial/banking catastrophe shows the tight conditions and parameters that small states must recognize they face. Mini-states that recognize these limitations can still thrive if they devise and stick to a plan of development that can avoid the pitfalls of competing in a world dominated by "800 pound gorillas" such as the US or EU. Hong Kong which has thrived as an alternative international financial entrepot for several decades is a case in point. Mid-level states such as Japan or Argentina are also in a unique position to either exploit or sink in the "shark infested" waters of international commerce and trade. They must also adopt realistic foreign policies that allow them to avoid the dangerous shoals of international rivalry. Big powers of which the US is the pre-eminent case can ignore many of the cautionary principles that smaller states live by, but as the recent international financial crisis shows, the US is not immune from making big mistakes despite the protection that size and weight bestows on it.
Iran: is a deal on the way? 06:41am on 19 Oct 2009 As so often happens, the media is quick off the mark on an important story, jumps to conclusions or forces readers to jump to conclusions, and fails to folloup on the story. This update to the Iran disarmament negotiations comes two weeks after the initial story during the Pittsburgh G20 summit when the US, UK, and France accused Iran of hiding uranium enrichment facilities from international inspectors. According to Agence France Presse reporter Michael Adler in the Daily Beast, US diplomats "will meet with Iran to seal the deal that could take the country's uranium away" for processing in a third country (probably Russia). According to Adler, a deal could be "a potentially transformative development which few expected and most doubt is possible. The Iranians agreed in principle in Geneva on October 1 to send uranium that can be used to make atom bombs to a safe place outside of the country. This would reduce the threat that Iran could use the uranium for a nuclear weapon and give time for non-proliferation talks. The question [on] Monday is: will the deal go forward, collapse, or perhaps what is worse, die of a thousand cuts as it is delayed?"
Who's right -- and who's left? 06:52am on 10 Oct 2009 Robin, I share your dismay at a topsy turvy world in which the distinctions between right and left have been reversed like in a hall of mirrors. But looking at Europe from the US where the division between right (Republicans) and left (Democrats) has never been sharper and greater than today, I do not for a moment believe that even in Europe you should expect that deep down the (old) differences are erased. My thoughts on European politics may be superficial and shallow but you may find them interesting. John is correct that New Labour has in many cases moved to the right of the Tory party. Neil Kinnock started this movement to the right when he seized control of the Labour party in the eighties from the left wing of Michael Foot, Tony Benn, and the radical left. This was followed a decade later by Tony Blair's New Labour party which radically changed the organization of the Labour party by coalesing power around a select group of operatives like Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell. Blair then resurrected Thatcherism in a modified ideology called the "Third Way." This later evolved into the private-public partnership movement in Britain and elsewhere. In Germany, the SPD under Gerhard Schoeder, retained many aspects of the old SPD ideology, and in addition Schroeder resisted and rejected the Anglo-Saxon market fundamentalism that had gained a powerful influence under Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, and George W Bush. But under the crushing weight of economic recession and fiscal pressures, Schroeder introduced federal measures to curb wages and union democracy that created a rift in the SPD, with the breakaway "die Linke" party, that doomed his re-election bid. To his credit, Schroeder joined with Jacques Chirac in opposing the Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq. This courageous decision created a rift with Washington and London that has not fully healed to this day. Joining with the CDU-CSU to form a grand coalistion under Angela Merkel has not endeared the leaders of the SPD to their members who continued to resent Gerhard Schroeder's measures. The recent elections in Germany has ended the CDU-SPD coalition which will present an opportunity for reconciliation of the SPD with its leaders. The clash of political ideologies in France is an old rift that has deep roots in French history. Complicating the picture has been the Gaullist ideology which was shared to an extent by both sides. The weakness of the left in French politics which has worsened lately is a complex matter that I do not pretend to understand at all. I have not encountered any comprehensible explanations of this matter in English yet.
Ritula Shah on the UN, the IMF and the G20 12:33pm on 28 Sep 2009 In comment #4, MarcusAurelius criticized me for saying that "It wasn't so long ago that countries such as China and India were considered incapable of governing themselves." He said in response that "China and India had thriving civilizations that governed themselves before Europeans knew they existed. Statements such as your were used as justification for European colonial rule under a system of imperial enslavement......." While I do not deny this and actually opposed European imperialism from an early age there is some truth to the charge that in the 19th century there was increasing agitation and rebellion in China and India. Both countries were ruled by dynasties that were considered foreign by the majority population. China was ruled by the Qing Dynasty which was of Manchu ethnicity different from the majority Han people of China. As we know the Qing dynasty was overthrown and replaced by the (short lived) Republic of China under Sun Yat Sen in 1912. The intrusion by the Europeans especially the British imperialists with their exterritorial enclaves like Hong Kong went a long way towards weakening the already weak grasp of the Manchu dowager empress on the allegiance of the Han people as we know. India was ruled by the Mughal Dynasty, a Persianized offshoot of the Mongol warrior tribes, whose expansion started in 1526 and spread over Hindustan in the 17th and 18th century. After 1725, their power over the subcontinent rapidly diminished. They were overthrown and replaced by the British Raj after 1850. Part of the problem faced by the Mughals, who were Muslims, was the growing religious intolerance between Muslims and Hindus. Indeed, I can recall asking a fellow graduate student from India during the sixties what he thought of the British Raj. He was born before India gained its independence. I was surprised to hear him say that he had a positive opinion of the British period not just because of the introduction of railroads and modern education but because the British had united the country. Recall that India is divided by many different ethnic groups and languages in addition to the great Hindu-Muslim religious divide. The great Partition of the subcontinent into India and Pakistan was accompanied by widespread communal fighting with the deaths of millions. Unlike India, China was not fully colonized by the European powers (and Japan) but the overthrow of the Manchu (Qing) dynasty led to half a century of unrest and civil strife between Chinese factions until 1949 with the unification under the Communist regime. I don't want to prolong this discussion which is complex enough but I think it is still very much an unsettled issue with many offshoots. For example, in 2008 during the cyclone Nargis controversy over Burma, the foreign ministers of Britain and France (David Miliband and Bernard Kouchner), tried to invoke the so-called "right to protect" doctrine made by the UN Security Council, to justify an unauthorized (by the Burmese government) intrusion by foreign countries relief airlifts to stricken areas. For all we know this could have eventually involved regime change attempts if the Burmese government tried to resist this imposition. This was discussed in this blog, "R2P - RIP?". We also discussed whether Western powers had the right to carry out regime change on Arab regimes such as Saddam Hussein's regime in order to impose democracy on the Middle East in this blog, "Democracy, the Arab World and the West." You said in comment #21 during this issue that, "Invading Iraq was the correct move for many reasons" and I criticized you for this in comment #25. There is a kind of inconsistency between your comment #4 above and your approval of the Iraq invasion in my opinion. Don't forget that Iraq is the home of one of the oldest civilizations in history in the Babylonian empire. And I do agree with you that India and China are civilizations that go a long way back in history. The Mauryan empire of the Indus valley conquered a large part of what is now the modern nation of India from 321 BC to 185 BC. Chandragupta started the dynasty and his grandson Ashoka established a great civilization including the Buddhist religion during this period. It was the last great empire founded and established in India. Strangely enough Chandragupta had to defeat the Asian-Greek satrapy of Seleucus Nicator which was established by the Greek conqueror Alexander in Northwest India. Chandragupta may even have met with Alexander at one point in his career. So the Europeans were trying to conquer the subcontinent starting from as far back as Alexander. All of this historical material is available on Wikiencyclopedia by the way.
Ritula Shah on the UN, the IMF and the G20 06:00am on 27 Sep 2009 I agree with the movement to include a greater franchise of the population of the world to races other than the white European races. The unfair domination of the world by a select group of powerful nations has gone on for too long. It is true that we are so unfamiliar with a world that includes a wider representation of peoples and leaders that the adjustment which has come about suddently and abruptly will be long and painful for the peoples of the world. It wasn't so long ago that countries such as China and India were considered incapable of governing themselves much less being asked to take a share of the responsibility of ruling the world.
For the President's urgent decision ... 04:55am on 13 Sep 2009 After giving you the current scenario for the passage of President Obama's health care reform bill in Congress, I ran across a very insightful and erudite column by a well known professor of political science in New York from which I wish to share some excerpts. The professor has been a strong supporter of Barack Obama's presidential aspirations but has since become one of the disillusioned followers of Obama's dragging, drooping presidency. On the matter of how Obama has failed to inspire his devoted followers and (naively) failed to woo the vocal right wing opposition of the Republican party to join his bipartisan coalition, the professor has this to say. "Obama was complete fool if he ever believed for a moment that his kumbaya act was going to bring the right along behind him. These foamin-at-the-mouth lunatics have completely lost all sense and proportion, and were bound to viscerally hate any president left of Cheney, let alone some black guy in their White House. Meanwhile, centrist voters seem pretty much only to care about taxes and spending so he has lost them too. And he has blown off the solid progressive base [of his party] by spitting in their eyes at every imaginable opportunity, beginning with the formation of his cabinet [and] ranging through every policy decision from civil rights to civil liberties to foreign policy to healthcare and culminating with his choice not to even mobilize his email database in support of his policies." On how Obama has mishandled the legislative strategy for his healthcare reform. "Meanwhile he has also chosen to put healthcare reform on the table as the signature legislative initiative of his entire presidency. But watching him in action I wonder if this clown really wants a second term. If you had asked me in January how Obama could have bungled this program most thoroughly I would have written a prescription not much different from what we have witnessed over the last eight months. Don't frame the issue. Let the right backed by the greedy industry monsters do it [for you] on the worst possible terms for you. Don't fight back when they say the most outrageous things about your plan. Let Congress do it. Let the minority [Republican] party have an equal voice in the proceedings even if they won't vote for the bill under any circumstances. Have these savages negotiate with a small group of right-wing Democrats, all of them major recipients of industry campaign donations. Blow off your base completely. Cut secret sweetheart deals with the Big Pharamaceutical and Big Insurance corporate vampires. Wait until its almost too late to give a major speech on the issue. Set a timetable for action and then let it slip. Indicate what you want in the bill but then be completely unclear about whether you necessarily require those things. Go on vacation in the heat of battle." On the contrast between the perfect execution of the presidential campaign and the bumbling of his first year in office. "Now look at the guy who ran a letter-perfect disciplined textbook insurgent victorious campaign for the White House. Can they possibly be the same person. Since they obviously are is there possibly another explanation for this disaster? I dunno. But what I do know is this. Obama's very best-case scenario for healthcare legislation right now represents a ton of lost votes in 2010 and 2012. And the worst that scenario gets the worse he and his party do [as well]. But even a successful [passage of the bill] will produce a tepid bill, a mistrustful public, and inflamed and unanswered radical right and a [uninspiring] new government program that does not even to go online til 2013. A real vote-getter, no?" On foreign policy blunders by the Obama administration. "Obama is probably also sitting on several national security powder kegs. He is unlikely to close Guantanamo and he is unlikely to leave Iraq and he is unlikely to win in Afghanistan." On Obama's chances for a second term. "Put it all together and it is pretty hard to see how Obama gets a second term. Which means we're looking at a Romney or a Palin or some sort of similar monster as the next president, despite the fact that their party was absolutely loathed only a year ago and still are today. And that's a scary notion, since the [Republican] party voting base who will make that choice in 2012 is the same crowd you've seen featured all this summer at town hall meetings. Olympia Snowe is not going to be the Republican nominee in 2012. Know what I mean."
For the President's urgent decision ... 06:44am on 12 Sep 2009 On the health care reform issue which needs to be settled in a few months while Congress is still in session, several developments need to be considered:
1. The opposition to health care reform has raised a number of objections that are obviously fallacious but continue to be repeated
ad-infinitum such as charges of socialized medicine, plans for euthanizing old people, plans to end private insurance. Obama tried to refute these charges in his speech but the opposition is obviously stubbornly clinging to their beliefs about the legislation being drafted in Congress. Congressman Joe Wilson (R, SC) heckled the President in the middle of his speech claiming that the President was lying when he declared that there was a provision to ban help for illegal immigrants in his reform package.
2. The government insurance or a "public option" provision was still on the table according to Obama in his speech but the question remains whether he can get a filibuster proof super-majority of votes in the Senate to support such a provision. Though the Democrats have just enough votes in the Senate (including Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont who votes with the Democrats on most issues), a number of Senators have said they oppose the "public option" including key Senators like chairman Max Baucus (D, MT) and Keith Conrad (D, ND) of the Finance Committee. Also Ben Nelson (D, NB) and Blanche Lincon (D, AR) have indicated they will not support the "public option."
3. Senator Olympia Snowe (R, ME) is in talks with the White House to change direct support for the "public option" to something called a "trigger" to the "public option." The idea appears to be to make the "public option" provisional to the private insurance industry bringing down the costs of health care according to some as yet unspecified criteria. This seems to be a rather tenuous kind of regulation to try to enforce but the White House may have no choice but to agree with Senator Snowe if it wants the bill to pass.
4. Liberal supporters of the "public option" and heretofore the staunchest supporters of Obama's presidency are threatening to vote agains the health care reform bill if the "public option" is removed from the bill. This could be the most severe test of the President's ability whether he can persuade this major part of the base of the Democratic party to back down and support his bill even though the "public option" is modified according to Senator Snowe's "trigger" provision.
Is Japan a dying nation? 04:03am on 09 Sep 2009 Though worrying over Japan's demographic decline has become official policy in Japan, it seems overdrawn to me. Ministers began mentioning this looming problem in the mid-nineties when the economy was still robust. But Japan's economic recession has since then taken its toll on employment prospects for the younger generation. Up to a third of young people entering the economy have to face temporary employment prospects only instead of the customary steady permanent lifetime jobs of the past. The robust economy of the mid-nineties was so strong that ministers were under pressure from employers to admit massive immigration from the other parts of Asia which violates the desire of the government not to sacrifice the culture of the island nation by importing boatloads of non-Japanese. Because of the global recession even Brazilian-Japanese immigrants have been forced to return to Brazil because of the growing unemployment. So unanticipated events have led to a rethink in the government whether it is such a priority to stem the purported demographic decline of a decade ago. If anything it may be desirable for Japan to welcome a decline in population to match the decline in economic prospects for the future created by the rise of Chinese and Indian competitiveness.
The health of nations: Obama and reform 07:03am on 26 Aug 2009 I have been paying close attention to the politics of the health care reform debate during the August recess. Three developments have captured the nation's attention. First, the townhalls being held throughout the nation in the Congressional districts and hometowns have become ever more rowdy and controversial. This has been reflected on the cable TV channels where the cameras have focused on the organized attempts to disrupt the speakers and thoughtful questioners seeking genuine information about the various legislation in Congress. Rupert Murdoch's Fox News channel has played the leading media role opposing President Obama's plans for health care reform. The Fox News anchors of popular shows like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly have openly vowed to defeat health care reform as a prelude to destroying the Obama presidency and limiting the popular young African-American president to a single term. It does not take much imagination to suspect a racist thrust behind their hatred of Obama. Second, Congressional Republican opposition to health care reform has hardened and Obama's determination to obtain a bipartisan passage of his legislation is going nowhere. Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate for the 2008 presidential election delivered a stinging rebuke today against health care reform at his townhall meeting. Although there are few moderates left in the Congressional Republican delegation, two senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine standout as possible votes for health care reform. Arlen Spector will be voting for health care reform but then he is no longer a Republican, having converted to the Democratic party recently after thirty years as the Republican senator from Pennsylvania. Third, Democrats are anxiously worried about Obama's commitment to a strong legislative package. A week into the August recess, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius said in press conference that she believed the "public option" was not an essential element of the legislation. Even before this, Senate Finance committee chair Max Baucus had come out against the "public option." And Baucus was backed by another Democrat on the committee, Kent Conrad. Conrad said he preferred to see an alternative to the "public option", health care cooperatives, take up the case for those consumers unable to afford private insurance. Conrad did not go into any detail about his cooperatives plan, but it was immediately attacked as unworkable by Howard Dean, a physician and former governor of Vermont. Examples of cooperatives already exist but they are generally local and small scale and according to Dean, cooperatives are unlikely to succeed unless they exceed at least 500,000 members. Obama tried to reassure his supporters in Congress that he still supported the "public option" before he left on a week of vacation but the doubts are growing and unless he comes back to Washington with a head of steam and determination to win, he may find his momentum evaporating and his great dream to finally realize the Democrat's long sought national health care legislation in tatters.
The health of nations: Obama and reform 4:31pm on 14 Aug 2009 Congress decided to take their annual August recess and some brave members held townhall sessions with their constituency. As expected health care reform was the most emotional topic being discussed. It appears that there has been an organized but surreptitious movement to fill the meeting places with loud and unrestrained opposition mobs. There are four different bills being shepherded through Congress. One provision of one of the bills which called for doctors to discuss with terminally ill patients how much treatment they will tolerate has had to be dropped after Obama was attacked for wanting to introduce euthanasia into the US medical system through this provision. Cries of socialized medicine have been very effective in mobilizing opposition to health care reform. This happens to be standard practice for the Republican party who even opposed the introduction of Medicare in 1969 for seniors over 65 years of age. Medicare's huge success and popularity you might think would curb such foolish sloganeering but you would be wrong. The
Republicans are hoping that the uninformed public will not notice that not just the government run Medicare program but also the even more successful veteran's health care program are also "socialized" medicine. However no matter how much the private health insurance programs under which most Americans get their health care paid for often falls short of their medical needs polls indicate 85% claim to be very satisfied with the current system. For example, private health insurers readily reject new applications based on pre-existing medical conditions. So an illness of a chronic nature will often not be covered in many cases. It doesn't seem to bother many Americans that most rich industrial nations have universal health care systems in which govenment subsidies or government run hospitals and medical providers play a large role.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

expertsceptic