Parag Khanna in a TED lecture, July 2009 I’ve been thinking a lot about history lately. There’s something oddly reassuring about finding patterns in history, if only to reassure myself that the passage of time is cyclical and that we will eventually cycle into a new phase. I’m not the only one whose been thinking this way, and geo-political scholar Parag Khanna is seeing parallels that I admit I don’t necessarily agree with, but I think are thought-provoking: Imagine a world with a strong China reshaping Asia; India confidently extending its reach from Africa to Indonesia; Islam spreading its influence; a Europe replete with crises of legitimacy; sovereign city-states holding wealth and driving innovation; and private mercenary armies, religious radicals and humanitarian bodies playing by their own rules as they compete for hearts, minds and wallets. It sounds familiar today. But it was just as true slightly less than a millennium ago at the height of the Middle Ages. In recent years it has become conventional wisdom that the post-cold-war world will see rising powers such as China and Brazil create what international relations experts call a “multi-polar” order. Yet for the next 10 or 20 years, it is not at all clear that the future many imagine will come to pass – namely that the relative US decline will continue, Europe will muddle along, China and India will grow ever stronger, and other straight-line projections. In fact, the world we are moving into in 2011 is one not just with many more prominent nations, but one with numerous centres of power in other ways. It is, in short, a neo-medieval world. The 21st century will resemble nothing more than the 12th century. You have to go back a thousand years to find a time when the world was genuinely western and eastern at the same time. Then, China’s Song dynasty presided over the world’s largest cities, mastered gunpowder and printed paper money. At around the same time India’s Chola empire ruled the seas to Indonesia, and the Abbasid caliphate dominated from Africa to Persia. Byzantium swayed and lulled in weakness both due to and despite its vastness. Only in Europe is this medieval landscape viewed negatively. This was a truly multi-polar world. Both ends of Eurasia and the powers in between called their own shots, just as in our own time China, India and the Arab/Islamic community increasingly do as well. There is another reason why the metaphor is apt. In medieval times, the Crusades, and the Silk Road, linked Eurasia in the first global trading system – just as the globalised routes of trade are doing today. Certainly, there’s a point to be made in the suspicions and outright rejection of science by people who really don’t belong in leadership positions. Global power is also very decentralized–look at the one remaining alleged “superpower” deeply in debt to China. In lieu of trade routes, we have American corporations outsourcing labor–”flattening” the market, as it were. The metaphor is far from perfect but interesting. Cheryl Rofer, who is very into Medieval history takes a very literal look at Khanna’s parallels and takes issue with them . I’m still trying to figure out what Khanna is trying to say. He’s got a potpourri of observations but doesn’t put them together into anything coherent. When people say that something is medieval, in general, it’s not a compliment and refers to “the dark ages” and a lack of enlightenment, which, by some accounts, came later. He’s also got his centuries mixed up. If he’s talking about Marco Polo and Ibn Battuta, that’s the thirteenth century into the fourteenth. And he leaves a lot out, like how intertwined governance and religion were and that states as we know them were just developing. I’ll address just a few of his points. “Numerous centers of power.” Well, okay, but Matt Eckel points out that the physical and communication separation was much greater in the thirteenth century than it is now. Plus one of those centers today spends more on defense than all the rest combined. The Crusades were an attempt to globalize war, and the Mongols were pretty good at that sort of thing too. Economically, there was some trade, but nothing like the financial globalization we have today. So what do you think? Are we living through the 21st century version of the Dark Ages?
Continue reading …Judith Miller Praises the Term ‘Obamacare’ as ‘Something People Could Really Wrap Their Minds Around’
January 2, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media From Fox’s weekend “watchdog” show, Fox News Watch, Judith Miller thinks that one of the great things in 2010 to come out of the debate over the health care bill was the coining of the term “Obamacare”. MILLER: Yes, but it also brought a great term, Obamacare. It was something that people could really wrap their minds around. COLMES: People who called it that though were the ones that were against it. It’s not, it wasn’t Obamacare. That was a negative term. MILLER: That’s because nobody could read that two thousand bill that was supposed to become law. COLMES: It’s so hard to read all those words. Steve Benen has more from earlier this week on exactly why the use of that name is both annoying and deceptive. IT’S THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, NOT ‘OBAMACARE’ : In some center-left circles, Republicans’ insistence on saying “Democrat Party” is about the most annoying rhetorical tic in the GOP lexicon. “Obamacare” is arguably a competitive second. Conservatives, even well-intentioned ones, who don’t use the word to be obnoxious, aren’t clear on why it rankles quite so much. It’s not as if “Obamacare” is necessarily derogatory — it’s intended, at least by some on the right, to simply be descriptive, and it’s easier than referencing “the health care reform law signed by President Obama.” If I had to guess, I’d say Republicans started using “Obamacare” as some kind of slur as a way of undermining the president’s standing. They knew they could help tear down support for health care reform, but by attaching the president’s name to it, maybe they could help tear him down, too. Remember, fairly early on in the process, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) declared, “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo.” But in time, use of the phrase evolved. The point wasn’t just about the president, per se, but about convincing the public that the initiative was what Republicans said it was: a top-down, government imposed scheme. “Obamacare” is necessarily loaded to convey an idea — that policymakers were replacing a dysfunctional mess with one in which Americans would receive their care from the president, or at a minimum, through a process the president directs. And if this had any basis in reality, the slur might have some merit. But the very idea is patently ridiculous, which makes the “Obamacare” as misleading as it is annoying. Not to mention it’s another way to avoid admitting that it’s a Republican health care plan that they all loved until a Democratic proposed it and now they’re all pretending it’s “socialism” or as Steve noted in the part of his post I didn’t quote here, the Politifact Lie of the Year calling it a “government takeover of healthcare”. I say this panel discussion pretty well proved his points.
Continue reading …Kindra Arnesen: This Isn’t Just About The Gulf, It’s About The Whole Planet
January 2, 2011 No CommentFrom Project Gulf Impact, a disturbing interview with Kindra Arnesen: Activist, mother, and voice of the Gulf people, Kindra Arnesen sat down with the Project Gulf Impact team, Matt Smith, Heather Rally, and Gavin Garrison recently to reveal shocking new information about the BP oil disaster and why the whole world should be paying attention to the Gulf. A must watch for anyone wanting new information on the Gulf of Mexico, she reveals shocking new information sure to send waves through the country. She describes the health problems experienced by the people exposed to the cleanup chemicals, and says the cleanup operations stopped when the camera crews went away. Heartbreaking.
Continue reading …
Watch out Bill; you might have some competition. A handshake encounter between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has occurred at the inauguration of Brazil’s new president. It was reportedly amicable. —JCL The BBC: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton have shaken hands in an apparently amicable encounter at a time of tension between the two countries. They chatted and smiled at the inauguration of Brazil’s new president. Last week, Venezuela refused to accept the nomination of the new US ambassador to Caracas because of comments he made against the country. Read more
Continue reading …
The toxicity of SB1070 has leaked across Arizona’s borders, as several copy-cat states have prepped to introduce at least a half dozen different bills similar to the notorious anti-immigration law. —JCL The New York Times: Legislative leaders in at least half a dozen states say they will propose bills similar to a controversial law to fight illegal immigration that was adopted by Arizona last spring, even though a federal court has suspended central provisions of that statute. The efforts, led by Republicans, are part of a wave of state measures coming this year aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration. Legislators have also announced measures to limit access to public colleges and other benefits for illegal immigrants and to punish employers who hire them. Read more
Continue reading …Two investigations are set to follow a New Year’s Day prison riot in Britain after inmates doth protested as a clampdown on “illegal drinking” led to $4.5 million in damages and a reconsideration of prison conditions in the U.K. The riot also comes after a little-covered prison strike across ten different prisons last month over correctional conditions in Georgia. —JCL The Guardian: Two separate investigations will be held into the New Year’s Day riot at Ford open prison where balaclava-clad inmates torched buildings in protest at a clampdown on illegal drinking. The prisons minister, Crispin Blunt, confirmed today there would be an internal Prison Service inquiry and a police inquiry into the violence, which is estimated to have caused about £3m damage. Twenty-three inmates have been dispersed to secure prisons across the country after accommodation blocks, a gymnasium, a mail room and recreation room with 10 newly installed pool tables were destroyed in the blaze. Read more
Continue reading …
New Year’s Day saw one of Europe’s strictest anti-smoking measures take effect in Spain. The new law will create a haven for non-smokers as tobacco use has been prohibited in bars, restaurants and most public spaces. —JCL The BBC: A tough anti-smoking law has taken effect in Spain. The ban—one of the strictest in Europe—outlaws smoking in all bars and restaurants. Smokers will also be prohibited on television broadcasts, near hospitals or in school playgrounds. The law tightens anti-smoking restrictions introduced in 2006. Read more
Continue reading …Cenk Uygur Tries to Get GOProud’s Chris Barron to Explain Why He’s a Republican
January 2, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media As David informed us earlier this week, CPAC is losing significant chunks of the gay-bashing right over their invitation for GOProud to attend their convention this year. Cenk Uygur attempted to get their chairman, Christopher Barron to explain why he’s a Republican in the first place given the way the party benefits from attacking the LGBT community. UYGUR: All right. President Obama has said many times if you want to go forward, you put it in “D.” If you want to go backwards, you put it in “R.” Get it? All right. Now, the president and the Democrats made history last week. They repealed “Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell,” and that is a huge step forward for gay rights. But, as always, the “Grand Old Party” is stuck in the stone age. Two major conservative groups, Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council, are boycotting the conservative political action conference this year. They`re out — they`re sitting it out because GOProud, a national organization of gay conservatives, was invited to the event. For more on this, let`s turn to the chairman of the board of GOProud, Christopher Barron. All right, Chris. First, let me get it out of the way. Why on God`s green earth are you even a Republican? CHRISTOPHER BARRON, CHAIRMAN, GOPROUD: Why am I a Republican? Well, first off, I`m not just a Republican, I`m a conservative Republican. And I`m a conservative because while I was born gay, I wasn`t born to believe that government has all of the answers. In fact, I`ve seen throughout my life that, in fact, government is often the problem, because I believe in free markets, because I believe in a strong military defense, because I believe in the power of the individual. That`s why I`m a conservative Republican. UYGUR: Right. I understand that. And are gay people — do they have opinions that range from liberal to conservative on economic matters and other matters? Of course. BARRON: Absolutely. UYGUR: Right. I get that. But what I don`t get is how you can, with a good conscience, vote for a party that does not like you? They don`t like who you are. They don`t like your identity. BARRON: First off, I completely and totally reject that. We`re, for the second year in a row, participating in CPAC, the largest — UYGUR: Congratulations. Two years in a row. How about all the other years? BARRON: Well, first off, we`ve only been around for two years. So every year that we`ve been in existence we`ve participated in CPAC. And what I think has been so amazing is that during this controversy, major organizations, opinion leaders, have all stood up for GOProud, stood up for gay conservatives, and said, yes, they`re an important part of this movement and we need them to win. We need them going forward. UYGUR: Chris — BARRON: I think that`s the real story here. The real story is that the conservative movement is more united than ever. There are a few people, people like birther king Joseph Farah and the WorldNetDaily crowd who make their living trying to grab attention, grab headlines, divide the movement. The fact is the conservative movement is united. We`re winning — UYGUR: No you`re not. BARRON: — and we`re united. Absolutely. UYGUR: No you`re not. You`ve never been united. (CROSSTALK) UYGUR: Chris, get real. BARRON: We`re completely — UYGUR: Are you telling me with a straight face — hold on. Are you telling me with a straight face that the Republican Party has been welcoming to gays all this time? BARRON: No, the Republican Party hasn`t always been welcome the gays. What I`m telling you right now — UYGUR: And is it welcoming now? BARRON: — is the conservative movement — the conservative movement is absolutely welcoming to gay people. I can tell you right now, I have an easier time — (LAUGHTER) UYGUR: On which planet? BARRON: — being openly gay with the conservatives than I do being a conservative with other gay people. That`s the truth. That`s the absolute truth. You might not like it, but it doesn`t change reality. That`s the reality. UYGUR: OK. You want to know reality, Chris? When “Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell” was up for repeal, only eight of the Republican senators voted for it and 15 of the Republican House members. All of the others, overwhelming majority, voted against you. Why won`t you recognize the most obvious, simple truth? (CROSSTALK) BARRON: Look, you wouldn`t have had “Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell” repealed if it weren`t for those Republican votes. And secondly, there`s a whole range of issues. At night, when I`m sitting at the table with my partner talking about the issues that affect us, surprise, surprise, those issues are the same issues that affect Americans all across this country — health care, the economy, jobs, taxes, retirement security. And on issue after issue after issue, the conservative movement offers policy fixes that are better for gay couples. You might not like it and liberals might not like it, but that`s the truth. UYGUR: That`s the truth. Look, Chris, we have got to leave it here, but you`ve got to wake up, man. In 2004, they ran the whole national campaign against hating you. In 2006, they ran a whole national campaign against hating you! BARRON: I am wide awake. And we are winning — we are winning, the conservative movement is winning, and we`re a proud part of that movement. UYGUR: All right. Well, good luck to you. BARRON: Thanks. UYGUR: All right. Thank you for joining us, though, Chris. We really do appreciate your time and your thoughts here.
Continue reading …
You might have thought that Mike Bloomberg—with his trans fat and smokes snatching—was the epitome of nanny staters.
Continue reading …