Obama administration new measures - Part 2

Politics International Politics
21

The stimulus thingy is not what bothers me. It’s really not that much money for a country like the US. At the end of the day, it’s only about 3k per US citizen.

Jaboney is talking about the positive of having China as polite company to the US and to me, that is complete nonsense. No offense intended. And that comes in as being far more worrisome to this guy than whatever the US borrows for the stimulus package. Napoleon once said “Let China sleep, when she awakes the whole world will know it.” I believe he was right about that. China is definitely waking up now, and the last thing the world needs is for that scale to completely tip because that’s when the shit will really hit the fan hard.

During the cold war, Russia’s powerful military provided the world with some balance in terms of worldwide convergences and antagonisms. But since the decline of Russia, the US has inevitably become a hegemonic state. Inherently, the “system” became dangerously unbalanced without this very much needed bi-polarity. While I’m not fond of China, they seem to be the only ones who have a chance at providing political, economic and military balance in the years to come.

In other words, it’s not looking promising. China is pretty much funding the war in the middle east already, and now comes the “great” news that NATO may even seek support from them in Afghanistan. It’s not like China isn’t already supporting the US, at least financially, but lending money, with interests, and actually becoming war allied do not have the same significance whatsoever in terms of balance.

marboulette

22

Think it over a while longer.
The first 6 years of the Bush era, the world got a look at how a superpower with no interest or investment in global systems looks like. The economic downturn’s hurting it, but China’s going to rise, whatever the US does. Do you want it to act as a free agent, as the Bush administration did, or to plug in to a global system as a more or less benevolent actor on the international stage?

Bipolarity’s good for forestalling direct, open conflict. That’s not a concern unless you’re sitting on top of an unstable regime and loads of resources, so your call for balance makes little sense. Unipolarity’s a recipe for imposing an order that will have lots of unintended consequences… as has been seen. Multipolarity’s inherently unstable. (How many successful troikas have there been in history?) That leaves a multilateral order shaped by the overwhelming power of Western, liberal states, or chaos. Pretty easy choice.

23

[quote=“Jaboney”]Do you want it to act as a free agent, as the Bush administration did, or to plug in to a global system as a more or less benevolent actor on the international stage?[/quote]You make it sound like there are only two options. It’s not the case.

I can’t actually believe that I’m arguing with you that it’s not a good thing to have all the power in the hands of one state/coalition. And you should not mention history as a reference if you can’t recognize that the world was a lot more peaceful during the cold war back when Russia’s political, economic and military tenure was an effective counterweight to western power. Chaos is more what you are looking at right now, in 2009, precisely because the world’s convergences and antagonisms are no longer balancing one another. And it’s going to get a whole lot worse if China shifts sides.

marboulette

24

More comments:

[quote=“Jaboney”]Think it over a while longer.
The first 6 years of the Bush era, the world got a look at how a superpower with no interest or investment in global systems looks like. [/quote]And what exactly do you have on hand to be so certain that the Obama era or whoever the next fucking guy will be is going to be any different? Blind fate? Hope? That’s just not enough, man.

[quote]That’s [color=#BF0000]not a concern [/color]unless you’re sitting on top of an unstable regime and loads of resources[/quote]What about an unstable state with loads of resources? Sounds like the US to you? And what if said state spent years fighting a VERY HIGHLY controversial war that no one seems to be able to tell/agree for certain why it is being fought in the first place? Would that not be a concern? Well Christ, it is to this guy.

marboulette

25

[quote=“marboulette”]You make it sound like there are only two options. It’s not the case.

I can’t actually believe that I’m arguing with you that it’s not a good thing to have all the power in the hands of one state/coalition. And you should not mention history as a reference if you can’t recognize that the world was a lot more peaceful during the cold war back when Russia’s political, economic and military tenure was an effective counterweight to western power. Chaos is more what you are looking at right now, in 2009, precisely because the world’s convergences and antagonisms are no longer balancing one another. And it’s going to get a whole lot worse if China shifts sides.

marboulette[/quote]

Do you really think it was so peaceful? There wasn’t an outbreak of major hostilities between the US and USSR but there sure as hell was a lot of fighting going on. The Korean War, the Vietnam war (both the French years and the US years), the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan were the big ones. Then there are all the smaller conflicts where the US supported one dictator and the Soviets supported a different dictator. Here is a conflict map from the Nobel prize website that shows how many conflicts were going on from WW2 to present.

Here is a list showing the number of wars (including civil wars) in the 20th century. In just about every one of those conflicts in the Cold War the US supported one side and USSR the other. There was a lot of conflict going on, just not between the two major powers. Instead they just had near nuclear showdowns over putting missiles on Cuba.

Multipolarity isn’t a guarantee of peace. Look at WWI and WWII. During the lead up to WWI you had England, France, Germany, Italy, Austro-Hungary, the Ottomans and Russia all as major players. Their attempts to keep each other in check drew everyone into that war.

26

[quote=“lbksig”]

Do you really think it was so peaceful? There wasn’t an outbreak of major hostilities between the US and USSR but there sure as hell was a lot of fighting going on.[/quote]Yes, but it has always been that way.

[quote]Multipolarity isn’t a guarantee of peace.[/quote]Of course not, but the opposite is a recipe for disaster.

marboulette

27

[quote=“lbksig”]Instead they just had near nuclear showdowns over putting missiles on Cuba. [/quote]Of course. That’s what it’s all about; to convince the other side that you are crazy enough to push the button, and as long as the fear is instilled on both sides, no one is actually willing to push the button. That’s what balance is all about.

marboulette

28

Reform in Turkey.
What do I win?[/quote]

Are you sure that is a conclusive win?

29

Obama to reverse limits on stem cell work

:bravo:

Should have been a first-day priority, but hey, as long as he does this, I’m happy. Real science is coming back to America under Obama!

30

Reform in Turkey.
What do I win?[/quote]

Are you sure that is a conclusive win?[/quote]
Pretty much, yeah.

31

The Kurds are kinda laughing in your face over believing that one.

Wanna try again?

32

Abdullah Ocalan’s still breathing. The army didn’t stage a coup over reforms brought in Gul’s party. The Turks on Cyprus voted to set aside their differences. Loads of financial and governance reforms.

Yeah, pretty sure I win.

33

It looks like the budget fight will be a big one.

[quote=“SF Gate article”]
Amid a cratering stock market, huge job losses and continuing ad hoc bank interventions, President Obama is risking his presidency on the most ambitious remake of the federal government since Ronald Reagan, raising jitters among moderate Democrats and presenting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with the most daunting challenge of her career.

For liberals who fretted just a month ago that Obama was acting suspiciously centrist, his $3.6 trillion budget is a call to arms. It is also a carefully woven matrix that tackles everything from global warming to health care with new spending and taxes.

Pull out one piece, be it a quasi-tax on carbon or an end to charitable and mortgage interest deductions by the wealthy, and either the programs unravel or $1 trillion-plus deficits rocket higher.
[/quote]

We’ll see what happens with this. Washington just posted that last month’s job losses totaled 651,000 and the unemployment rate is up to 8.1% They also revised December and January’s job loss numbers upwards. The economy is not healthy and the projections of how quickly the economy recover are pretty optimistic. I can’t see raising taxes on the wealthy as a productive or sustainable way of fixing budget problems. Raising the capital gains and dividends tax is also a bad idea if you want people to invest in the stock market in the future.

I have to wonder why they keep doing 10 year projections on spending and savings when they are talking about yearly budgets. I understand that they are committing to something for that length of time, but how does that apply to the current spending deficit? They aren’t putting all the money up right now, so wouldn’t it be better to show how much will be in this years deficit?

34

Science policy based on… science! Crazy. [quote=“NYT: Obama Lifts Bush’s Strict Limits on Stem Cell Research”]Pledging that his administration will “make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,” President Obama on Monday lifted the Bush administration’s strict limits on human embryonic stem cell research.

At a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, before an audience that included lawmakers, scientists and patients, several of them in wheelchairs, Mr. Obama announced that he was issuing an executive order intended to advance the research. He said he hoped Congress would follow with bipartisan legislation that would ease the existing restrictions even more.

The president acknowledged that studying stem cells extracted from human embryos, which are destroyed in the process, is deeply divisive.

“Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research,” the president said. “I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.”

But Mr. Obama went on to say that the majority of Americans “have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight the perils can be avoided.”
[/quote]

35

The only change is that now this research will be paid for by government - read:TAXPAYER…as in US taxpayer - money.

Personally I support stem cell research. Not murdered baby stem cells, there have been much better sources come about with continued research, but I think it is a great area with demonstrated results.
I just have a problem using tax payer money at this point in the game. Maybe later, in more specific areas, maybe OK.
We’ll see.

36

More good news. [quote=“NYT: Don’t Rely on Bush’s Signing Statements Obama Orders”]Calling into question the legitimacy of all the signing statements that former President George W. Bush used to challenge new laws, President Obama on Monday ordered executive officials to consult with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. before relying on any of them to bypass a statute.

But Mr. Obama also signaled that he intends to use signing statements himself if Congress sends him legislation that has provisions he decides are unconstitutional. He pledged to use a modest approach when doing so, but said there was a role for the practice if used appropriately.

“In exercising my responsibility to determine whether a provision of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional, I will act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded,” Mr. Obama wrote in a memorandum to the heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch. The document was obtained by The New York Times.

Mr. Obama’s directions marked the latest step in his administration’s effort to deal with a series of legal and policy disputes it inherited from the Bush administration. [/quote]
With a whack-whack here and a whack-whack there… Bush’s ridiculous legacy comes tumbling down.

37

Why’s that? Better to do the basic research with gov’t money and set the ground for universities and private labs to zero in on the specifics, which will yield patentable findings (which the US gov’t couldn’t lay claim to) no?

38

Actually, we are still waiting on much of this. Most of the wire taps, interrogation methods, Guantanamo facility, Afghan and Iraq policies have remained pretty much unchanged. Let’s see when this is finalized before breaking out the Champagne.

39

I just realized yesterday that Obama is the first president in the history of the US who I am older than. Almost makes me wish McCain had won.

40

Actually, we are still waiting on much of this. Most of the wire taps, interrogation methods, Guantanamo facility, Afghan and Iraq policies have remained pretty much unchanged. Let’s see when this is finalized before breaking out the Champagne.[/quote]

It’s coming. Much as I’d rather see Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in the dock for war crimes, blame’s far more likely to fall on Yoo. The utter and complete repudiation of policy counts for more, but real consequences for the buggers behind those policies will help.

[quote=“NYT: Terror-War Fallout Lingers Over Bush Lawyers”]
When John C. Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer, was selected by President George W. Bush in May 2004 to join a government board charged with releasing historical Nazi and Japanese war crimes records, trouble quickly followed.

The Abu Ghraib torture scandal was exploding, and fellow panelists learned that Mr. Yoo had written secret legal opinions saying presidents have sweeping wartime power to circumvent the Geneva Conventions. They protested that it was absurd to name Mr. Yoo, who they believed might have sanctioned war crimes, to a war crimes commission.

White House officials canceled the appointment, though it had already been announced in a news release, and kept the episode quiet. “We saved them from incredible embarrassment,” said Thomas H. Baer, one of the dissenting panelists.

But for Mr. Yoo, a Berkeley law professor, the swift exit from the war crimes board was only the beginning of his troubles. For more than four years, the Justice Department ethics office has been investigating his work and that of a few of his colleagues. A convicted terrorist has filed a lawsuit blaming Mr. Yoo for abuses he says he endured. Law students have led protests and the Berkeley City Council even passed a resolution in December calling for Mr. Yoo’s prosecution for war crimes.

The Obama administration last week began releasing more secret memorandums written by Mr. Yoo and others that made such wide-ranging claims about presidential power that Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, called them “shocking.”

The notoriety that follows Mr. Yoo — and to varying degrees half a dozen other Bush administration lawyers — raises difficult questions: What is a government lawyer’s responsibility if legal advice he gives turns out to be, in the view of many authorities, grievously flawed? Can he be blamed for damaging, and arguably illegal, acts carried out with his imprimatur? Should he suffer any punishment?

“I think the legal profession in the United States has been seriously hurt by their conduct,” said Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University. He called the disputed legal opinions “sloppy, one-sided and incompetent” and added, “There has to be accountability.”[/quote]