I am sure Obama is glad to be on the way home to face the economic crisis, the healthcare debate and Sarah Palin's book. He is glad to be out of Asia because this was his most difficult foreign trip since becoming president. While he was received warmly by the masses in Asia, he was not the rock star that went to Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Other than getting support from Russian president Medvedev on Iran, he didn't get much of anything else, especially in China.
Obama's critic is all over him for appearing weak on the trip. They even criticized him for bowing to the emperor of Japan. This is absurd. Bowing is a form of politeness in much of Asia, especially Japan. The old saying, "when in Rome do what the Romans do", apply here. I mean, what about Bush kissing the king of Saudi Arabia and holding his hand? I find that way more gross! But in all seriousness there is a sense of American power abroad eroding even before this trip. In the past the American president will have been able to work out agreements that he wanted before leaving home. This way it looks like he accomplished something on the trip. Now other contries are not afraid to tell the U.S. "no" ahead of time. I think Obama knows that he had to repair a lot of damage from the past and he cannot show up arrogant and demand things.
The economic crisis also makes it hard for Obama on this trip. In the past American officials can tell China and others that if they want economic growth they have to follow the U.S. With China being our lender now, we can't afford to lecture. As a result Obama did not get anything in regard to Iran, North Korea or the Chinese currency situation. China depends on Iran for oil, and the U.S. depends on China to buy our treasury bills, so why would China offend Iran to please us? China holds a lot of American dollars, so why would it increase the value its currency vs the dollar so that its investment value immediately decrease? Given this situation why would China listen to Obama about Tibet?
There is one good sign that I have not seen anyone talk about. That is Obama was allowed to speak to students in Shanghai. Even though the town hall style meeting was not broadcast on Chinese national tv, it could be seen over the internet without censorship. The setting is significant because Shanghai is where Fudan University is located. The three top universities in China are Peking, Quinghua and Fudan. The first two are both located in Bejing and are where most of the Chinese leaderships came from. Peking is most conservative and Quinghua is more technological. Of the three Fudan is by far the most liberal and has the most relations with international intellectuals. Fudan annually hosts a conference for college students from the Pacific rim which includes the U.S., Russia, Cananda, Australia in addition to Asian countries. My daughter attended the conference couple of years ago and said that there were very open discussions about human rights, Taiwan and Tibet. Chinese professors were openly critical of their own country on these issues without fear of censorship. I think if the future leaders of China come out Fudan instead of Peking or Quinghua, then I think China will become more democratic. The fact that China allowed Obama to speak near Fudan instead of Bejing is a good sign I believe.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Monday, November 02, 2009
Recently my wife and I attended the San Diego Asian Film Festival. We took in 5 movies over a 2 day period. The films we saw, in the order we saw them were: " All About Dad", "The Real Shaolin", "Yang Yang", "Whatever It Takes", and "Shades of Ray". I will rate to a scale of up to 5 and comment on each one.
"All About Dad" is about a Vietnamese American family and is a familiar story of values of parents vs the dreams of children in an Asian immigrant family. For the most part it is a very funny movie. The audience laughed loudly throughout the movie. I like the movie a lot despite the fact the main character, the youngest son who just finished his first year in college, reminds my wife and I of our own youngest child. As usual the Dad is the bad guy. More about that later. I give this movie a 4.2 out of 5.
"The Real Shaolin" is an documentary about 4 people trying to master kung fu in one of the Shaolin schools in central China. The main characters were an American, a Frenchman, a Chinese fighter trying to make it in Sanda, a Chinese version of kickboxing, and a young orphan growing up in the temple trying to become a kung fu monk. It has a lot of funny scenes but also lots of heartbreaking events. I thought it was the best of the 5 movies I saw. I give it a 4.6.
"Yang Yang" is about a half Taiwanese, half French girl growing up in Taiwan with her mother, step father and half sister. She is a high school track star, coached by her step father. She falls in love with her half sister's boyfriend. The first half of the movie was decent as the tension of the love triangle builds. But ultimately the story went flat. It was the weakest of the five movies and I give it a 3.0.
"Whatever It Takes" is a story of a Chinese American business man, unfulfillled in his work, becomes a principal at a new South Bronx magnet high school. It shows him and some dedicated teachers trying to help minority students overcome odds to go to college. It is suppose to be a story of tough love but I find the main character bending over too much for the students. There was still some very poor discipline given that the students supposedly want to go there instead of their neighborhood school in order to better themselves. The main student the film followed was obviously smart but she flunk almost all of her classes because she never did her homework. Despite that she got into Dartmouth's summer program. There were some kids who did much better but were only mentioned in passing. I guessing showing someone who succeeded because he/she studied everyday was not as interesting as someone who worked very little but somehow got chosen by some ultra-liberal institution. I give this film a 3.7.
"Shades of Ray" is about a half Pakistani man who proposed to his white girlfriend but while he waited for her answer, falls in love with a half Pakistani woman his father had set up for him. This was supposed to be one the big film of the festival as it stars Zachary Levi, star of TV show "Chuck" and Brian George who played Babu in Seinfeld. It was very funny but I find it hard to believe that a Pakistani man who married a white woman would insist that his son marry a Pakistani woman. The same with the girl's father. Also while Levi was funny, he acts and sounds too much like Seinfeld. I never saw "Chuck" so I don't know how he usually acts. I like Seinfeld but I would not want him to play a romantic role. I give this film a 4.0.
Overall it was good to see many talented Asian actors, directors and producers show their stuff. It is very difficult for Asian actors to get roles in Hollywood, especially Asian males. Even in "Shades of Ray" both Levi and George are not South Asians. The director Jaffar Mahmoud was at the film festival and he explained that he interviewed every South Asian actor in LA to cast the main character. He just couldn't find the right person. I can accept his explanation that he had to find the best person for the role. But if a South Asian can't play the role of a South Asian, what can he possibly play? One of the actors in "All About Dad" say that there is no decent role for Asian males and that he is thankful he has an engineering degree from Michigan State.
Which brings up my final point. Why is it that the dad is always the bad guy in films of conflict within an Asian family? I am sure that there are dads who are prejudiced but I don't believe that if one is married to someone of another race that he would try everything he can to stop his son from doing the same. Why is it that when an Asian man tells his son that studying hard is more important than trying to make films as the dad in "All About Dad" did is old fashion. But when an Asian man tells his black students that in order to make it out of the slum they have to study hard, then he is a hero? The message is the same but if you deliver it to your own son, it makes you look bad. But if you deliver it to your minority students you look great. I am sure the actor that got his engineering degree is glad that he listened to his Asian dad!
"All About Dad" is about a Vietnamese American family and is a familiar story of values of parents vs the dreams of children in an Asian immigrant family. For the most part it is a very funny movie. The audience laughed loudly throughout the movie. I like the movie a lot despite the fact the main character, the youngest son who just finished his first year in college, reminds my wife and I of our own youngest child. As usual the Dad is the bad guy. More about that later. I give this movie a 4.2 out of 5.
"The Real Shaolin" is an documentary about 4 people trying to master kung fu in one of the Shaolin schools in central China. The main characters were an American, a Frenchman, a Chinese fighter trying to make it in Sanda, a Chinese version of kickboxing, and a young orphan growing up in the temple trying to become a kung fu monk. It has a lot of funny scenes but also lots of heartbreaking events. I thought it was the best of the 5 movies I saw. I give it a 4.6.
"Yang Yang" is about a half Taiwanese, half French girl growing up in Taiwan with her mother, step father and half sister. She is a high school track star, coached by her step father. She falls in love with her half sister's boyfriend. The first half of the movie was decent as the tension of the love triangle builds. But ultimately the story went flat. It was the weakest of the five movies and I give it a 3.0.
"Whatever It Takes" is a story of a Chinese American business man, unfulfillled in his work, becomes a principal at a new South Bronx magnet high school. It shows him and some dedicated teachers trying to help minority students overcome odds to go to college. It is suppose to be a story of tough love but I find the main character bending over too much for the students. There was still some very poor discipline given that the students supposedly want to go there instead of their neighborhood school in order to better themselves. The main student the film followed was obviously smart but she flunk almost all of her classes because she never did her homework. Despite that she got into Dartmouth's summer program. There were some kids who did much better but were only mentioned in passing. I guessing showing someone who succeeded because he/she studied everyday was not as interesting as someone who worked very little but somehow got chosen by some ultra-liberal institution. I give this film a 3.7.
"Shades of Ray" is about a half Pakistani man who proposed to his white girlfriend but while he waited for her answer, falls in love with a half Pakistani woman his father had set up for him. This was supposed to be one the big film of the festival as it stars Zachary Levi, star of TV show "Chuck" and Brian George who played Babu in Seinfeld. It was very funny but I find it hard to believe that a Pakistani man who married a white woman would insist that his son marry a Pakistani woman. The same with the girl's father. Also while Levi was funny, he acts and sounds too much like Seinfeld. I never saw "Chuck" so I don't know how he usually acts. I like Seinfeld but I would not want him to play a romantic role. I give this film a 4.0.
Overall it was good to see many talented Asian actors, directors and producers show their stuff. It is very difficult for Asian actors to get roles in Hollywood, especially Asian males. Even in "Shades of Ray" both Levi and George are not South Asians. The director Jaffar Mahmoud was at the film festival and he explained that he interviewed every South Asian actor in LA to cast the main character. He just couldn't find the right person. I can accept his explanation that he had to find the best person for the role. But if a South Asian can't play the role of a South Asian, what can he possibly play? One of the actors in "All About Dad" say that there is no decent role for Asian males and that he is thankful he has an engineering degree from Michigan State.
Which brings up my final point. Why is it that the dad is always the bad guy in films of conflict within an Asian family? I am sure that there are dads who are prejudiced but I don't believe that if one is married to someone of another race that he would try everything he can to stop his son from doing the same. Why is it that when an Asian man tells his son that studying hard is more important than trying to make films as the dad in "All About Dad" did is old fashion. But when an Asian man tells his black students that in order to make it out of the slum they have to study hard, then he is a hero? The message is the same but if you deliver it to your own son, it makes you look bad. But if you deliver it to your minority students you look great. I am sure the actor that got his engineering degree is glad that he listened to his Asian dad!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
I read an article in LA Times recently about a fight in the Chinese community in Southern California over the use of traditional vs simplied scripts in Chinese language schools and in public schools in the area that offer Chinese courses. Traditional script is how Chinese have been written over thousands of years. It is distinguished by a series of complex strokes that makes for beautiful calligraphy. It is still the official writing in Taiwan and Hong Kong. The simplified version was introduced by the communists in China about 50 years ago to make it easier for the rural mass to become literate quicker. It is supposed to be easier for a child to learn than the complex traditional version.
In the past the Chinese America community was dominated by immigrants from Hong Kong and southern China. Then the Taiwanese came. Since all of these groups use the traditional version there was no controversy. Now there is a big influx of mainlanders who grew up using the simplified version. Obviously they want their children to learn the simplified version. So now school officials are caught in the middle. It is really too bad because it tears the Chinese American community apart over something as beautiful as Chinese writing.
My own feeling is that I want the traditional writings to survive. I am biased because I learned the traditional version. I also feel that the tradition is more beautiful. It has more, pardon the pun, character. I doubt that the simplified version is that much easier to learn. If you want easy, use alphabet! But I am also realistic, with the overwhelming population of China and its increasing influence in the world of commerce, the simplified version will eventually prevail. Just like Cantonese will give away to Mandarin in Chinatowns here and eventually even in Hong Kong, traditional scripts will lose out. It is too bad but it is reality.
In the past the Chinese America community was dominated by immigrants from Hong Kong and southern China. Then the Taiwanese came. Since all of these groups use the traditional version there was no controversy. Now there is a big influx of mainlanders who grew up using the simplified version. Obviously they want their children to learn the simplified version. So now school officials are caught in the middle. It is really too bad because it tears the Chinese American community apart over something as beautiful as Chinese writing.
My own feeling is that I want the traditional writings to survive. I am biased because I learned the traditional version. I also feel that the tradition is more beautiful. It has more, pardon the pun, character. I doubt that the simplified version is that much easier to learn. If you want easy, use alphabet! But I am also realistic, with the overwhelming population of China and its increasing influence in the world of commerce, the simplified version will eventually prevail. Just like Cantonese will give away to Mandarin in Chinatowns here and eventually even in Hong Kong, traditional scripts will lose out. It is too bad but it is reality.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Everybody had been waiting breathlessly to see which way Snowe would fall. Would Snowe have ice in her veins? Can she weather the storm of attack from her Republican party? Would she flake out from the middle ground? In other words will the Baucus bill have a Snowe ball's chance in hell of getting a Republican vote? Well after watering the bill extensively, particularly getting rid of the public option in order to woo Republicans, the Baucus bill passed out of committee 14-9. Of course without all that compromise, it would have only passed 13-10. It is nice to claim bipartisan support but it is hardly a great victory for the Democrats.
On a different note, the insurance industry is now against healthcare reform saying it will increase premiums $4000 on average over the next ten years. I think any intelligent person would consider the source of this "research". I can tell you my insurance has gone up over 60% in the last 3 years without reform and in 10 years at this pace my premium will increase way more than $4000. If a proposal is too confusing to me I usually just look at who is endorsing or against it. For example if the tobacco companies are for something, it is probably not going to be good for your health. The insurance industry is looking out for my premium? Come on! People should now root for reform more than ever.
I don't lik Rush Limbaugh. But all the reaction out there against him trying to buy part of the Rams? I think this just plays into his hand. He was not serious about buying in. He knew that the NFL would not let him in. But by trying to buy in it caused an uproar from the players, owners and people like Sharpton. Now he can go on his show and claim that he was discriminated against and get his base rile up again. The NFL owners are not exactly a group of good people. I mean why do they still allow a franchise in our capital to be called the Redskins? They all looked the other way as steroids and other drugs were used all over the league. Criminal records of some of the players are astounding. It is like the kettle calling the pot black when it comes to their complaint about Limbaugh. My question is: Who are the morons who invited Limbaugh into the partnership? Are they trying to sabotage their own candidacy to help Limbaugh get publicity?
On a different note, the insurance industry is now against healthcare reform saying it will increase premiums $4000 on average over the next ten years. I think any intelligent person would consider the source of this "research". I can tell you my insurance has gone up over 60% in the last 3 years without reform and in 10 years at this pace my premium will increase way more than $4000. If a proposal is too confusing to me I usually just look at who is endorsing or against it. For example if the tobacco companies are for something, it is probably not going to be good for your health. The insurance industry is looking out for my premium? Come on! People should now root for reform more than ever.
I don't lik Rush Limbaugh. But all the reaction out there against him trying to buy part of the Rams? I think this just plays into his hand. He was not serious about buying in. He knew that the NFL would not let him in. But by trying to buy in it caused an uproar from the players, owners and people like Sharpton. Now he can go on his show and claim that he was discriminated against and get his base rile up again. The NFL owners are not exactly a group of good people. I mean why do they still allow a franchise in our capital to be called the Redskins? They all looked the other way as steroids and other drugs were used all over the league. Criminal records of some of the players are astounding. It is like the kettle calling the pot black when it comes to their complaint about Limbaugh. My question is: Who are the morons who invited Limbaugh into the partnership? Are they trying to sabotage their own candidacy to help Limbaugh get publicity?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
The scientists who won the Nobel prize did their breakthrough works about 30 years ago. They are finally being rewarded now. Obama has been president for 9 months and he wins his prize already? He is greater symbol for peace than Gandhi, who had never won the Nobel? Well, I suppose he is able to bring enemies together. Both the Taliban and Rush Limbaugh believe that Obama is worse than Hitler. Both Israelis and Palestinians think that with the award, he will be tougher on them. Both the extreme right and the extreme left don't think he has not done enough. But other than bringing these mortal enemies together against him winning the award, I don't see how he should have even been nominated. At this pace if the world comes out of recession next year, he will win the Nobel prize--for economics.
The question I have now is will this affect his decision about Afghanistan? He is taking a lot of time to make the decision. In the past he has said that Afghanistan is different than Iraq and that we need to win there. I agree with that and hold him to that. As I have said before, I agree with the generals who recommend that we add troops to Afghanistan. The fact that we got side-tracked by Bush in Iraq and that the job is much more difficult today does not change my believe that we have to defeat al qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Maybe Obama does not need to authorize all 40,000 troops McCrystal asked for, but he should not hesitate to increase the manpower as soon as possible. I hope winning the peace prize does not affect his judgment in this.
One more thing about the Nobel. The winners in each catergory split 1.4 millon. Since there is usually 3 winners, each get less than 500,000. Not bad but not exactly anywhere near the bonuses the Wall Street types get. Without scientific innovations, businesses have nothing new to sell. In the long run we must increase funding to the scientific fields so that the brightest people continue to go into sciences and we get scientists from other countries who want to come here to do research. Inventing the next computer chip or medicine is much more important than creating the next hedge fund.
The question I have now is will this affect his decision about Afghanistan? He is taking a lot of time to make the decision. In the past he has said that Afghanistan is different than Iraq and that we need to win there. I agree with that and hold him to that. As I have said before, I agree with the generals who recommend that we add troops to Afghanistan. The fact that we got side-tracked by Bush in Iraq and that the job is much more difficult today does not change my believe that we have to defeat al qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Maybe Obama does not need to authorize all 40,000 troops McCrystal asked for, but he should not hesitate to increase the manpower as soon as possible. I hope winning the peace prize does not affect his judgment in this.
One more thing about the Nobel. The winners in each catergory split 1.4 millon. Since there is usually 3 winners, each get less than 500,000. Not bad but not exactly anywhere near the bonuses the Wall Street types get. Without scientific innovations, businesses have nothing new to sell. In the long run we must increase funding to the scientific fields so that the brightest people continue to go into sciences and we get scientists from other countries who want to come here to do research. Inventing the next computer chip or medicine is much more important than creating the next hedge fund.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
It is unbelievable that so many Hollywood types come out in support of Roman Polanski. Debra Winger, Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen? If I am Polanski, I don't want Woody Allen to be on my side. Comments and petitions from these people only reinforce the perception to the rest of the country that the powerful in Hollywood don't live in reality. They believe that they are above the law.
In fact Polanski's treatment by the LA justice system 32 years ago make him almost above the law. How is it that the prosecution and the defense were making a deal for probation when someone rapes a 13 year old girl? If Polanski was poor he would have been in jail for more than 10 years. If the judge was changing his mind about the plea deal as both the prosecution and defense contend now, he had a perfect right to do so. The judge is not the one making the deal but he gets to approve or disapprove of it. Until he makes that decision he certainly can change his mind. Now everybody is blaming the judge because he is dead and cannot defend himself. The prosecution should be the one that the public be angry at for making such a sweet heart deal for a heinous crime.
Regardless of the conduct of the judge, the fact remains that Polanski skipped out of the country and would not return for trial. I can now understand why the celebrities are on his side because if Polanski is allowed to go free, then every time a rich person commits a crime, all he had to do is flee the country. Is this the message we are sending? If Polanski cannot be brought to justice because of the length of time and that he is not dangerous at his old age, then why do we drag 90 year old Nazi war criminals out of Argentina or other places to face trial?
In fact Polanski's treatment by the LA justice system 32 years ago make him almost above the law. How is it that the prosecution and the defense were making a deal for probation when someone rapes a 13 year old girl? If Polanski was poor he would have been in jail for more than 10 years. If the judge was changing his mind about the plea deal as both the prosecution and defense contend now, he had a perfect right to do so. The judge is not the one making the deal but he gets to approve or disapprove of it. Until he makes that decision he certainly can change his mind. Now everybody is blaming the judge because he is dead and cannot defend himself. The prosecution should be the one that the public be angry at for making such a sweet heart deal for a heinous crime.
Regardless of the conduct of the judge, the fact remains that Polanski skipped out of the country and would not return for trial. I can now understand why the celebrities are on his side because if Polanski is allowed to go free, then every time a rich person commits a crime, all he had to do is flee the country. Is this the message we are sending? If Polanski cannot be brought to justice because of the length of time and that he is not dangerous at his old age, then why do we drag 90 year old Nazi war criminals out of Argentina or other places to face trial?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Joe Wilson says that Obama lied about illegal immigrants not being covered in any healthcare reform package. I think that if Obama did not lie then he is wrong on this issue. As are most of Americans. All the Democrat's plans do not allow illegals to even buy their own insurance, never mind subsiding them if they are poor. As I have said before, most illegals are doing what you and I would have done, if we have the energy and drive, to risk their lives to work very hard to support their families. If our government don't want their services, deport them. I think it would be worse for our economy but it is a fair legal choice we can make. However, to say that someone who is working and paying taxes but cannot get pay for their own insurance, is morally wrong.
Besides being morally wrong I think it is also impractical. If an illegal has a heart attack or appendicitis e.g. he will go to ER where we have a policy not to turn away anyone. So without insurance or in this case the legal right to buy insurance, the bill will probably be paid by taxpayers or swallowed by the hospital which has to charge others more. Since illegals are younger and in better physical shape than Americans on the average (you don't sneak into the country and work in the fields 10 hours a day in my condition), we should want them to be part of the paid insurance pool. As I said before, if an illegal gets tuberculosis and do not get treated, he may die and also spread it to others. Tuberculosis does not know nationality. Do we want this?
Besides being morally wrong I think it is also impractical. If an illegal has a heart attack or appendicitis e.g. he will go to ER where we have a policy not to turn away anyone. So without insurance or in this case the legal right to buy insurance, the bill will probably be paid by taxpayers or swallowed by the hospital which has to charge others more. Since illegals are younger and in better physical shape than Americans on the average (you don't sneak into the country and work in the fields 10 hours a day in my condition), we should want them to be part of the paid insurance pool. As I said before, if an illegal gets tuberculosis and do not get treated, he may die and also spread it to others. Tuberculosis does not know nationality. Do we want this?
Monday, September 14, 2009
I was quite happy with my football predictions on Saturday. Sure I was wrong about USC and OSU. But I had also predicted to my younger son that Michigan and UCLA were going to lose. Since my alma mater and his school won, it makes me 0-3 in predictions but very happy. The truth is that OSU should have won even though I was wrong about the abilities of the two qbs. Pryor doesn't seem to have improve much as far as passing goes from last year. And I expected him to scramble more which I think would cause more problems for USC and may have opened up the passing. Barkley did better at the end than I thought he possibly could. He didn't panic and certainly did not choke at the end as I predicted. I am not sold on him, however. It is obvious that the USC offense was way more conservative than in previous years. I think with Aaron Corps, who can scramble and throw, USC would have won easily. I hope that USC play this way against Cal in a few weeks.
In continuation on weekend sports: I think Serena Williams got off too easy. She should have been fined a lot more and suspended. But you know that would never happen. Not when they never supended McEnroe and Connors. Truth is tennis was at its most popular time when the two bad boys were playing. Tennis authorities know that controversial personalities sell tickets and bring high ratings. They were not about to have Connors and McEnroe miss tournaments and they are not going to have Serena Williams miss tournaments if they can help it.
McEnroe, by the way, predictably defended Williams. He said that foot fault should not be called in this situation, ie bring on match point. He said refs let fouls go in basketball all the time especially at end of games. I think that is absurd. Michael Jordan may get away with fouls because he is a superstar and because fouls are subjective. But stepping on a line is not subjective. If a ref sees Jordan step on the line with the ball near the end of the game, he is going to call it. In this case if the linesman sees a foot fault, he or she must call it, regardless where we are at the match. Anyways if it was not for linesmen and umpires who "can't be serious", McEnroe would not be making so much money after he retired!
In continuation on weekend sports: I think Serena Williams got off too easy. She should have been fined a lot more and suspended. But you know that would never happen. Not when they never supended McEnroe and Connors. Truth is tennis was at its most popular time when the two bad boys were playing. Tennis authorities know that controversial personalities sell tickets and bring high ratings. They were not about to have Connors and McEnroe miss tournaments and they are not going to have Serena Williams miss tournaments if they can help it.
McEnroe, by the way, predictably defended Williams. He said that foot fault should not be called in this situation, ie bring on match point. He said refs let fouls go in basketball all the time especially at end of games. I think that is absurd. Michael Jordan may get away with fouls because he is a superstar and because fouls are subjective. But stepping on a line is not subjective. If a ref sees Jordan step on the line with the ball near the end of the game, he is going to call it. In this case if the linesman sees a foot fault, he or she must call it, regardless where we are at the match. Anyways if it was not for linesmen and umpires who "can't be serious", McEnroe would not be making so much money after he retired!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
I don't think Obama's speech is going to change any minds. He knows that he will not get any support from any Republicans and is just trying to get more public support and keep the liberal and conservative Democrats from fighting each other. He will improve his approval rating on healthcare as a result of the speech for a few days. This won't last and he will have to push quickly for the House and Senate to push bills through and then reconcile the difference between the more liberal House bill and the more conservative Senate bill in conference committee. This is why he refuses to come out totally for or against the public option. This gives him the flexibility to accept whatever comes out of the conference committee.
Personally I don't think healthcare reform is going to make much difference if there is no public option. Without it I think premiums will keep rising and we will have to revisit the problem in the near future. But I think at this point Obama will accept any bill and declare victory and move on. If there was any victory for Obama yesterday it was thanks to the Republicans. Their response speech was weak and the crazy guy who called Obama a liar probably helped the Democrats more than Obama's speech.
As a side note , I predict that Ohio State will beat USC on Saturday. I think USC is over confident, the game is in Columbus, and USC has a freshman qb who was not tested in the first game. I think OSU will stack the line to stop the run and hope that Barkley makes mistakes. On offense I think Pryor will give USC problems just as Vince Young did a few years ago.
Personally I don't think healthcare reform is going to make much difference if there is no public option. Without it I think premiums will keep rising and we will have to revisit the problem in the near future. But I think at this point Obama will accept any bill and declare victory and move on. If there was any victory for Obama yesterday it was thanks to the Republicans. Their response speech was weak and the crazy guy who called Obama a liar probably helped the Democrats more than Obama's speech.
As a side note , I predict that Ohio State will beat USC on Saturday. I think USC is over confident, the game is in Columbus, and USC has a freshman qb who was not tested in the first game. I think OSU will stack the line to stop the run and hope that Barkley makes mistakes. On offense I think Pryor will give USC problems just as Vince Young did a few years ago.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
It seems like we are getting bad news everyday out of Afghanistan. The apparent corruption of the central government in the election and the increase in casualties make this war appear unwinable. This is most unfortunate because if we had not gone into Iraq but focused on Afganistan I think we could have defeated the Taliban permanently and captured most of the leaders of al qaeda, if not bin laden himself. The question is what to do now.
When we went into Afghanistan, I felt our goal was not just to defeat al qaeda and the Taliban but to also rebuild Afghanistan. I felt that if we just bomb the whole place up and leave afterwards it will help the terrorist leaders elsewhere be able to recruit more people against us. But in order to rebuild Afghanistan, there has to be leadership within the country itself. Karzai does not appear to be able provide that leadership. Just like the economic crisis, Obama inherited this war from Bush and owns it now. I don't think he has any good choices here.
I think Obama has to increase his troops in Afghanistan as his generals are suggesting. The surge worked well in Iraq and is worth trying here. But even if we have some military success over the next couple of years it will not be enough. The bad guys can afford to wait it out in the mountains if we drive them back. We must be willing to stay for the long run. But if a surge works a little, at least Obama can then convince Congress and the public that it is worthwhile to keep going. We also need to win over the people outside of Kabul. This means that we have to find a way to bypass the corrupt central government and provide aids to the provinces. This will require more civilian aid workers as well. It will not be an easy task but our fight against terrorism depends on it.
When we went into Afghanistan, I felt our goal was not just to defeat al qaeda and the Taliban but to also rebuild Afghanistan. I felt that if we just bomb the whole place up and leave afterwards it will help the terrorist leaders elsewhere be able to recruit more people against us. But in order to rebuild Afghanistan, there has to be leadership within the country itself. Karzai does not appear to be able provide that leadership. Just like the economic crisis, Obama inherited this war from Bush and owns it now. I don't think he has any good choices here.
I think Obama has to increase his troops in Afghanistan as his generals are suggesting. The surge worked well in Iraq and is worth trying here. But even if we have some military success over the next couple of years it will not be enough. The bad guys can afford to wait it out in the mountains if we drive them back. We must be willing to stay for the long run. But if a surge works a little, at least Obama can then convince Congress and the public that it is worthwhile to keep going. We also need to win over the people outside of Kabul. This means that we have to find a way to bypass the corrupt central government and provide aids to the provinces. This will require more civilian aid workers as well. It will not be an easy task but our fight against terrorism depends on it.