President Obama's Foreign Policy

Dear Friends,

This post is devoted to congratulating President Obama on being able to put together the 47-nation summit on the threat of nuclear terrorism.

Just by way of comparison, it is beyond comprehension that President George W. Bush would have been able to get virtually any of these nations to agree to attend the summit, much less be able to speak articulately and passionately about the substance of the issue, or get the countries to agree that there is a problem, pledge to do something about it and then meet again in a couple of years to assess how well they have done.

While I do not agree with all of President Obama's positions with respect to nuclear weapons and power, there can be no doubt that he is willing to work hard and smartly toward the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons.  There also can be no doubt that President Obama has earned the trust and respect of other world leaders.  He does not preach to them that the United States is perfect and that they better do what we say or else as his predecessor did.  President Obama speaks of a threat to all countries and the world and seeks through discussions and cooperation to find solutions to reduce or eliminate the threat of nuclear terrorism.  He is entitled to a lot of credit for what he has been able to accomplish.

The Rachel Maddow Show had a segment on the summit and its meaning on tonight's program.  After Rachael's lead-in she spoke with Joe Cirincione, the President of the Ploughshares Fund about the summit.  If you do not know of the Ploughshares Fund, go here.  They describe themselves as:

Ploughshares Fund is engaged in an aggressive strategy to seize the unprecedented opportunities before us to achieve a safe, secure, nuclear weapon-free world.  Combining high-level advocacy, an enhanced grantmaking capacity and our own expertise, we are helping to fundamentally change nuclear weapons policy.

I have included the entire clip below.  While it is well worth the 8 minutes to watch to whole thing, if you just want to see the discussion with Mr. Cirincione, it starts about 4:50 of the clip.  You really should watch what he has to say because he makes a great case for why what President Obama was able to accomplish was so historic.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Also here are a couple of articles that you might want to read on the summit if you have not already read about the summit and its results.  The first is a report from the Associated Press by Robert Burns entitled "Summit endorses Obama goal on nuclear security" (here) and the second is a news analysis piece by Peter Baker entitled "Obama Puts His Own Mark on Foreign Policy Issues" from The New York Times (here).

I take some issue with the news analysis piece since part of its analysis is that President Obama has relegated human rights and democracy building to second tier issues.  I do not think that one should lump human rights issues and democracy building together.  As far as I can tell, the desire to build democracies around the world is a recent rationale by the Bush Administration for its preemptive and unjustified war in Iraq.

Human rights issues can and I believe should be addressed without requiring a democratic form of government.  I think it is unfair to say that President Obama has relegated human rights issues to the second tier.  His foreign policy has been one of pragmatism, but just because he talks with nations that are terrible about human rights does not mean that he does not care about human rights abuses.  As with our own nuclear problems, he is addressing human rights issues knowing that the United States is not perfect.  We need to give him more time to see if he can make progress on human rights issues both at home and abroad.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Orlando's Madness

Dear Friends,

This post has nothing directly to do with politics or the Obama Administration.  Indirectly it does in that it reflects the problem with fearing or not liking that which you don't know or with which you are not familiar.

I am almost entirely ignorant about opera.  I have always said that I do not like opera.  I am quite sure that I have never been to more than two or three operas until last night so my dislike had more to do with not knowing than with actual experience.

Last night I went to "Orlando's Madness" an opera by George Frideric Handel first performed in London in 1733.   It was presented by the Philharmonia Baroque Orchestra, a wonderful San Francisco based orchestra that is led by Nic McGegan, who has been very closely associated with the Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra.  It was a slightly staged production in a wonderful church in Berkeley before a very enthusiastic and except for me and perhaps a few others a very sophisticated audience. The opera was sung in Italian, but the full libretto was included in the program including an English translation. 

The music and libretto are fantastic.  The plot is very straight forward with just five characters that you see on stage:
Orlando - a warrior conflicted between love and war
Zoroastro - a magician
Dorinda - a shepherdess and the most sympathetic and likable character
Angelica - a princess
Medoro - a young hot soldier

Orlando falls madly in love with Angelica but Angelica falls madly in love with Medoro who returns her love and Dorinda falls madly in love with Medoro.  Orlando goes crazy when he discovers that Angelica and Medoro are lovers.  He destroys Dorinda's house with Medoro in it killing him.  He then kills Angelica.  Fortunately, Zoroastro saves the day with a magic potion that returns Orlando to sanity and somehow is also able to bring Angelica and Medoro back from the dead.  It appears that he may also restore Dorinda's house because at the end after Orlando blesses the relationship between Angelica and Medoro, Dorinda invites everybody back to her house to celebrate.

I was completely enthralled and hung on every word, even though they were in Italian.  The music and singing as written, interpreted and performed told the story in an emotional and exciting way.  I was transported into the story and for over 3 and a half hours, I was in Orlando's completely unreal world.  I now love opera, at least "Orlando's Madness" performed the way it was last night.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Net Neutrality

Dear Friends,

Net neutrality is essentially the requirement that all internet service providers give all legal websites the same access.  Under net neutrality an ISP cannot make access to one site slower than to another site.  The FCC has been a supporter of net neutrality, but a recent Federal circuit court case jeopardizes the ability of the FCC to require net neutrality.  Here is the link to The New York Times article on the court decision.

Net neutrality is essential because the most obvious alternative would give the big ISP's the ability to sell speedy access to those that could afford it and to push people to related sites.  Given the huge concentration in media today, net neutrality would be a final nail in the coffin for an internet where ideas are easily and quickly exchanged and unbridled innovation can take place.

The Los Angeles Times in an editorial has suggested the best response to the court decision is for Congress to affirmatively grant the authority to the FCC that the court decision says it doesn't currently have.  (here) It argues correctly that because of the limited alternatives that any person has to get on the internet, market forces are not appropriate to solve the problem.  Government intervention is the right approach.

So President Obama has yet another important issue that he must address and work to get a dysfunctional Senate to deal with.  I hope that he takes up the cause because it is essential to have the communication and openness provided by the internet be available to all and not be a playing field slanted in favor of the already rich and powerful.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal