Now that we’ve gotten some of the Chinese reaction to president Obama’s trip, it’s time to start sampling the reaction of the rest of the world.

This article by the great Thomas Klau of Germany’s Financial Times Deutschland is not encouraging – and points out that without the U.S. able to exercise effective leadership, it’s time to grapple seriously with stronger global institutions.

According to Klau, President Obama’s China visit signals that a moment the Europeans have dreaded for hundreds of years has come when he writes:

“At least since the time of Napoleon, we Europeans have lived with a somewhat fearful suspicion that China will likely wake up one day as a giant of global politics. Now that time has come.”

As far as what the trip shows about the United States, Klau is even less sanguine, and more than a little “peeved” that Obama is treating Beijing better than he does the European Union:

“Obama’s China visit was more than a passing episode. It most likely documents the definitive end of a historic epoch, in which the foremost Western power was able to present itself internationally as the ultimate authority on good government and good business, without incurring more than the weak protestations of those who were comparatively unsuccessful. … the turnaround year of 1989 [year the Berlin Wall fell] marked the beginning of the end of a historic era – an era in which Western concepts of good governance and good business almost entirely dominated the global discourse. If things stay this way because China continues to do splits between free and un-free politics, the Tiananmen Square massacre will be, unfortunately, the 1989 event with the strongest influence on the future.”

“We are slowly beginning to get used to this new, post-American world. Peeved, we see that the globally more modest United States treats its coolly-controlling lender China with greater care than it does the European Union.”

By Thomas Klau*

Translated By Stephanie Martin

November 19, 2009

Germany – Financial Times Deutschland – Original Article (German)

After the cool treatment of Europeans, now comes a soft stance toward China. During his first visit to Asia, U.S. President Barack Obama, sober as always in his approach to foreign policy, has drawn his conclusions about the reorganization of the global power arena. In accordance with the wishes of the Chinese leadership, human rights rhetoric was almost entirely missing from Obama’s public statements. Behind closed doors he may have made demands on some key issues like Iran; in public, however, anything that may have suggested America as school master and China as the one receiving instruction was avoided.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

What is the significance of President Obama’s habit of bowing to foreign royalty? Continuing with our coverage of China’s reaction to president Obama’s Asia tour, Diguo Zhunjiang for China’s state-controlled Global Geographic Times asserts that while this results in a great loss of face for the United States, he warns his readers not to be lulled into a sense of complacency by Obama’s apparent shows of respect.

For China’s Global Geographic Times, Diguo Zhunjiang writes in part:

“I regard this as a performance. If we say that his bow upon meeting the Saudi king was a genuine expression of traditional royal awe by the newly-elected Obama, then we can also say that this time, his bow was a way of getting back at domestic critics. His intentions are quite obvious: he wants a change from the cowboy-style arrogance of his predecessor Bush in order to re-establish the United States as a model of civility, but on a deeper level, repair the damage that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have done to America’s image.

“Regardless of how humble it is in appearance, arrogant strategic thinking is in America’s bones and will continue to be so. So we shouldn’t place any hope in this false smile that has been grafted onto the United States. Rather, we should be more vigilant.”

By Diguo Zhunjiang

Translated By Mark Klingman

November 15, 2009

People’s Republic of China – Global Geographic Times – Original Article (China)

While in Tokyo, at noon on November 14, U.S. President Barack Obama met the Japanese emperor and empress at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo. Upon meeting him at the door of the royal residence, the tall Mr. Obama made an almost 90-degree bow and shook the Emperor’s hand. Obama stopped just shy of a deep bow, and shook hands warmly with the emperor and empress, saying, “it’s really an honor to meet you, your majesty.”

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

I have frequently written on patriotism, “supporting the troops,” the cost of war as measured in “bullets and dollars” and, most important, on the cost of war as measured by the sweat, blood, tears and lives of our valiant troops. This, while Americans back home are not asked to sacrifice in any meaningful manner, and are even encouraged to “go shopping.”

My words, however, are woefully inadequate when compared to a powerful, heart-rending article that appears today in my hometown newspaper.

The column, titled “Military draft would end America’s two-faced patriotism,” in my opinion, eloquently expresses sentiments and emotions that so many of us have felt so strongly over the past eight years, but have not been willing or able to express.

I will share a couple of them here.

The author, Joe James Sawyer, who was in the 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne) 1st Special Forces from 1963 to 1966, writes:

The cost of asymmetric warfare is evident in the growing numbers of young Americans coming home with horrific injuries inflicted by improvised explosive devices. The lives of those wounded soldiers are shattered — they come home missing limbs, blinded, brain damaged.

There is no end in sight. For all these years, we have carried on a national debate about the necessity of these wars and the terrible cost they carry. That dialogue has been, in the main, dishonest and hypocritical.

[In all the wars we have fought in our history] [A]ll Americans shared the pain when young lives were lost or forever shattered in America’s battlefields. The rich and the poor, black, white, red, yellow and brown — all of us — knew the grief, the loss and the suffering of Vietnam.
.
.
That is no longer true and has not been for far too many years.

He continues:

There are generations of American men and women who have no sense of service, fidelity or sacrifice. There are far too many among us who believe patriotism is to be found in waving flags and wearing yellow ribbons.

We are sending the same men and women to theaters of combat over and over, without relent. This simply cannot continue. It harms our country to do so. It cheapens any claim to patriotism by Americans who wave flags and profess to honor “our” troops while their children will never know what it means to serve the flag of the United States. Just as their parents have never known.

After claiming that others will do “the sacrifice of dying” while “the children of privileged Americans…are sheltered from any threat of having to defend their country” and while enjoying the right “to rant about the need to fight, to display their flag-waving courage and continue their feast unabated,” Sawyer points to the need to again have a universal draft: “If war is to be waged, we all must contribute; we all must sacrifice. Without that, we truly become hollow men.”

Sawyer concludes:

The time must come again when all Americans fight our wars, shoulder to shoulder on the field of combat. Only three things are required to make this come true: a sense of fairness, a sense of duty and a sense of honor.

Regardless of what your position is on the military draft, I urge you to read all of Sawyer’s moving words here.

Can President Obama persuade China not to be so dependent on growth, particularly trade-dependent growth? Likening Beijing’s obsession with growth to a Chinese version of the ‘Berlin Wall,’ Feng Mengyun of China’s state-run Global Geographic Times expresses his hope that President Obama can do something to talk the Beijing leadership into turning over a new leaf.

With some surprising criticism of the regime, Feng Mengyun writes for the Global Geographic Times in part:

“Prior to thirty years ago, the old Chinese model caused tremendous suffering. But an even graver sin would have been to stick with the system that caused such suffering.

“While [Chinese] exports stand at $1.7 trillion, domestic sales are only $860 billion. China’s trade deficit with the U.S. is $300 billion. This seems like a huge trade surplus, not to mention a contradiction. More difficult to fathom is how much foreign exports are responsible for China’s rise. Today, even with 20 percent of the world’s doors closed to trade, China unceasingly opposes trade protection and domestic unemployment is rising by the million. Is China capable of dealing with this?

“The unpredictable issue is China itself. Because rising growth has become China’s ‘Berlin Wall.’

“Obama’s ‘mutually beneficial’ thinking has already received widespread support in liberal countries, which is why the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize went to the first Black U.S. president. Since he arranged to visit China before going to Norway to collect his Prize, I hope while visiting China, Obama declares: ‘Mr. Hu Jintao, tear down this wall!’

By Feng Mengyun [???]

Translated by Jimmy Chow

November 16, 2009

People’s Republic of China – Global Geographic Times – Original Article (China)

U.S. President Barack Obama, “Ambassador of Peace,” has finally set foot in Beijing. Ahead of his visit, North Korea fired missiles, there was a sea battle between North and South Korea, and Somali pirates took 28 Chinese sailors hostage. What do these events tell Chinese who their enemies and friends are!

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Rep. Foxx is only the most recent Republican to push what is at best a distortion of the truth about which political party is responsible for getting civil rights laws like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through Congress. TP’s Matt Corley, author of this piece, debunks the myth once again:

To support the claim that Republicans were actually the architects of civil rights, conservatives often point out that a “higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill.” But this ignores the “distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians” on the issue. When this is taken into account, the facts show that “in both the North and the South, Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than the Republicans.”

The first of those two links in the above paragraph goes to a 2003 post by John Fonte at National Review Online. Here are the money grafs (emphasis is mine):

The civil-rights bill of 1964 was enacted with strong bipartisan and bi-ideological (conservative and liberal) support. But, the credit for the civil-rights victory has gone almost exclusively to liberals and Democrats, particularly to Senator Hubert Humphrey (D, Minn.) in Congress, and to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. However, much of the hard work of advancing the legislation was done by congressional Republicans — conservative stalwarts including Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, Charles Halleck of Indiana, William McCulloch of Ohio, Robert Griffin of Michigan, Robert Taft Jr. of Ohio, Clarence Brown of Ohio, Roman Hruska of Nebraska, and moderates such as Thomas Kuchel of California, Kenneth Keating of New York, and Clark MacGregor of Minnesota. All of these Republicans served as major leaders of the pro-civil-rights coalition either as floor managers or captains for different sections of the bill.

Although the Democrats controlled both houses of the Congress at the time, a much-higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill. For example, in the House, Republicans voted for civil rights by a margin of 79 percent to 21 percent, 136-35. The Democrats’ margin was 153-91 or 63 percent to 37 percent.

Anything jump out at you about the states these lawmakers come from?

Yeah. That’s right. They are all Northern states.

Now let’s jump over to the second link in that paragraph I quoted from Think Progress. That link goes to a June 1999 piece, originally published in the Washington Times, called “Voting and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” (Emphasis is mine.)

… On the surface it would indeed appear that the Republicans, and not the Democrats as commonly assumed, were the champions of civil rights in the 1960s.

However, a slightly more careful analysis of the Civil Rights Act voting record shows a distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians. Among the southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia), Senate Democrats voted 1-21 against the bill (5%) while Republicans voted 0-1 (0%). In the House, southern Democrats voted 7-87 (7%) while southern Republicans voted 0-10 (0%). Among the remaining states, Democrats voted 145-9 in favor of the bill (94%) while Republicans voted 138-24 for the bill (85%). In both the North and the South, Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than the Republicans.

The marriage within the Democratic Party of the northern liberals and the southern Dixiecrats had always been a strange one based more upon a common enemy (the Republican Party) than upon common ideals. In fact, when the 1948 Democratic platform came out strongly in favor of civil rights, delegates from 13 southern states held their own convention shortly after the adjournment of the Democratic National Convention and nominated Strom Thurmond to run for president on their own “States Rights Democrats” ticket.

While Mr. Davis is clearly correct in his assertion that Southern Democrats were staunch foes of civil rights in the 1960s, Southern Republicans, though fewer in number, were equally adamant in their opposition to civil rights legislation.

The modern Democratic Party owes its current character far more to the Northern liberals than to the Dixiecrats. If the old Southern Democrats are to be labeled as racist, then Al Gore and Bill Clinton are Southern Democrats in name only as their defense of civil rights places them solidly among the Northern Democrats and not with the Dixiecrats of old.

In the two decades following the 1960s, the now-notorious “Southern Strategy” begun by Richard Nixon and continued by Ronald Reagan led to an exodus of Southern Democrats to the Republican Party. Those were the Democrats who voted against the emancipating legislation of the civil rights era: the racist, white supremacist Dixiecrat Democrats — not the ones who form the Democratic Party today.

According to this blog entry from the Web site of China’s Global Geographic Times, a U.S. Embassy request that China use a new spelling of Obama’s Chinese name has been met with suspicion among that nation’s ‘Netizens.’

So what’s in a name, one might ask?

For the Global Geographic Times, Scholar Jiang Huai writes in part:

“On November 12, officials at the U.S. Embassy in China told reporters that the U.S. president’s name had been changed. (The president’s name is written with three Chinese characters, and they wanted to change the first so that, when read out loud, it sounds more like ‘Oubama’ (???) rather than ‘Aobama’ (???)).”

Puzzling over the explanation for this, Jiang Huai writes:

“When people translate Chinese, they often fail to pay close attention to the sound of Chinese characters. The U.S. suspects that the original name ‘Aobama’ contains the Chinese characters for ‘Australia’ and ‘fawn over.’ Now that China and Australia are increasingly close, the U.S. will of course be concerned about this. ‘Oubama,’ on the other hand, includes the Chinese characters for ‘Europe’ and ‘fawn over,’ within which may be hidden America’s great ambition to have Europeans once again pledge their allegiance to it.”

By Scholar Jiang Huai (????)

Translated by Jimmy Chow

November 13, 2009

People’s Republic of China – Global Geographic Times – Original Article (Chinese)

What’s the best name???

On November 12, officials at the U.S. Embassy in China told reporters that the U.S. president’s name had been changed. (The president’s name is written with three Chinese characters, and they wanted to change the first so that, when read out loud, it sounds more like “Oubama” (???) instead of “Aobama” (???)). Embassy officials explained that this transliteration was closer to the English. Is this just about an American word, or is there something else going on here?

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

On my trips abroad, I have rarely found an Indian restaurant that would satisfy my native taste buds. In the West, there has been a “curry” revolution and its impact has been the most in Britain. However, there is a growing realization that Indian cooking is not just meant to set your tongue on fire or titillate the palate, it actually mixes common sense with the ancient science of Ayurveda, gaining popularity as alternative medicine.

“Ever since the first British curry house opened its doors (the country now has an estimated 9,000 Indian restaurants) Indian food has become synonymous, in many minds, with the macho pursuit of tongue-bothering spice and fattening takeaway blowouts washed down with gallons of beer,” reports The Independent.

“Of course, there is another side to Indian food, and in recent years a small but determined group of cooks have sought to break through the stereotype.

“Monisha Bharadwaj is one of Britain’s top Indian cooks and an award-winning writer. Her latest book, Healthy Indian in Minutes, is mouth-watering collection of dishes… ‘The majority of British takeaways do not offer the best example of good Indian cooking,’ Bharadwaj says. ‘But you have to think about what they are. When they first opened, curry houses were catering to people who were used to eating heavy food with all its gravy, cream and stodginess. Takeaways offered something similar but with added spice.’

“But Bharadwaj says there is a growing demand for something different. I meet her in Hounslow, where she moved from her native Mumbai 22 years ago. As well as writing she now runs a cookery school in her kitchen. ‘More and more people want to cook home-cooked Indian food that’s fresh and healthy,’ she says. ‘They know that it is something different but they don’t know what it is because you can’t get it in restaurants.’

“Bharadwaj’s courses are proving a hit with everyone from housewives and husbands short of inspiration to top chefs looking to expand their repertoires.

“Bharadwaj is particular in the kitchen but that’s just how she learned to cook. Indian home cooking is governed by rules, some of them common sense but others more complex and founded on the ancient Indian science of Ayurveda. First recorded more than 5,000 years ago, the world’s oldest known system of medicine casts the kitchen as an apothecary in which herbs have healing powers.” More here…

Amazon website has this to say about Bharadwaj’s book: “People often see Indian food as greasy, fatty and labour-intensive, but everyday Indian home cooking is neither unhealthy nor difficult to prepare. Monisha Bharadwaj will prove that it is in fact a highly nutritious, gentle cuisine that has always included natural and whole foods such as whole wheat flour, raw cane sugar, lots of vegetables, beans, lentils and any number of healing spices.

“Indian eating is based on the ancient science of Ayurveda, a system of holistic living that is the oldest form of medicine known to man. Broken down into straightforward chapters – curries, dry dishes, light one-pot meals, salads and raitas, chutneys and relishes, drinks and sweets – ‘Healthy Indian in Minutes’ will give readers the tips and strategies they need to cook healthy home-style food in a matter of minutes.” More here…

[After months of deliberation in 2006], no one accused George W. Bush of dithering. So why does Barack Obama keep hearing the taunt as he deliberates about Afghanistan — and why do even some who sympathize with his dilemma find it hard to shake the feeling that this commander in chief lacks resolve?

One part of the answer is easy: Bush was renowned for summoning plenty of resolve, and not enough critical thinking. No one questioned that Bush’s heart was in his bid for “victory” in Iraq. Not a few wondered whether he had weighed carefully enough whether dispatching 20,000 more American troops in early 2007 was a reasoned strategy or a reckless gamble…

Obama’s prolonged deliberation would be understandable if he were choosing between escalating or ending the war, as Bush was. Yet he narrowed his options many weeks ago — and still has been unable to come to closure…

In the end, it’s not enough for a president to be seen as having thought through a decision to send more troops to war. Enemies, allies and the country also need to be convinced that he believes in it.

Read the whole thing.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly

The media will continue to speculate about the outcome of President Barack Obama’s visit to China. However, small gestures matter. The Times of London observes that Obama carrying his own umbrella while alighting from the Air Force One “may be just the right stick for China”.

“Perhaps that simple umbrella moment really mattered. It showed China’s people that the arrogant America of their perceptions can also show humility, and that their own leaders risk becoming just as haughty as the world’s lone superpower.

“President Obama did not come to China carrying a big stick, but he did carry his own umbrella. It was a gesture that impressed ordinary Chinese accustomed to seeing aides shielding their own leaders from the rain. Just what kind of impression Mr Obama made on China’s rulers was harder to gauge…” More here…

Meanwhile India seems to have been irked by Obama’s visit to China. “Angered by US President Barack Obama’s attempt to envisage a role for China in South Asia, India on Wednesday made it clear that it objects any move to give a wider footprint to China in the region,” reports an Indian news channel.

“The Ministry of External Affairs said that it had objections to Obama giving China a greater role in South Asian affairs, adding a third country’s role cannot be envisaged in the bilateral relationships between countries of the region.” More here…

Has Obama agreed that Beijing would monitor Indo-Pak ties? asks The Times of India. More here…

The statement by U.S. President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao, issued on Tuesday in Beijing, supports the “improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan.”

It says “the two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region.” More here…

According to the BBC: “Before Wednesday’s meeting with the Chinese prime minister, Mr Obama said the Washington-Beijing relationship was now about more than trade and economics.” Read here…

Over the weekend, I wrote a lighthearted piece on one of the ways the Aggies are preparing for the big Thanksgiving football game against their archrival, the University of Texas.

Exactly 10 years ago tonight, the Aggies were also preparing for the game, when tragedy struck.

One of the great traditions at Texas A& M—a 90-year-old tradition—has been to build a huge bonfire stack and to burn it a couple of days before the Thanksgiving game against the Longhorns.

The burning of the Bonfire symbolizes the Aggies’ “burning desire to beat the hell out of” the University of Texas.

Over the years, the Aggie Bonfire grew to an immense size, eventually becoming “the biggest bonfire in the world.”

And so, on the night of November 17, 1999, the Aggies were busy putting the finishing touches on another gigantic bonfire, a structure that was going to be four stories high, almost 60 feet, and built with over 5,000 tree-sized logs—a structure that by early morning, November 18, had already reached 45 feet in height.

Then, at 2:42 a.m. the unbelievable happened.

The Aggie Bonfire structure suddenly collapsed.

The tragedy killed 12—11 Texas A&M students and one former student—and injured 27 others.

Jamie Hand, a native of Henderson, Texas, and a Texas A&M freshman at the time, was one of those killed during the horrible tragedy.

This morning (Wednesday), exactly 10 years later, a candlelight vigil is being held in College Station at the Texas A&M Bonfire Memorial at 2:42 a.m.

According to the East Texas KLTV.com, Jamie’s parents, Larry and Neva Hand, will be at Texas A&M for the 10-year anniversary. They will be at the 2:42 a.m. candlelight vigil in honor of their daughter and 11 others, and to award a student a scholarship in Jamie’s name.

We’ll be thinking of Jamie, the other Aggies who died that early morning and of the Aggie Spirit.

Dorian de Wind ‘69

Image: Courtesy Aggiemoms.org

Note:

“This morning” refers to Wednesday morning, November 18.

In the years that we have pursued this project, today’s posting is one of the strangest international press articles I can recall. And while it indicates that Hamas may be allowing more press freedom than we thought – the conclusions of the author are anything but comforting.

Keeping in mind that the accused killer is of Palestinian origin, the author of this article from the Al Watan Voice, a newspaper published in Hamas-controlled Palestinian territory, while blaming the Fort Hood shootings on a conspiracy of either Zionism or Freemasonry [not unusual for the Arab press], agrees with the reasoning of the conspirators he seeks to expose.

And what is this reasoning? That President Obama, in showing humility and forgiveness toward Arab and Muslim states, is regarded by them as weak, and that the only way to deal with such states is the way George W. Bush did.

For the Al Watan Voice, columnist Hameed Al Wasity writes in part:

“Barack Obama has shown and continues to show inappropriate weakness and unjustified humility. This has been taken advantage of by Arab and Muslim governments.

“The Fort Hood shooting was organized by the hidden world government, international Zionism or Freemasonry (who nominated Obama for a presidential run), and was designed to push an Arab-Muslim officer – and a doctor with the rank of Major – to teach Obama and others a primary lesson: when an American doctor and officer would betray and kill in an instant, one cannot so easily trust Arabs and Muslims – and he [Hasan] was an Arab and a Muslim!!

“Unless Obama changes his policies and begins following in the footsteps of those who preceded him by bringing back American prestige, then there’ll be yet another lesson and another opportunity!! …”

By Hameed Al Wasity

Translated By Nicolas Dagher

November 12, 2009

Palestinian Territories [Gaza] – Al Watan Voice – Original Article (Arabic)

CNN has carried a report of an Arab officer who killed 13 American soldiers and wounded dozens at the Fort Hood military base in Texas.

And the officer, Major Nidal Hasan, is a psychiatrist responsible for treating American soldiers. There are so many colorful stories about his nationality. Some of his colleagues say he’s Jordanian, while certain news outlets report he’s of Palestinian origin.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

I will be the last one to pass judgment on the emotions and feelings—pro or con this decision—of relatives and friends of New York’s 9/11 victims and of New Yorkers. Nor will I pass judgment at this time on the administration’s decision to move some of the terrorists’ trials out of military courts to federal civilian courts on the U.S. mainland.

Assuming the administration’s decision to try these terrorists in federal civilian courts stands, I respectfully suggest a change of venue.

Perhaps we should consider moving the trial(s) to our nation’s capital, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Such a change of venue would recognize that it was not only New York that was attacked on 9/11, but our entire nation—all Americans.

It could also allay some—not all—concerns and criticisms.

The 9/11 terrorists also attacked the very symbol of our military power: the Pentagon. I know that many of the military who saw so many of their buddies injured and 55 of them killed, would welcome seeing the perpetrators face justice just across the Potomac from the place that was attacked and where their buddies died.

For those who worry about reprisals and security, these same military, along with reinforcements (there are numerous military installations in the Washington D.C. area), would be more than happy and capable to provide the necessary protection and deal with those who would dare to “interfere.”

The President and the Attorney General who proposed the civilian court trials are here also. And so is Congress. They would all be equally exposed to any potential danger, from which they should not shrink, and which should promote even greater security and protection.

As in New York, federal rules will allow prosecutors in Washington D.C. to seek the death penalty for these terrorists.

Finally, with our Supreme Court here, a symbol of American commitment to justice for the world to see, what an opportunity to quickly and decisively consider and once-and-for-all settle any appeals that may arise and to have justice served—swiftly and to the fullest extent.

Just a thought…

According to China’s state-run Global Geographic Times, the state-controlled Internet chat rooms are filled with tough questions for, and sharp criticism of, President Obama. On his Global Geographic Times blog page, a man named Tian Yifeng lays out some of the comments and explains why they show the insight of Chinese Netizens. The topics of the comments run the gamut, from economics, to history, to human rights campaigners like the Dalai Lama. Here are just a few:

“For the press conference, I’ve prepared a shoe to throw at you. Please choose Nike or Adidas.”

“Brother Obama, how come the United States always has trade friction with us? Why are you limiting exports to our developing country? … Didn’t Lincoln teach you how to be a good president?”

“Money is loaned to you, and then it’s burned to ashes in your country. … What steps are you taking to ensure that China’s money (particularly bonds of U.S. government debt) is safe? … In fact, at this moment you are applying for bankruptcy protection.”

By Tian Yifeng

Translated by Jimmy Chow

November 13, 2009

People’s Republic of China – Global Geographic Times – Original Article (Chinese)

“For the press conference, I’ve prepared a shoe to throw at you. Please choose Nike or Adidas.”

A day ahead of the U.S. president’s visit to China, this is the witty message an Internet user submitted to one of the many Internet sites that have offered a place for suggestions on, “What I would say to Obama.”

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

The more President Obama examines our options in Afghanistan, the less he likes the choices he sees. But, as the old saying goes, to govern is to choose — and he has stretched the internal debate to the breaking point.

It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision — whether or not it is right.

Steve Benen is incredulous:

“Whether or not it is right.” The Commander in Chief, in other words, should put expediency over merit. Speed is preferable to accuracy. It’s only the longest military conflict in American history, with the future of U.S. foreign policy on the line — the president should worry less about due diligence and thoughtful analysis, and worry more about picking a course, even if it’s wrong. Other than the loss of American servicemen and women, untold billions of dollars, and undermining U.S. interests in a critical region, what’s the worst that can happen?

Well, Ok, yesterday the Longhorns got lucky, again, and beat the Baylor Bears 47-14.

And yes, yesterday the Aggies happened to face some misfortune, again, and lost against the Oklahoma Sooners by a mere 55 points. (My local newspaper said something about “atrocious,” but what do they know.)

While for some reason, the Aggies don’t appear in the Top 25 rankings this week, I understand that Texas does—somewhere around # 2, or so.

I also understand that the Longhorns are 10-0 this season. (For some reason, I couldn’t find the stats for my alma mater)

But in what is probably the biggest college rivalry in the nation, none of this matters. We still have the big, traditional Thanksgiving game to come, where and when anything is possible, including redemption for the Aggies by just beating the Longhorns.

In preparation for the Big Game, the Aggies and the Longhorns are performing all kinds of feats to show off their prowess.

It has been rumored that a few weeks ago, Longhorn quarterback Colt McCoy threw a pass to his favorite receiver, Jordan Shipley, while Shipley was in a boat going 45 mph.

Two plucky Aggies not only recreated the alleged Longhorn feat, but surpassed it.

A couple of days ago I received a YouTube video from a friend.

The video shows Aggie Jeremy Adrian catching a pass from fellow Aggie Drew Flanagan while on a boat doing 50 mph.

Now, if we can replicate this on Kyle Field’s terra firma, we’ll be OK on Thanksgiving.

Gig’em Aggies!

Conservative bloggers, of course, are apoplectic. Scott Johnson gets this out, between convulsive gasps:

Obama’s breach of protocol is of a piece with the substance of his foreign policy. He means to teach Americans to bow before monarchs and tyrants. He embodies the ideological multiculturalism that sets the United States on the same plane as other regimes based on tribal privilege and royal bloodlines. He gives expressive form to the idea that the United States now willingly prostrates itself before the rest of the world. He declares that the United States is a country like any other, only worse, because we have so much for which to apologize.

This strikes me as rank insecurity, and it’s everywhere in the right’s response to this story.

Ron Beasley points out the lack of understanding of Japanese culture. This is not about being politically correct; it’s about trying to avoid looking like an ignorant fool:

I don’t know if the Powerline crew has spent anytime in Japan but I have.  In the US we shake hands – in Japan they bow.  Not just to the emperor but to everyone you meet.  Is it really surrender when you demonstrate a little knowledge and respect for the culture of a country you are visiting?  In the wingnut world the answer is yes.  Is it any wonder that the rest of the world hates a country with so many pompous a-hs?  I think not!

John Steele Gordon at Commentary didn’t get the memo:

Could someone in the Chief of Protocol’s Office at the State Department please tell Barack Obama that heads of state do not bow to other heads of state? And for the head of state of the country founded on the idea that “all men are created equal,” that goes double.

Actually, they do. And sometimes they kiss and hold hands.

Gordon continues, moving on to the “sainted America” theme:

President Obama goes abroad apologizing for the supposed sins of a country that defended and extended freedom around the world at a staggering cost in lives and treasure and then grovels before the man whose country has yet to apologize for the Rape of Nanking.

It never ceases to amaze me how much more importance contemporary conservatives place on the form of democracy rather than the substance. Bowing to the leader of a country in which bowing is a respectful greeting when meeting any new person is a betrayal of democracy.  Show trials in which convictions are gained using torture, hearsay testimony, and suppression of evidence are defenses of democracy.

As are nuclear weapons used on cities where hundreds of thousands of civilians live — when the United States does it. In another post on the bowing “scandal,” Donald Douglas disapprovingly notes Obama’s failure to give a direct answer to a question asked by a Japanese reporter about the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The reporter asked if, in the light of Obama’s strong interest in a nuclear-free world, he had any desire to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and whether he felt that the United States had done the right thing in dropping the bombs.

Obama’s response to that part of the question:

Obviously, Japan has unique perspective on the issue of nuclear weapons as a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — and that, I’m sure, helps to motivate the prime minister’s deep interest in this issue. I certainly would be honored, it would be meaningful for me to visit those two cities in the future. I don’t have immediate travel plans, but it’s something that would be meaningful to me.

The president then asked the reporter what the rest of his question was, specifically saying it had several parts and he wasn’t sure he remembered the last one. I’m sure he knew that he had not answered the query about his personal feelings, or opinion, regarding the morality of the bombings — but he did leave that opening for the reporter to repeat the question and the reporter did not, for whatever reason.

Donald Douglas bluntly criticizes Obama for evading the question. I would have liked to hear his answer, too, but not for the same reason.  Douglas’s post title says it all: ” ‘America’s First Pacific President’ — Won’t Defend U.S. Nuclear Attacks at Hiroshima, Nagasaki.” Emphasis is mine. And Douglas goes on to comment (at the bottom of the post):

Interesting, that, with Hawaii and all being the opening salvo of Japan’s declaration of war on the United States. Tokyo’s surprise attack was met with American power, and ultimately America’s ultimate weapon in August 1945. You’d think that a U.S. president would be able to speak frankly about the cold, hard, difficult realities of international history. Just not this president, our post American president.

Amazing. I don’t expect that Donald Douglas would understand, or that it would even occur to him to consider, that at a press conference in Japan, standing next to the youngest son of the Emperor Hirohito — you know, the guy who surrendered to the United States? — it would be the most appalling cruelty to actually defend the nuclear bombings. Look at the expression on Emperor Akihito’s face as Obama is answering the reporter, on the video at Douglas’s site.

But no — I understand that one cannot expect someone whose highest value in life is “American power” to be able to parse these subtler kinds of human interactions. Having said that, you would think that an associate professor of political science at a university in California would at least “get” the “hard, cold, international” facts of realpolitik that would make it politically and pragmatically inadvisable to defend the rightness and morality of using nuclear weapons while on an official state visit to the country on which they were used.

This article from the China Daily either indicates an opening up of China’s state-run media, or officials in Shanghai have done something serous to anger Beijing. Whatever the case, in this China Daily op-ed, columnist Hong Liang uses the imminent visit of Barack Obama to explain why young people in Shanghai love the president – and loath the ‘authoritarian excess’ that critics regard as the hallmark of the Beijing regime.

For the China Daily, Hong Liang writes in part:

Shanghai has caught Obama fever. … Obama is idolized by Shanghai’s youth because he embodies the personality and character of a leader with whom they can relate to – as opposed to some of the stern-faced Chinese officials they have learned to dread.

Later, relating an encounter with a uniformed official to illustrate his point, Hong Liang writes:

“At the front door of a downtown office building, a Shanghai colleague and I were once ordered by a uniformed guard to get out of a taxi line because we failed to prove we were guests of a tenant there. Seeing no point in arguing with her and not wanting to disturb our host, we walked to the street and got into a taxi making the turn to pick up passengers waiting in the line we just left. We evened the score.

“But at times like these, I wonder how people feel about such official arrogance. The Obama factor has made it clear that many people in Shanghai, particularly the younger ones, feel just as indignant as I do about authoritarian excess.”

By Hong Liang

November 14, 2009

People’s Republic of China – China Daily – Original Article (English)

Shanghai has caught Obama fever.

Scheduled on Monday to make a grand appearance in the mainland’s most cosmopolitan city during his first visit to China, U.S. President Barack Obama is revered by young people here as much for his superstar appeal as for being the leader of the world’s sole superpower.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

As a little boy, I used to crawl on the floor for hours setting up dozens of dominoes in various patterns, only to topple them down—and doing it over and over again.

Well, the Dutch have taken this pastime to new levels.

Today, “Domino Day,” they set a new world record—again—for the most consecutive dominoes to fall in succession, using over 4.5 million dominoes in a fantastic array of displays, including the Statue of Liberty and “Yes We Can.”

Thought you would like to know, and watch, on a weekend, up to now, fortunately void of any other earth-shaking news.

Breaking the Prenup

Raging Moderate, by Will Durst

For liberals, Election Day ‘08 was the marriage of hope and opportunity. Election Day ‘09: not so much. More like a summons from a partner’s divorce lawyer to give a deposition. After regaining statehouses in both Virginia and New Jersey, Republicans are fighting amongst themselves to see who can grab the megaphone and hail it as a sign from heaven above that the honeymoon between the American people and Barack Obama is over. All while mentally dividing up the community property.

Since Democrats typically come standard-equipped with a spine so soft and pliable it can be used as a substitute for window grouting (“Now with Less Calcium”), it comes as no surprise that more than a few members of the wedding party are attempting to weasel out of their spousal responsibilities. Trying to break the prenup, as it were. Checking for loopholes with a molecular microscope. Thawing the cake chilling in the freezer and chowing down before the hitching juice gets turned off for good.

We have to assume the union was consummated so an annulment is out of the question. Course, with these guys, you never know. And at this point it’s doubtful that even the great mystical entity that tied the holy knot of wedlock in the first place could broker a reconciliation. But let’s leave Teddy Kennedy out of this, shall we?

Whenever connubial bliss is torn asunder and heads south of Tierra del Fuego, there’s blame o’plenty to go around. Maybe too much anticipation was built up by all the pre- ceremony fooling around to sustain an actual relationship. This type of congenital post- nuptial depression tends to specifically afflict Democrats. Perhaps the yoke of marital responsibilities proved too burdensome for the betrothed. Do the terms “health care” and “midterm elections” have any meaning here? And all that talk of the expected alienation of affection due in 2010 could just be acting as a self- fulfilling prophecy.

Mr. President doesn’t skate down the culpability aisle either. He needs to understand that in the heartland, there’s not a lot of call for a metrosexual head of the household. Time to grow a pair. Less photo ops. More power tools. Everyone knows the circumstances that forced the newlyweds into moving into a fixer-upper. But now, it would be nice to see some actual fixing.

Both sides are praying a trial separation can be averted. On the same latter Election Day of which earlier we spoke, New York’s 23rd Congressional seat went non-Republican for the first time since before the Civil War. When it was held by a Whig. Who knows, maybe some couples therapy could help. Double sessions twice a week with an assist from some heavy psychotropics. Independents are notoriously fickle and susceptible to pendulum swings. Besides, the dowry has been blown and there isn’t anything left for alimony.

As always, the worst part of a breakup is not the slow suffocation of the sacred bond of matrimony; after all, the majority of better halves in this country don’t get it right until the second or third time around. No, the most distressing part is when children are involved, such as in this case. And yes, sadly, I am talking about Congress. Let the custody battles begin.

Will Durst is a San Francisco based political comic who writes sometimes. This is one of them. Catch his new one-man show, “The Lieutenant Governor from the State of Confusion,” coming soon to a performing-arts center near you. Copyright ©2009, Will Durst, distributed by the Cagle Cartoons Inc. syndicate. Will Durst is a political comedian who has performed around the world. He is a familiar pundit on television and radio. E-mail Will at durst@caglecartoons.com. Check out willandwillie.com for the latest podcast. Will Durst’s book, “The All American Sport of Bipartisan Bashing,” is available from Amazon and better bookstores all over this great land of ours.

The cartoon by Daryl Cagle is copyrighted and licensed to run on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. All rights reserved.

I have consistently supported publicly honoring our fallen heroes—with the consent of family members—when they touch American soil for the last time at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware.

Much apprehension and controversy have surrounded this issue.

Finally, this spring, the Obama administration implemented a similar policy as we have at Arlington National Cemetery which allows the family to decide whether to allow media coverage.

The new policy permits the media to attend “dignified transfer” ceremonies with permission from the families and to pay the expenses of up to three relatives of a fallen hero to travel to Dover to watch their loved one come back home.

There still remained concerns and objections on the part of some organizations and individuals, fearing that media access and publicity would diminish the solemnity and dignity of the occasion.

In “A Fallen Hero Returns for All to See and Honor” and in “‘Dignified Transfer’ Ceremonies for Our Fallen Heroes,” I wrote how those concerns were tested when the first fallen hero, Air Force Staff Sergeant Phillip A. Myers who was killed by a makeshift bomb in Afghanistan, was welcomed home publicly under the new policy.

As I wrote at the time, “The ceremony was somber, solemn and dignified. It was broadcast on most networks. I watched it. It was moving. It was appropriate.” Most corroborated those views.

More recently, when the Afghanistan War claimed the lives of 18 Americans in one single week (15 soldiers and three Drug Enforcement Administration agents), President Obama was at the Dover tarmac at 4 a.m. to welcome our heroes home for the last time.

Of course, even on this most solemn and humane duty of a commander-in-chief, there was sniping by some. But Americans overwhelmingly appreciated the president’s respect for those who have already fallen in the Afghanistan War—especially knowing that this man will soon make a decision on whether to send more troops off to war, a decision that may result in so many, many more “dignified transfers” such as the one to which he wore witness that clear fall night at Dover.

On Veterans Day, the Los Angeles times published an article by a man who thought he knew the cost of combat.

He recommended plans to spend billions of dollars in Afghanistan from his desk at the Bush White House Office of Management and Budget. To him the cost of war was measured in “the billions spent on guns and bullets.“

After watching his friend’s flag-draped coffin come home at the Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport in Connecticut, this man, David S. Abraham, now “truly understands the price of war.”

In his article, Abraham writes:

For too long, that full accounting of war was hidden from our national emotional balance sheet. The media were prevented from showing the return of the dead; even families of the deceased were unable to make the trip to Dover Air Force Base to view their loved one’s arrival.

Watching my former roommate unloaded from a plane in a silver container brought an indescribable pain. But for family members and those close to the soldier, watching the arrival is an important step in coming to terms with the loss. The ritual, the simplicity, the slow process of salutes and patriotic symbolism offer an important modicum of comfort for what is one of the worst experiences life can provide. It brings home the reality of death, both physically and emotionally.

Abraham’s friend, Army Capt. Ben Sklaver, 32, “was killed in a suicide attack in what was the deadliest month for U.S. soldiers since the war in Afghanistan began in 2001. At the time, he was trying to meet with local leaders in a village outside Kandahar to see what infrastructure they needed. To those at home who see our troops strictly as combatants, this is not a traditional soldier’s role. But Afghanistan is a new type of war, and Ben was on the front line.”

Abraham goes on to commend the Obama administration’s decisions “to allow media coverage of returning coffins, to assist families of fallen soldiers to come to Dover and to attend a ceremony himself last month,” as they “are significant steps for us as a country to fully account for war. They highlight the total price of war — not just the more than $200 billion spent so far but also the thousands of lost futures both here and in Afghanistan.”

Abraham concludes:

What’s most disheartening this Veterans Day is that many of us, including some in government, are still too far removed to truly appreciate that our troops are engaged in battle daily. Maybe it is because the money we spend is too large, the costs too abstract or the fighting too far away from our daily lives to comprehend. I have no doubt that sentiment was true for many in southern Connecticut. That is, until Ben came home.

David S. Abraham is now a director at ClearWater Initiative.