Medvedev’s Well-Timed Speech

So we begin.  The inimitable Joe Biden warned us, did he not, that “this guy, this young president, will be tested.”  The day after elections, Russia’s President, Dmitri Medvedev releases an already-written speech.  Stratfor’s analysis is crystal clear.

Stratfor – Nov 6, 2008

On Wednesday, as the entire world took in the idea of having Barack Obama as the next U.S. president, one of the greatest challengers to American power, Russia, decided to make itself immediately clear on its views of the current U.S. administration, Obama’s election and the global U.S. agenda.

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev gave his long-awaited first State of the State address (the equivalent of the U.S. president’s State of the Union address) on Nov. 5. The speech was much more than a nationalist appeal liberally sprinkled with Soviet-era rhetoric; it was a declaration of Russia’s return to the ranks of the world’s great powers. In effect, Medvedev not only tossed the gauntlet for Russia’s rivals in the West, but he also is not waiting around to see how they respond.

It must be understood that Medvedev — while he is certainly coming into his own under the sponsorship of his mentor, former president and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin –- did not write this speech himself. The author is the Kremlin’s gray cardinal, Vladislav Surkov, who has played the role of backroom dealer, enforcer, planner and puppet master for Putin for most of the past eight years. Surkov does not control Putin — far from it -– but in many ways is the brains behind much of what happens in the Kremlin these days.
It was Surkov who recommended that Medvedev’s speech, originally scheduled for Oct. 23, be postponed. Ostensibly, the delay was meant to allow Russia more time to deal with its deepening financial crisis, but in reality, Surkov wanted to know which presidential candidate the Americans were going to elect. The speech was already written. In fact, according to Stratfor sources, two speeches had been written — one for each possible outcome of the U.S. election. In waiting for a clear picture on whom Moscow would be dealing with in Washington, Russia underscored the central role the United States plays in the international system, and that Moscow views Washington as its main counterweight.  Unlike many previous State of the State addresses, Medvedev’s Nov. 5 speech contained few veiled threats or simple proclamations. Instead, it announced hard actions, including the following statements:

• Russia will deploy Iskander short-range ballistic missiles to Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave sandwiched between NATO and EU states Lithuania and Poland, in order to directly target the fledgling U.S. ballistic missile defense installations slated for Poland and the Czech Republic. (The Iskanders’ limited range will allow them to put only the Polish site at risk.)
• Russia will return to a more Soviet-style system of term limits in order to more firmly entrench the power of the Putin team.
• Moscow will not even consider negotiations with the lame-duck administration of President George W. Bush, preferring instead to wait for President-elect Barack Obama’s team, which Moscow thinks will be easier to manipulate (whether or not this proves true).
• The United States is to blame not only for Russia’s war with Georgia, but also for the global financial crisis.
• Russia will not make any concessions on its international position; the United States can take it or leave it.

All in all, these statements bear a degree of boldness that has long been present in Russian propaganda, though not necessarily backed up by any particular actions. Russia’s goal is simple: Use the three-month U.S. presidential transition period to impose a reality on the regions Moscow considers of core interest, presenting soon-to-be President Obama with a fait accompli. Most of Russia’s efforts will focus on Ukraine, but attention also will be spread throughout the Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as the Baltics, Belarus, Poland and the Czech Republic.

These states are already nervous about Obama’s ability to stand up to Russia’s new swagger, especially since he has never outlined a firm stance against Moscow and will be embroiled in other critical affairs, like Iraq and Iran. Now, Medvedev has told these states outright that Russia is about to act while the Americans can’t. He is playing on the states’ fears to push them into making a choice: Continue to depend on the United States (whether its support comes through or not), work with Moscow, or get crushed in the process.

Rhetoric Aside: Reality Shock Sets In

Barack Obama/White Sox Baseball Card 2006

It has been, to say the least, a remarkable week, and the conclusion to a most remarkable, most engaging political campaign, perhaps the longest one in American history.  Many things can be said about this campaign, and I won’t use time or space here for “sour grapes” statements.  Several things have happened  that demand our attention, I’d like you to note the following remarks:

• Looking back at previous elections I can recall a time not too long ago when one of the major concerns for both parties was the malaise and lack of voter turnout.  Pundits pinned their prediction to the possibilities of low turnout favoring one candidate and high turnout favoring the other.   In this election, though, more voters turned out from every conceivable sector of our population than ever before, far exceeding  the expectations of even the most optimistic pundits.  America spoke and she spoke loudly.

• I can recall a time not too long ago, when the general talk among ordinary people was of the ilk that it “didn’t really matter who we vote for because the candidates are really both the same.“  I never really believed that then, but I must say, I haven’t even heard a hint of that kind of talk this time.  Everyone knew what the issues were, everyone was engaged, everyone voted.  And for whatever reason they voted, whether it was an honest appreciation of Mr. Obama’s stated policies and plans for the country; or a personality contest in which Mr. Obama simply looked so much better than his opponent or even a race-based decision, the lowest common denominator; America spoke and Barack Obama was elected president of the United States on Tuesday, November 4th, 2008.

• Despite the nightmare scenarios of “hanging chad” situations in Ohio and Virginia, and apart from the retaining, by both parties, of literally tens of thousands of lawyers, put in place and made ready for litigation in the case of a close count, or even worse, a tie, one thing stands congratulatory above all else.  As the world watched and marveled, the American system again participated in, and presided over an orderly and smooth transition of authority and power.  And that, my friends, is a truly unusual thing.  Think of the nations where such a transition cannot possibly occur, and you will catalog the hot-spots and oppressive regimes all around the world.  Think of the few nations in which such a transition is a possibility and you will list a small group of nations who stand stable alongside us, even if in disagreement over politics and policies.

The popular vote gave Mr. Obama a solid majority, but nowhere near a landslide. His electoral majority was decisive. Most significantly, the Democrats now control both houses of Congress and in the Senate are close to – but not quite at – a filibuster-proof majority. They decisively control two branches of government. Indeed, it is likely that they will be able to appoint one or even two justices to the Supreme Court in the next four years, controlling that as well. We must not let the importance of this one fact escape us:  Mr. Obama will have more political power, more control over the strategic and tactical direction of the federal government on his first day in office than most presidents ever achieve.

The crucial question will be whether it makes a difference.  I have long thought that the presidency, although more powerful than just about any position on Earth, is still subject to the whims and wiles of many other factors worldwide.  This is particularly true in the case of foreign policy.  Mr. Obama is about to learn that ideology and personalities are of secondary importance to the external forces that limit, shape and constrain the American president’s options.

The change between the government of the United States elected in 2004 and the government that will take power in January, 2009 is as dramatic a shift in personalities and ideologies as has ever occurred in the American system. The issue will be how much wiggle-room Mr. Obama will actually have, particularly in foreign policy.

Consider: President-elect Obama has pledged to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, although his time frame is unclear. If he does withdraw them, he will have to deal with Iranians sooner rather than later, as they will want to move into any power vacuum left in Iraq. If the Iraqi government is unable to govern, or parts of it are under Iranian influence, obviously Iranian influence in Iraq will surge. This of course will deeply concern Saudi Arabia, which has been frightened of Iranian power since the Iranian revolution.  Like it or not, Saudi Arabia still controls OPEC and, going in, much of the oil needed to run this country.

Mr. Obama will face the choice of either leaving the Saudis to their own devices or containing the Iranians. The strategy he has said he would follow would be to negotiate with the Iranians. He would have to reach an understanding with them that would create a neutral Iraqi government and allow the United States to withdraw, yet have a credible guarantee from Iran to respect Iraqi neutrality and keep it as a buffer zone. What can the United States offer Iran that matches the importance of Iraq to them?

That will be the point at which President Obama will first show whether he can carve a new path or whether he will be trapped in the same reality the Bush administration has faced, lo these past five years.

Reality Checks Rhetoric (opus 3)

Not so much because I can’t figure out who to vote for — that was decided for me some time back — but just as a measure of knowing what to expect after January, I’ve been very interested in these reports from Stratfor, the company I get much of the intel I use to stay on top of international affairs.  George Freidman is a very astute fellow, and his analysis on the current state of political affairs is quite informative, a healthy dose of reality amid all the rhetoric.  I understand that these articles are more technical, a break from the lighter-hearted stuff I’ve been posting lately, but I believe the times demand that we be more informed and better equipped than ever before.  I’m posting successively in 4 parts, and this header will be the same on each one.

McCain’s Foreign Policy Stance

By George Friedman

John McCain is the Republican candidate for president. This means he is embedded in the Republican tradition. That tradition has two roots, which are somewhat at odds with each other: One root is found in Theodore Roosevelt’s variety of internationalism, and the other in Henry Cabot Lodge’s opposition to the League of Nations. Those roots still exist in the Republican Party. But accommodations to the reality the Democrats created after World War II – and that Eisenhower, Nixon and, to some extent, Reagan followed – have overlain them. In many ways, the Republican tradition of foreign policy is therefore more complex than the Democratic tradition.

Roosevelt and the United States as Great Power

More than any other person, Roosevelt introduced the United States to the idea that it had become a great power. During the Spanish-American War, in which he had enthusiastically participated, the United States took control of the remnants of the Spanish empire. During his presidency a few years later, Roosevelt authorized the first global tour by a U.S. fleet, which was designed to announce the arrival of the United States with authority. The fleet was both impressive and surprising to many great powers, which at the time tended to dismiss the United States.

For Roosevelt, having the United States take its place among the great powers served two purposes. First, it protected American maritime interests. The United States was a major trading power, so control of the seas was a practical imperative. But there was also an element of deep pride – to the point of ideology. Roosevelt saw the emergence of the United States as a validation of the American experiment with democracy and a testament to America as an exceptional country and regime. Realistic protection of national interest joined forces with an ideology of entitlement. The Panama Canal, which was begun in Roosevelt’s administration, served both interests.

The Panama Canal highlights the fact that for Roosevelt – heavily influenced by theories of sea power – the Pacific Ocean was at least as important as the Atlantic. The most important imperial U.S. holding at the time was the Pacific territory of the Philippines, which U.S. policy focused on protecting. Also reflecting Roosevelt’s interest in the Pacific, he brokered the peace treaty ending the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and increased U.S. interests in China. (Overall, the Democratic Party focused on Europe, while the Republican Party showed a greater interest in Asia.)

The second strand of Republicanism emerged after World War I, when Lodge, a Republican senator, defeated President Woodrow Wilson’s plan for U.S. entry into the League of Nations. Lodge had supported the Spanish-American War and U.S. involvement in World War I, but he opposed league membership because he felt it would compel the United States to undertake obligations it should not commit to. Moreover, he had a deep distrust of the Europeans, whom he believed would drag the United States into another war.

The foundations of Republican foreign policy early in the 20th century therefore consisted of three elements:

Reality Checks Rhetoric (opus 2)

Not so much because I can’t figure out who to vote for — that was decided for me some time back — but just as a measure of knowing what to expect after January, I’ve been very interested in these reports from Stratfor, the company I get much of the intel I use to stay on top of international affairs.  George Freidman is a very astute fellow, and his analysis on the current state of political affairs is quite informative, a healthy dose of reality amid all the rhetoric.  I understand that these articles are more technical, a break from the lighter-hearted stuff I’ve been posting lately, but I believe the times demand that we be more informed and better equipped than ever before.  I’m posting successively in 4 parts, and this header will be the same on each one.

Obama’s Foreign Policy Stance

By George Friedman

Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate for president. His advisers in foreign policy are generally Democrats. Together they carry with them an institutional memory of the Democratic Party’s approach to foreign policy, and are an expression of the complexity and divisions of that approach. Like their Republican counterparts, in many ways they are going to be severely constrained as to what they can do both by the nature of the global landscape and American resources. But to some extent, they will also be constrained and defined by the tradition they come from. Understanding that tradition and Obama’s place is useful in understanding what an Obama presidency would look like in foreign affairs.

The most striking thing about the Democratic tradition is that it presided over the beginnings of the three great conflicts that defined the 20th century: Woodrow Wilson and World War I, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and World War II, and Harry S. Truman and the Cold War. (At this level of analysis, we will treat the episodes of the Cold War such as Korea, Vietnam or Grenada as simply subsets of one conflict.) This is most emphatically not to say that had Republicans won the presidency in 1916, 1940 or 1948, U.S. involvement in those wars could have been avoided.

Patterns in Democratic Foreign Policy

But it does give us a framework for considering persistent patterns of Democratic foreign policy. When we look at the conflicts, four things become apparent.

First, in all three conflicts, Democrats postponed the initiation of direct combat as long as possible. In only one, World War I, did Wilson decide to join the war without prior direct attack. Roosevelt maneuvered near war but did not enter the war until after Pearl Harbor. Truman also maneuvered near war but did not get into direct combat until after the North Korean invasion of South Korea. Indeed, even Wilson chose to go to war to protect free passage on the Atlantic. More important, he sought to prevent Germany from defeating the Russians and the Anglo-French alliance and to stop the subsequent German domination of Europe, which appeared possible. In other words, the Democratic approach to war was reactive. All three presidents reacted to events on the surface, while trying to shape them underneath the surface.

Second, all three wars were built around coalitions. The foundation of the three wars was that other nations

Reality Checks Rhetoric (opus 1)

Not so much because I can’t figure out who to vote for — that was decided for me some time back — but just as a measure of knowing what to expect after January, I’ve been very interested in these reports from Stratfor, the company I get much of the intel I use to stay on top of international affairs.  George Freidman is a very astute fellow, and his analysis on the current state of political affairs is quite informative, a healthy dose of reality amid all the rhetoric.  I understand that these articles are more technical, a break from the lighter-hearted stuff I’ve been posting lately, but I believe the times demand that we be more informed and better equipped than ever before.  I’m posting successively in 4 parts, and this header will be the same on each one.

The New President and the Global Landscape

By George Friedman

It has often been said that presidential elections are all about the economy. That just isn’t true. Harry Truman’s election was all about Korea. John Kennedy’s election focused on missiles, Cuba and Berlin. Lyndon Johnson’s and Richard Nixon’s elections were heavily about Vietnam. Ronald Reagan’s first election pivoted on Iran. George W. Bush’s second election was about Iraq. We won’t argue that presidential elections are all about foreign policy, but they are not all about the economy. The 2008 election will certainly contain a massive component of foreign policy.

We have no wish to advise you how to vote. That’s your decision. What we want to do is try to describe what the world will look like to the new president and consider how each candidate is likely to respond to the world. In trying to consider whether to vote for John McCain or Barack Obama, it is obviously necessary to consider their stands on foreign policy issues. But we have to be cautious about campaign assertions. Kennedy claimed that the Soviets had achieved superiority in missiles over the United States, knowing full well that there was no missile gap. Johnson attacked Barry Goldwater for wanting to escalate the war in Vietnam at the same time he was planning an escalation. Nixon won the 1968 presidential election by claiming that he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. What a candidate says is not always an indicator of what the candidate is thinking.

It gets even trickier when you consider that many of the most important foreign policy issues are not even imagined during the election campaign. Truman did not expect that his second term would be dominated by a war in Korea. Kennedy did not expect to be remembered for the Cuban missile crisis. Jimmy Carter never imagined in 1976 that his presidency would be wrecked by the fall of the Shah of Iran and the hostage crisis. George H. W. Bush didn’t expect to be presiding over the collapse of communism or a war over Kuwait. George W. Bush (regardless of conspiracy theories) never expected his entire presidency to be defined by 9/11. If you read all of these presidents’ position papers in detail, you would never get a hint as to what the really important foreign policy issues would be in their presidencies.

Between the unreliability of campaign promises and the unexpected in foreign affairs, predicting what presidents will do is a complex business. The decisions a president must make once in office are neither scripted nor conveniently timed. They frequently present themselves to the president and require decisions in hours that can permanently define his (or her) administration. Ultimately, voters must judge, by whatever means they might choose, whether the candidate has the virtue needed to make those decisions well.

Virtue, as we are using it here, is a term that comes from Machiavelli. It means the opposite of its conventional usage. A virtuous leader is one who is clever, cunning, decisive, ruthless and, above all, effective. Virtue is the ability to face the unexpected and make the right decision, without position papers, time to reflect or even enough information. The virtuous leader can do that. Others cannot. It is a gut call for a voter, and a tough one.

This does not mean that all we can do is guess about a candidate’s nature. There are three things we can draw on. First, there is the political tradition the candidate comes from. There are more things connecting Republican and Democratic foreign policy than some would like to think, but there are also clear differences. Since each candidate comes from a different political tradition – as do his advisers – these traditions can point to how each candidate might react to events in the world. Second, there are indications in the positions the candidates take on ongoing events that everyone knows about, such as Iraq. Having pointed out times in which candidates have been deceptive, we still believe there is value in looking at their positions and seeing whether they are coherent and relevant. Finally, we can look at the future and try to

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

This one’s for my students in Creative and Critical Thinking classes.  While the plot behind the stone is easily spotted and rather quickly too, the humor is worth it.

1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations
4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called “dough.” It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average North American eats more bread than that in one month!
6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence of cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, and osteoporosis.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.
8. Bread is often a “gateway” food item, leading the user to “harder” items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.
9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 240 degrees Celsius! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12. Most bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

In light of these frightening statistics, we propose the following bread restrictions:

1. No sale of bread to minors
2. A nationwide “Just Say No To Toast” campaign, complete celebrity TV spots and bumper stickers.
3. A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread.
4. No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
5. The establishment of “Bread-free” zones around schools.

Ya Think?

‘Til Then (redux)

June 6th, 1944, 64 years ago today is remembered as the day the Allied troop forces invaded Normandy, France and put the Hitler regime effectively out of business. Oh, it took a good many months after that date for the effects of the invasion to have their full force. But the day came, always remembered as VE Day, May 8th, 1945, when Europe experienced freedom from the Nazi tyrants. That 11 month period was the bitterest and most hard-fought period of the entire war, I’m told, exacting a dreadful price in lives of American and British and other Allied soldiers. The Nazi horror, and its sycophants, the Japanese Italian powers, who followed Hitler, albeit with agendas of their own, did not give up easily. The difference between then and now, a negligible period of time in historical terms, is striking. It was only 64 years ago today that we heard our President Roosevelt in a radio address asking all Americans to pray together for the success of our troops as they move to guard our country, our religion and our way of life. Today we can scarcely say we have “a way of life,” we would be excoriated for saying we “have a religion” and, without those strong cultural identifiers, I wonder, do we have a country?

Well, yes, is the answer. We do have a country, and the evidence of its existence and its vitality is to be found not in Congress, where self-destructive forces insist on revisiting the “Bush lied and people died” rhetoric that has been answered decisively time and again. Nor is that evidence to be found in a permissively degenerating social scene, in which boundaries for morality and even common sense must be knocked down and over-trodden at every opportunity. The evidence of the existence and vitality of the American country is to be found in streets, and the factories and the business places all across this great land, where literally hundreds of millions of ordinary Americans are succeeding in living the American life, a bit chagrined by the immorality and a bit put off by the political theater, but able and willing to continue to succeed and prosper in their faith and in their fortune. They work, they hope and they believe. They live and they love and they think and write. They talk to each other and they know the truth. They, and the 200,000 or so men and women who represent them as Soldiers, and Sailors and Airmen and Marines are shouting into the abyss of history with one loud voice, “America, America, God shed His grace on thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea!”

Last year on Veteran’s Day we linked to a multi-media presentation that spoke volumes of our appreciation and love for those who serve us in uniform. I reiterate that link here: Til Then. And for those uncertain as to whether the current handwringing going on in Washington over the onset of the Iraq War is good or bad, I offer the poem of Tarzana Joe, entitled “Selling It“.

Pressin’ On

All That Glitters . . .

“All that glitters, ” we have heard, “is not gold,” and much the same thought is captured when I say (or write, as the case may be) “Not all Big Ideas are Good Ones!” We know it’s true. More is not always better. Sometimes, in fact, (to quote Relient K) Less IS More! Our theme in this blog is “Big Ideas About Absolute Truth In A Relative World,” and that comes into play here.

Ideas are my stock in trade, so to speak, and I talk about them often. I also often find people becoming impatient, exclaiming: “This is no time for philosophy; this is the time for action!” The question immediately arises whether right action can ever be divorced from the idea behind it?

We speak of the “influence” of an idea. Some ideas, we say are “contagious.” We know that when an idea’s time is due, when its hour strikes that idea will spread with a force nothing can resist. Think of the recent popularity of the simple acronym “WWJD.” Not everyone liked the little bracelets, and not everyone embraced the thought behind them. But who doesn’t know what those four letters mean? The power of an idea is a factor to be reckoned with.

The inherent magic of great and universal ideas has long been recognized, and we also know, though we seldom put it to words, that the opposite is true. There are a great many truly stupid ideas, ones that cut right across the grain of all we know and hold to be true, that also endear themselves to the minds of many people. Perhaps this “idea about ideas” is one whose time has come, causing us to reflect upon some of the worst of humanity’s brainstorms and the affect they have borne upon our world in the past couple of centuries.

This is precisely the idea behind Benjamin Wiker’s newest book, entitled 10 Books That Screwed Up The World And 5 Others That Didn’t Help. The title, a bit off-putting at first, speaks to the thesis, that there have been a number of truly bad ideas which have been accepted, for the most part, uncritically, as though they were actually great. Certainly there are many more than just 15 books and ideas in this category, but Dr. Wiker’s list comprises the ones that really led us down the primrose path, so to speak. “You will know them by their fruits,” we’ve all heard it said, and the fruit of these particular ideas has been bitter.

In an interview with one of those publications less enamored to Dr. Wiker’s way of thinking, the good doctor was accused of being in favor of book burning.

“No such thing!” was his reply. “I argue that these books need to be read because the ideas contained in them have so influenced the modern mind, yet so few people have read the books in which these destructive ideas originated. Ignorance is not bliss! If we don’t understand the destructive ideas that form our contemporary culture, then we are really slaves to someone else’s bad ideas. We are Freudian without understanding Freud, Hobbesian without ever having read Hobbes.

Myanmar and the Way of Nations

Twice in as many weeks unprecedented natural disasters have struck little-known parts of Asia. On May 3, Cyclone Nargis Blasted across the Bay of Bengal and launched headlong into Myanmar (formerly Burma), devastating the Irawaddy Peninsula and destroying 75% of the manmade structures in 5 provinces, including the principle city of Yangon (formerly Rangoon), this according to sources inside the military government. United Nations estimates are that the death toll is as much as 100,000 and millions remain homeless.

Compounding the problem, Myanmar’s military junta government, nearly as xenophobic as N. Korea, has maintained a strict policy of turning away foreign visitors in order to control the population and assuage the possibility of revolution in this often unstable part of South East Asia.

Then on May 12, an earthquake measuring 7.9 on the Richter Scale rocked the Eastern part of Sichuan Province, China destroying buildings and trapping thousands inside the rubble. Latest estimates are that over 37,000 people have perished in the aftermath of the violent quake, and more than 2 million are left homeless. Four days after the temblor struck, Chinese military troops were only beginning to arrive in many of the hardest hit villages and townships.

A stark contrast marks the two disasters, however. China’s Communist government, making a play on the world stage this year for the first time, with the Beijing Olympics, understands it is their responsibility to save as many lives as they possibly can and accept aid from whatever quarter it might arrive. Myanmar’s military junta, on the other hand, holds no such ethic. While tons of aid and millions of dollars have flowed into and been promised for the comparatively smaller Chinese disaster (death-toll estimates of about 37,000 so far), a French freighter, bearing over 1,000 tons of rice and emergency medical supplies was turned away from the port at Yangon, with protests that France had sent a warship, ostensibly to take advantage of Myanmar’s weak state. Initial aid, sent to Yangon the day after the disaster, reportedly didn’t reach the needy areas for nearly 48 hours, and then only after the military had removed protein bars and other “contraband”. Reuters reported on May 17 a helicopter flyover by the government delivering emergency aid to a suburb of Yangon dropped 4 cases of noodles and flew away. API reported on May 19 an incident in which a government helicopter flew over a coastal village and shot and killed 6 villagers who were in the countryside among nearly 100 people attempting to retrieve the bodies of family members because it “appeared they might riot.”

Ever the Contrarian Voice

“The truth is often easy to find; hidden behind a thin veil of popular opinion”

Most folks who get their information from the major media outlets receive a coherent, if not coordinated picture of world events. Older Democrats are voting for Hillary, younger people favor Obama’s message of hope. McCain’s age is a detrimental factor, but he’s gathering force from various quarters. The impression one gets is that the lines have been drawn, the only mystery being how many stand on each side, and who will actually put shoe leather to pavement to make their wishes known. It might be easy to ignore the voices of real heavyweights who, for all their gravitas, still get passed over in mainstream commentary. Enter Tom Sowell, great American economist, political writer, and commentator. While often described as a “black conservative”, he prefers not to be labeled, and considers himself more libertarian than conservative. Sowell, who often writes from an economically laissez-faire perspective, is currently a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Now 78 years of age, and winner of the Francis Boyer Award, presented by the American Enterprise Institute, he was also awarded the National Humanities Medal for prolific scholarship melding history, economics, and political science in 2002. Tom Sowell is no lightweight and his comments deserve to be read in the context of current political debate. Thomas Sowell’s column can be read periodically in his blog at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/.

As a follow up to my previous column, “The Art of the Eloquent Side Step” I’ve taken the opportunity to reprint part of Dr. Sowell’s column today, as a sampling of the insight that awaits those willing to look past