It's popular to say that as China, India and the rest of the world grow in political and economic strength that the relative superiority of Uncle Sam will wane- giving it less power to mould the institutions that govern the world.

In Barack Obama's State of the Union address there was cause to suggest that maybe his language shows that shift. At one point he talked about infrastructure asking:

"Why should China and Europe have the fastest trains?"

And then when talking about the bigger problems of US politics:

"Meanwhile China isn't waiting to revamp its economy. Germany isn't waiting. India isn't waiting. There nations aren't standing still."

It might be a small point, but where's the Reagan-esque, America is number one and always will be?

And for the rest of the world, is this the beginning of the US finally realising that there is something rotten in the state of their union? . . read more

His death shouldn't be in vain.

The fact is that if any human is willing to use their life as a weapon of protest it should always be listened to- without exception.

We can from the outside say Spencer's reasons to protest are irrational and unimportant; but we are talking about a human life, and if we can't comprehend it, perhaps we as city slickers should work harder to wonder why. . . read more

In any event, now we know what Obama was talking about when he preached his daily sermon on “hope” and “change.” You thought he was talking about peace in Iraq, health care for everyone, and other leftist nonsense. In reality, Brother Obama hopes to change all of you into evangelicals. He and George Bush are old pals. God told George to invade Iraq. What will God tell Brother Obama?...

I wonder if Brother Obama has forgotten a theological issue that led Protestants and Catholics to slaughter each other with astonishing efficiency during Europe’s religious wars, which occurred a relatively short time ago. Are we saved by our faith or by our faith and works? The opposing answers to that question provided a convenient excuse for carnage. The underlying motives for the carnage were, of course, what they always are — wealth and power. Today, a new Thirty Years’ War, or maybe longer, seems well underway in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Brother Obama, we’ve had enough presidential theology. Feed the hungry. End the war. [More] . . read more

I don't know who should lead the Liberals, but I mean, I know who I wouldn't be going for. If they take Tony Abbott they're just going to go back down hill to wherever they've been. He's the one most like Howard ideologically - he's what I call a young fogey. Howard was the old fogey. He's the young fogey.

Brendan Nelson - well I liked him more when he had the ring in his ear, actually. [Malcolm Turbull] is like the big red bunger. You're lighting up, there's a bit of a fizz, but then nothing, nothing. I don't know [Julie Bishop] but if I was voting this very second I'd probably give it to her because I like women. I always reckon they're battling in public life... I always barrack for them. . . read more

Nonetheless, a new cold war seems unlikely. To evaluate the prospect, we should begin with clarity about the old cold war. Fevered rhetoric aside, in practice the cold war was a tacit compact in which each of the contestants was largely free to resort to violence and subversion to control its own domains: for Russia, its Eastern neighbors; for the global superpower, most of the world. Human society need not endure – and might not survive – a resurrection of anything like that.

A sensible alternative... has recently been given by former Israeli Foreign Minister and historian Shlomo ben-Ami, writing in the Beirut Daily Star: “Russia must seek genuine strategic partnership with the US, and the latter must understand that, when excluded and despised, Russia can be a major global spoiler. Ignored and humiliated by the U.S. since the Cold War ended, Russia needs integration into a new global order that respects its interests as a resurgent power, not an anti-Western strategy of confrontation.” [More] . . read more

Increasingly, Clinton is operating in a virtual reality programmed by her pollster Mark Penn during his downtime from working for the butchers of Colombia. Adhering to Penn's fatal calculus, Clinton has endeavored to re-segregate the Democratic Party electorate into demographic segments and then pitted them against each other. The Clinton campaign has intentionally inflamed these simmering antagonisms: black versus Hispanic, black versus white, black versus older women, white collar versus blue collar, young versus old, under-educated versus college grad...

Her campaign now resembles a political neutron bomb that wipes out all living contenders and leaves only the super-structure of her own aspiration standing.  Apparently, the idea is to crush the interloper Obama, either in Denver, through some deus ex machina of spineless super-delegates stampeding her way, or to have McCain do her work for her so that she can challenge the septuagenarian in 2012. If so, her motto will be the familiar taunt of the schoolhouse tattletale: "I told you so." [More] . . read more

What's in a drink? Everything, perhaps. On Wednesday, President Obama invited an even number of Democrats and Republicans to the White House for Happy Hour. The invitation said 7:30. Perhaps a platter of hors d'oeuvres was also hastily assembled to offset the potential giddiness of bipartisan cameraderie that alcohol consumption might fuel.

Now, when or I or you go out after work with colleagues, what happens? We discover that our co-workers are perhaps not as irritating, recalcitrant, and obnoxious as we thought. After a glass or two, we may even begin caring about their spouses and children. And we vow, in our cups, to give them the benefit of the doubt the next time friction arises during a meeting over the umpteenth rewrite of the organization's mission statement

When POTUS convenes Happy Hour, the repercussions are potentially enormous. The gesture alone reminds everyone that they are people first, opponents second.  It's awfully difficult to resist the congenial subtext that evolves when you're standing in the White House holding a libation and chatting with the President of the United States. It puts you at the center of the universe""and that enlarges one's sense of obligation and statesmanship, even if only subliminally. It's hard to be quite so petty when you're getting great strokes.

This isn't about melting differences between Democrats and Republicans. It's about building bridges, finding common ground, smoothing down the rough edges, tamping down the harsh rhetoric, and maybe, just maybe, creating a path for genuine and productive compromise.

President Obama knows that small gestures can have lasting effects. He knows that hosting Happy Hour isn't about what's poured into your glass, it's about walking the walk and talking the talk--showing that you aren't going to demonize ideological opponents, you aren't going to label people as enemies.

In politics, as in life, small gestures count. They may not mean so much in and of themselves, but as symbols of the possible, as signposts of civilized behavior, they generate waves of meaning that extend well beyond the moment.

You can cling to your bitter cynicism about the left, the right, and everything in between. But if you do, you're likely to miss out on the grace that small gestures like a bipartisan Happy Hour confer on all those who participate--a grace that extends, especially, to the individual who sponsors the gesture.

Almost exactly a year ago- as the global financial crisis was at its most threatening- a friend and I went to a talk at the Adam Smith Institute.

The main speaker- a very forgettable Conservative MP- extoled the value of the free market and market liberalisation while most sensible pundits and politicians were dipping into socialist economics for capitalism's salvation.

After the talk we stayed around to drink champagne, eat canapes and talk to some girls but we were interrupted by some cartoonish toffs.

They (and then the director of the institute) continued the discussion about the virtues of the free market, with the director almost pleading with us to believe that this was a credit crisis and not a failing of his beloved theory. 

Looking at Obama's banking reforms, it seems Mr Free Market is looking even more the fool.

Obama has sought to separate investment and commercial banks, and is trying to strip 'too big to fail' from the corporate lexicon. 

It seems in the land where the free market was the closest to conquering sense, that sense has finally hit back. 

And hopefully is set to stay.   . . read more

John Pilger offers a menu of good news to celebrate in 2009.

January: Tony Blair is arrested at Heathrow Airport as he returns from yet another foreign speaking engagement (receipts since leaving office: £12m). He is flown to The Hague to stand trial for war crimes for his part in the illegal, unprovoked attack on a defenceless country, Iraq, justified by proven lies, and for the subsequent physical, social and cultural destruction of that country, causing the death of up to a million people. According to the Nuremberg Tribunal, this is the "paramount war crime". The prosecution tells Blair's defence team it will not accept a plea of "sincerely believing". Cherie Blair, a close collaborator who has compared her husband with Winston Churchill, is cautioned.

February: Following the inauguration of Barack Obama as president of the United States, his predecessor, George W Bush, is arrested leaving the Church of the Holy Crusader in his home town of Crawford, Texas. He is flown to The Hague in War Criminal One. (See above for prosecution details.) Laura Bush, after a plea bargain, agrees to give evidence against the former president, "for God's sake".

March: Former vice-president Dick Cheney shoots himself in the foot hunting squirrels following a prayer breakfast in Hope, Florida.

April: Aung San Suu Kyi is released from house arrest and assumes her rightful place as the democratic head of the government of Burma.

May: All American and British troops leave Iraq, including the "300-400" British troops who are to stay behind to "train Iraqis" and do the kind of special forces dirty work almost never reported by embedded journalists.

June: All Nato troops leave Afghanistan.

July: The British government calls a halt to selling arms and military equipment to ten out of 14 conflict-hit countries in Africa. The chairman of the arms company BAE Systems is arrested by the Serious Fraud Office.

August: The British Department for International Development ends its support for privatisation as a condition of aid to the poorest countries.

September: Sir Bob Geldof and Bono visit Tony Blair in prison, suggesting a worldwide Crime Aid gig to raise money for their hero's defence.

October: The Booker prizewinner Anne Enright apologises to Gerry and Kate McCann, parents of the missing child Madeleine McCann, for speculating in the London Review of Books about the possible involvement of the McCanns in the disappearance of their daughter.

November: Gordon Brown is kidnapped, hooded and forced to listen repeatedly to his 2007 speech to bankers at a Mansion House banquet: "What you as the City of London have achieved for financial services, we as a government now aspire to achieve for the whole economy."

December: Tony Blair is sentenced to life imprisonment and beatified by the Pope.

If you think none of this will happen, you are probably right. But beware 2010...

I don't keep the opinion, mind you. I just exercise what it would be like to believe that Sarah Palin was actually qualified to be Vice President, that the Republican party gives a shit about poor working class people, that Obama was a secret Muslim, that somehow being a Muslim disqualifies you from being a human, or even a President, that white American people are superior to everyone else on the planet, and that those fucking Mexicans want my job.

And then I realize that it's time wasted; that there are probably not enough people truly of that persuasion who would be capable or willing to do that kind of introspection.

They could never entertain the idea that maybe they're wrong, or even experimentally believing that possibly they've been terribly lied to. That they're horribly scared and unable to express it for fear of seeming weak in the world's eyes. That maybe, just maybe, Obama would simply do a better job if they gave him a chance. That Mexicans have rights too, that English is spoken better in other countries and by non-native speakers, that speaking English doesn't make one superior. That we've been awfully gluttonous and irresponsible as a society for far too long.  . . read more