I was waiting for Mark to speak for himself and here it is:
A friend of mine who is a nurse told me that the six month point is the most important for a stroke victim. She said where the person is at 6 months is about where they will end up in terms of basic, high-level recovery. It's been not quite 4 months for Mark. But, since they've released this video what do you think?
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Do you know as much as a fifth grader? If Not, It Could Harm the United States Globally per Zbigniew Brzezinski
This is my second post on the lecture given by Zbigniew Brzezinski to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on Monday, April 30, 2012. My first post can be found here.
Brzezinski talked about how the United States could preserve its leadership role in the world. He talked about hegemonic wars in Europe and turmoil in Eurasia and what mistakes the U.S. might make with Iran and China. He also insinuated that we'd already gone down the path to mistake by invading Iraq, but would not mention the war by name. I'm not sure if he was trying to satisfy Republicans on the Council, his book publisher or simply didn't want to get into the whole Bush/Iraq thing, but he's been more candid about this topic on MSNBC in the morning with his daughter, Mika.
Brzezinski was also clear that the NATO summit that most people I know want to protest is pretty important. He believes that it needs to reaffirm the unity of the West and infuse some vitality into Europe. Brzezinski is taking the global security position. One could also argue that the planned protests are to assert rights important to Western unity and global security. Brzezinski might agree to at least part of that as he credited political awakening for some changes in global politics.
However, Brzezinski made another point during the question and answer session that I saw as his most important. Before Americans make global demands, they need to get a grip on global reality. He used the example of the blind Chinese dissident who escaped from an apparent unauthorized house arrest and was briefly in the protection of U.S. diplomats. Brzezinski related several calls for action by the U.S. against China, impassioned calls for freedom and such that make such good sound bytes. He noted that those making the speeches had no idea what was possible, what the U.S. could really accomplish in China. This led to a discussion about education.
Brzezinski was asked if he felt the increased polarization in the U.S. affects its credibility globally, pointing to the Republican presidential debates as an example. He replied that the problem was not so much the polarization, but the display of sheer ignorance on the issues and irresponsible assertions based on ignorance, and concluded that the lack of deep understanding of what is happening in the world today erodes our global leadership legitimacy. Then, he said that our leaders are only as good as the people who vote for them and went on about education in this country. He pointed to people who cannot place the Pacific Ocean on a map for lack of a simple geography class and the 45 seconds of international news we get, at best, each night.
Something else he said about the news really struck me. He said that Americans live in a provincial world in a time when the rest of the world is more connected, and that our news is now "human trivia and medical advice."
On Monday morning, the leading story on both NBC and ABC was an auto accident in New York. It was terrible, of course, but was it national news? Today, one leading story was about a mom who was accused of bringing her daughter into a tanning booth with her. Again, not good, but is it national news? After those headlines, there was a serious panel discussion on NBC about whether people are being mean to Jessica Simpson for not losing her baby weight.
If you go to NBC's News-Sports website (they don't even have a separate news site anymore) this very minute, you get far more sports than news. Under top news is a story about a motorized toilet race in Australia. Does that qualify as international news these days? Not to pick on NBC, ABC now has a huge story about actress Selma Hayek's husband and again the tanning mom. There is a story about an Air Force pilot who died in 2010 and is being blamed for the crash that killed him, and I don't want to downplay the importance of that to his family, but is it major front page news?
As an aside, if you go to Al Jazeera English's web page this very minute, you get a story about UN sanctions over a pretty serious situation in Sudan, a story about police crackdowns once again in Egypt and various situations in Pakistan, Myanmar, Greece and France. RT is showing a story about the investigation into the deaths of 21 Palestinians, the Occupy Movement on May Day, and the explosions in Kabul. BBC News (they don't blend news and sports like NBC), has stories about the Chinese activist, 20 killed in Cairo at a rally, and the European Space Agency's mission to Jupiter.
The difference is of course startling, but it's also important. People in the world know things. They are sophisticated. They have technology and in many places universal free education through college. At the same time, we're arguing whether it's too snobbish to suggest that people go to college and affectionately laugh at people who display on television that they do not know more than a 5th grader. We choose leaders based on with whom we'd rather share a few beers. Then, we declare ourselves exceptional and turn on American Idol.
Brzezinski talked about how the United States could preserve its leadership role in the world. He talked about hegemonic wars in Europe and turmoil in Eurasia and what mistakes the U.S. might make with Iran and China. He also insinuated that we'd already gone down the path to mistake by invading Iraq, but would not mention the war by name. I'm not sure if he was trying to satisfy Republicans on the Council, his book publisher or simply didn't want to get into the whole Bush/Iraq thing, but he's been more candid about this topic on MSNBC in the morning with his daughter, Mika.
Brzezinski was also clear that the NATO summit that most people I know want to protest is pretty important. He believes that it needs to reaffirm the unity of the West and infuse some vitality into Europe. Brzezinski is taking the global security position. One could also argue that the planned protests are to assert rights important to Western unity and global security. Brzezinski might agree to at least part of that as he credited political awakening for some changes in global politics.
However, Brzezinski made another point during the question and answer session that I saw as his most important. Before Americans make global demands, they need to get a grip on global reality. He used the example of the blind Chinese dissident who escaped from an apparent unauthorized house arrest and was briefly in the protection of U.S. diplomats. Brzezinski related several calls for action by the U.S. against China, impassioned calls for freedom and such that make such good sound bytes. He noted that those making the speeches had no idea what was possible, what the U.S. could really accomplish in China. This led to a discussion about education.
Brzezinski was asked if he felt the increased polarization in the U.S. affects its credibility globally, pointing to the Republican presidential debates as an example. He replied that the problem was not so much the polarization, but the display of sheer ignorance on the issues and irresponsible assertions based on ignorance, and concluded that the lack of deep understanding of what is happening in the world today erodes our global leadership legitimacy. Then, he said that our leaders are only as good as the people who vote for them and went on about education in this country. He pointed to people who cannot place the Pacific Ocean on a map for lack of a simple geography class and the 45 seconds of international news we get, at best, each night.
Something else he said about the news really struck me. He said that Americans live in a provincial world in a time when the rest of the world is more connected, and that our news is now "human trivia and medical advice."
On Monday morning, the leading story on both NBC and ABC was an auto accident in New York. It was terrible, of course, but was it national news? Today, one leading story was about a mom who was accused of bringing her daughter into a tanning booth with her. Again, not good, but is it national news? After those headlines, there was a serious panel discussion on NBC about whether people are being mean to Jessica Simpson for not losing her baby weight.
If you go to NBC's News-Sports website (they don't even have a separate news site anymore) this very minute, you get far more sports than news. Under top news is a story about a motorized toilet race in Australia. Does that qualify as international news these days? Not to pick on NBC, ABC now has a huge story about actress Selma Hayek's husband and again the tanning mom. There is a story about an Air Force pilot who died in 2010 and is being blamed for the crash that killed him, and I don't want to downplay the importance of that to his family, but is it major front page news?
As an aside, if you go to Al Jazeera English's web page this very minute, you get a story about UN sanctions over a pretty serious situation in Sudan, a story about police crackdowns once again in Egypt and various situations in Pakistan, Myanmar, Greece and France. RT is showing a story about the investigation into the deaths of 21 Palestinians, the Occupy Movement on May Day, and the explosions in Kabul. BBC News (they don't blend news and sports like NBC), has stories about the Chinese activist, 20 killed in Cairo at a rally, and the European Space Agency's mission to Jupiter.
The difference is of course startling, but it's also important. People in the world know things. They are sophisticated. They have technology and in many places universal free education through college. At the same time, we're arguing whether it's too snobbish to suggest that people go to college and affectionately laugh at people who display on television that they do not know more than a 5th grader. We choose leaders based on with whom we'd rather share a few beers. Then, we declare ourselves exceptional and turn on American Idol.
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Zbigniew Brzezinski Discusses US Leadership in the 21st Century
Yesterday afternoon, I joined the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in listening to a presentation by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski was in Chicago promoting his new book, Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power. The topic of his lecture was Can America Lead in the 21st Century? The lecture was part of a year-long Council series on the same topic.
I think Brzezinski's short answer to the question is yes, but... and the but is pretty big here.
Brzezinski described four main changes in global leadership and power structure that will affect the US leadership goals.
1. Global politics has significantly changed for the first time in 600 years. The past 600 years involved hegemonic war, not religious or ideological war, but war for land, war for empire and war for greed. The goals of these hegemonic wars were access to ports, outposts, colonies and control over land and resources. It started within Europe, but eventually moved out to the Americas, India and Asia and was the birth of international politics. In the 20th century, the change was that the victor became paramount and determined how mankind would be organized politically, but these wars were still hegemonic.
There have been significant changes in the 21st Century. The US no longer has the power or legitimacy to be dominant. Conventional warfare has been transformed with the possibility of nuclear war which serves as a restraint on hegemonic warfare, escalation makes no sense. Today global power is diffused and disbursed between the West and East with the rise of China and India joining Japan as a global power (and Indonesia in the background). There has been a global political awakening and places that were previously drawn into hegemonic war by the dominant powers are now concerned about their own national identity, politics and the politics of other countries.
2. Continuing turmoil in Eurasia is likely to intensify into political conflict. Brzezinski has been looking at this issue for a while. Here and here are web posts of his 1997 article on A Geostrategy for Eurasia. There are border issues and water issues and Russian aspirations to absorb the central Asian states. It's also an area of power competition and escalating violence. It's mostly secular in-fighting now, but it is vulnerable to religious passions, per Brzezinski.
3. The United State's should have a pacifying role, promote and engage the countries of the West, but not get involved in conflicts seeking its own hegemony. The new 21 century struggle will be one for survival over global warming and social and political inequality. Brzezinski thinks our involvement under Bush (although he did not specifically name Bush, it was clear that was what he meant) was regrettable. He feels that as we move further into the 21st century, the US will be well advised to work closer with its allies and act as a mediator between conflicting countries like India and China, but not engage on behalf of one over the other. He feels NATO is the organization within which to revitalize the West and increase our legitimacy in the world. Brzezinski noted that Europe has been bogged down from it's years of hegemonic warfare and now by its economy. It has little taste for further conflict.
Acceptance of Turkey and Russia into the West are what Brzezinski feels we need to revitalize Europe. Turkey is the best (only) example of a traditional Islamic State transformed into a modern country modeled on European successes. While "not perfect", it's a secular Democracy with civilian control over its military and it has been economically successful. If Turkey becomes a part of Europe, it could shield the rest of Europe from Eurasian conflicts.
Brzezinski observed that he fought against the USSR for most of his life, but that it's still a European country culturally, philosophically, religiously, and artistically. It's more like the rest of Europe in those areas than it is like the East. The only Western aspects that it's missing are a tradition of law over the sovereign, human rights and democracy, but that is beginning to change in modern Russia. He observes a new confidence in the Russian people now that the element of fear is gone. This needs to be reinforced by the West and can be done if we are intelligent about it. We should create a larger platform of cooperation with Russia to deal with the conflicts in Eurasia.
4. Two negative developments could affect our ability to lead in the 21st century. First, we may be sucked into war with Iran. He thinks such a war would be ill-advised and indicated our silently allowing Israel to pursue such as war would be about the same as our engaging ourselves. He pointed out that Iran has the capability to make life for Americans miserable and such a war would likely destabilize Iraq and even Turkey, putting the entire region into turmoil. It will also dramatically increase the price of oil.
If Iran committed some hostile act like a 9/11 event (as he was asked about in the question and answer session), the US would have to react, but he does not believe that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is a good idea because we could not control the scope, duration, casualties or the outcome. Brzezinski supports continuing with sanctions and the US working with it's allies to put economic and political pressure on Iran. He also feels that we'd be far more successful creating a credible threat than actually carrying out an attack pointing out that threats worked great throughout the Cold War and still work well between Japan and S. Korea on the one hand and North Korea on the other.
The second danger is that the US and China become hostile with each other. Brzezinski observed pressures in that direction. China is not ideological as was the old USSR, but it has a self-confidence bordering on the feeling of superiority and they don't want us inching in on that perceived superiority. The US has it's ideology and he cautions us to show restraint in pursuing it.
In the question and answer session, Brzezinski said that Americans have to become more sophisticated about the world and understand better what we can achieve and what we cannot. I'm going to write more about that later.
I think Brzezinski's short answer to the question is yes, but... and the but is pretty big here.
Brzezinski described four main changes in global leadership and power structure that will affect the US leadership goals.
1. Global politics has significantly changed for the first time in 600 years. The past 600 years involved hegemonic war, not religious or ideological war, but war for land, war for empire and war for greed. The goals of these hegemonic wars were access to ports, outposts, colonies and control over land and resources. It started within Europe, but eventually moved out to the Americas, India and Asia and was the birth of international politics. In the 20th century, the change was that the victor became paramount and determined how mankind would be organized politically, but these wars were still hegemonic.
There have been significant changes in the 21st Century. The US no longer has the power or legitimacy to be dominant. Conventional warfare has been transformed with the possibility of nuclear war which serves as a restraint on hegemonic warfare, escalation makes no sense. Today global power is diffused and disbursed between the West and East with the rise of China and India joining Japan as a global power (and Indonesia in the background). There has been a global political awakening and places that were previously drawn into hegemonic war by the dominant powers are now concerned about their own national identity, politics and the politics of other countries.
2. Continuing turmoil in Eurasia is likely to intensify into political conflict. Brzezinski has been looking at this issue for a while. Here and here are web posts of his 1997 article on A Geostrategy for Eurasia. There are border issues and water issues and Russian aspirations to absorb the central Asian states. It's also an area of power competition and escalating violence. It's mostly secular in-fighting now, but it is vulnerable to religious passions, per Brzezinski.
3. The United State's should have a pacifying role, promote and engage the countries of the West, but not get involved in conflicts seeking its own hegemony. The new 21 century struggle will be one for survival over global warming and social and political inequality. Brzezinski thinks our involvement under Bush (although he did not specifically name Bush, it was clear that was what he meant) was regrettable. He feels that as we move further into the 21st century, the US will be well advised to work closer with its allies and act as a mediator between conflicting countries like India and China, but not engage on behalf of one over the other. He feels NATO is the organization within which to revitalize the West and increase our legitimacy in the world. Brzezinski noted that Europe has been bogged down from it's years of hegemonic warfare and now by its economy. It has little taste for further conflict.
Acceptance of Turkey and Russia into the West are what Brzezinski feels we need to revitalize Europe. Turkey is the best (only) example of a traditional Islamic State transformed into a modern country modeled on European successes. While "not perfect", it's a secular Democracy with civilian control over its military and it has been economically successful. If Turkey becomes a part of Europe, it could shield the rest of Europe from Eurasian conflicts.
Brzezinski observed that he fought against the USSR for most of his life, but that it's still a European country culturally, philosophically, religiously, and artistically. It's more like the rest of Europe in those areas than it is like the East. The only Western aspects that it's missing are a tradition of law over the sovereign, human rights and democracy, but that is beginning to change in modern Russia. He observes a new confidence in the Russian people now that the element of fear is gone. This needs to be reinforced by the West and can be done if we are intelligent about it. We should create a larger platform of cooperation with Russia to deal with the conflicts in Eurasia.
4. Two negative developments could affect our ability to lead in the 21st century. First, we may be sucked into war with Iran. He thinks such a war would be ill-advised and indicated our silently allowing Israel to pursue such as war would be about the same as our engaging ourselves. He pointed out that Iran has the capability to make life for Americans miserable and such a war would likely destabilize Iraq and even Turkey, putting the entire region into turmoil. It will also dramatically increase the price of oil.
If Iran committed some hostile act like a 9/11 event (as he was asked about in the question and answer session), the US would have to react, but he does not believe that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is a good idea because we could not control the scope, duration, casualties or the outcome. Brzezinski supports continuing with sanctions and the US working with it's allies to put economic and political pressure on Iran. He also feels that we'd be far more successful creating a credible threat than actually carrying out an attack pointing out that threats worked great throughout the Cold War and still work well between Japan and S. Korea on the one hand and North Korea on the other.
The second danger is that the US and China become hostile with each other. Brzezinski observed pressures in that direction. China is not ideological as was the old USSR, but it has a self-confidence bordering on the feeling of superiority and they don't want us inching in on that perceived superiority. The US has it's ideology and he cautions us to show restraint in pursuing it.
In the question and answer session, Brzezinski said that Americans have to become more sophisticated about the world and understand better what we can achieve and what we cannot. I'm going to write more about that later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)