Pause

Been a busy few weeks ... especially given that Fi and I are going to head away for a holiday this week, and we're heading to Canberra for As wedding.  It will be so great to have some time away to unwind, and to recharge. I have not been to Japan before so it will be great to be able to see a different corner of the world, together.

Friday afternoon, I went and heard one of Australia's former Foreign Ministers (now Director of the International Crisis Group), Gareth Evans speak as part the Sydney Ideas series (run by University of Sydney. He spoke about the Responsibility to Protect; which is a doctrine about the responsibility of the global community to act to protect citizens of countries under specific conditions (More info here).

One of the points I found interesting is how the language changed from "the right to intervene" to the "responsibility to protect". Whether the global communities have the will to act to prevent another Rwanda at some point (even as, in Darfur, and in Congo we see similar mass killings carried out) remains to be seen.

Been doing a little bit of reading over the weekend. I loved this piece from the New York Times, about the 'If Only' moment we all have when we just miss (or catch) a bus. In a theory of time that I have, I'm fairly convinced, that even if we slightly changed one event; we would not change the end-point; that is, if Lee Harvey-Oswald was not in the picture, JFK would still have been assassinated.

Also, given that its just over a week to go before the US Election I thought I'd post a couple of things, the first being a quote from a speech that Obama gave in Virginia which in some ways explains why I like him, how he speaks to how we can change the world in which we live - not to a perfect world, but simply too a better one.

At a defining moment like this, we don't have the luxury of relying on the same political games and the same political tactics that are used every election to divide us from one another and make us afraid of one another. With the challenges and crises we face right now, we cannot afford to divide this country by class or region; by who we are or what policies we support.

There are no real or fake parts of this country. We are not separated by the pro-America and anti-America parts of this nation - we all love this country, no matter where we live or where we come from. There are patriots who supported this war in Iraq and patriots who opposed it; patriots who believe in Democratic policies and those who believe in Republican policies. The men and women from Virginia and all across America who serve on our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America.


We have always been at our best when we've had leadership that called us to look past our differences and come together as one nation, as one people; leadership that rallied this entire country to a common purpose - to a higher purpose. And I am running for President of the United States of America because that is the country we need to be right now.


This country and the dream it represents are being tested in a way that we haven't seen in nearly a century. And future generations will judge ours by how we respond to this test. Will they say that this was a time when America lost its way and its purpose? When we allowed the same divisions and fear tactics and our own petty differences to plunge this country into a dark and painful recession?


Or will they say that this was another one of those moments when America overcame? When we battled back from adversity by recognizing that common stake that we have in each other's success?


This is one of those moments. I realize you're cynical and fed up with politics. I understand that you're disappointed and even angry with your leaders. You have every right to be. But despite all of this, I ask of you what's been asked of the American people in times of trial and turmoil throughout our history. I ask you to believe - to believe in yourselves, in each other, and in the future we can build together.


Together, we cannot fail. Not now. Not when we have a crisis to solve and an economy to save. Not when there are so many Americans without jobs and without homes. Not when there are families who can't afford to see a doctor, or send their child to college, or pay their bills at the end of the month. Not when there is a generation that is counting on us to give them the same opportunities and the same chances that we had for ourselves. 


We can do this. Americans have done this before. Some of us had grandparents or parents who said maybe I can't go to college but my child can; maybe I can't have my own business but my child can. I may have to rent, but maybe my children will have a home they can call their own. I may not have a lot of money but maybe my child will run for Senate. I might live in a small village but maybe someday my son can be president of the United States of America.

 +++

Another piece from Focus on the Family, outlining how the US would change under an Obama presidency caught me eye, the piece was written as a letter from a Christian four years from now, about how attitudes to religion have changed society. (The letter is available here)

And the token U2 reference: here's a speech given by Bono at a  Women's Conference recently.

~~~~

The US Election

Here's another couple of pieces from earlier in the week about the US Election:

:: One about politics and the pulpit, and the role of pastors during election campaigns.

:: I found this piece about politics and teachers to be fascinating.

:: Moral Questions to ask the candidates.

Political Pastors?

As regular readers would know I've been following the US Election, and I found it quite intriguing the read a  number of American Evanlegical pastors are preaching sermons on the election, and some actively endorsing candidates because they are "not sure their congregations could join the dots".  Interestingly religious leaders are technically unable to endorse candidates as they are tax-exempt organisations.

My concern is that  if the role of the church (perhaps like any interest group) is to stand apart from government, to speak truth to power, doesn't siding with one compromise the ability to do this? I also wonder, given there may be legitimate reasons for supporting different candiates, might endorsing one over the other, make it harder for some people to hear the other points they make. (Note: I'm sure that there are times when we do need to stand up, and exercise caution about voting for a particular candidate).  Even with an issues focus, endorsing one of the other from the pulpit, suggests that there is one biblical approach to issues, which I just don't think is always true or that simple. What I find more positive, is to let the candidates speak to the issues, in a forum perhaps and that gives voters tools to enable them to decide how to vote.

One of the things that I will be interested in seeing after the election  is the breakdown on evangelical vote in the exit-polls.

Catching up on reading

:: our political views defined by our psychology. (via the BBC), John Hibbings, the project leader agrued that perhaps this explains why it is so hard to change someone's mind in a political debate.We all start from a different psychological point.

:: On Fear v Hope in November. (via The Guardian)

:: Thacker writes about why suffering strengthens religious hope (via The Guardian)

:: There's also an interesting piece about Team sports. (via The Guardian)

Elections..

For those like me who have been following the US Presidential Election this year - here's another site to keep an eye on - FiveThirtyEight - which projects the result of the election. (See the FAQ here for information about the methodology they used).

~~~~

Some links..

I've been catching up with Google reader tonight.

:: Another piece about adjusting medal tallies. [via The Guardian]

:: Punditry .. or prayer [via The Guardian]

:: Fallen Stars.. [via the NYT]

:: Obama accepts the Demorcatic nomination [via the NYT]

A World that Stands as One

Here's excerpts from Barack Obama's speech, overnight in Berlin [read or watch the whole speech here]

"...The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers - dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean. [...] As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya. Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all. [...] The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down. [... ] History reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other. [...] Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time? Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words "never again" in Darfur? "

~~~~

On the US Primaries

:: Hillary's concession speech, is well worth the read. Here's another few pieces about the significance of Hilary's campaign, and what her concession means to some. And Clinton's response:

"To those who are disappointed that we couldn't go all of the way, especially the young people who put so much into this campaign, it would break my heart if, in falling short of my goal, I in any way discouraged any of you from pursuing yours. [...]

Although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it's got about 18 million cracks in it..."

:: Obama's speech after clinching the nomination. Its the language of optimism, idealism, and hope that Obama represents which is so attractive to many in the US, and abroad.

# One piece on the polls, suggesting Clinton beats McCain; and McCain beats Obama although here's another one suggesting that Obama might win.

One things for sure it is going to fun to watch.

Is it over?

Barack Obama needs (about) another 10 delegates to clinch (NYT) the Democratic Party's nomination for President. It has been one interesting and intriguing campaign, and it will be interesting to hear the speeches from both Clinton and Obama today.

On the American Presidential Election

Once the campaign is over and the American's have elected their next president, here's a film that if made, I wouldn't mind watching, described by Roger Ebert

The two realists, as able as anyone to read the trends, must have spoken privately about their shrinking options. And on Tuesday night, as Hillary's double-digit lead in Indiana dwindled to very small single digits, there must have come a time when one of them said, "We've lost this thing."


What were those moments like? What kept them going between themselves? Did they encourage one another, or was there an unspoken pact not to voice the unspeakable? Was there blame when Bill had one of his unwise moments? Did their shared past, of success and scandal, enter into it, or were they absorbed in this moment?


In answering those questions, there you would find the movie. It would be more introspective than audiences would probably prefer, and less sensational. Smarter, too. There would be a limited budget, because you wouldn't need a stadium filled with thousands of people so much as you'd need lots of lonely hotel rooms after midnight. The climaxes would come as one old comrade after another abandoned them for the Obama camp. There would be a desperate, clinging love that had survived all the years, because it was based on shared experience and memories and goals, not so much any longer on passion.


It would be a sad story, but a true one, and it might contain more truth than political movies are conventionally allowed to have. It might, like "Bulworth," say forbidden things. And issues would not be at issue: The campaign was not about political positions, but about sheer desire. Hillary wanted to win, and she ran and ran and ran until there was a kind of heroism to it. Futile heroism after a point, but that's where the story lies.

~~~~

On Race for the Democratic nomination

[But] A 10 per cent win for Clinton was a result directed by Steven Spielberg from a Tom Clancy novel. It's a cliffhanger moment in a cliffhanger narrative. Clinton's case is plausible. She wins all the big states which Democrats must win if they are to win the presidency. She wins the centrist votes. Obama can't close the deal. He can't carry working-class whites or churchgoers or seniors or gun owners.

Democracy is inherently and wonderfully unpredictable. There were times during the Democratic primary process in 1992 when it looked impossible that Bill Clinton could win the nomination. He didn't wrap the nomination up until June 2 of that year, and at that time he was running third in the polls behind then president George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot.

Obama has two of the best friends you can have in politics: vast amounts of money and unstinting media support. They may not be enough.

[Sheridan - The Australian]

Though for me, I'm still hoping that Obama, not only wins the nomination, but also the Presidency. It might not be until September (and the convention) that the nomination is settled.

On Race Relations

Barack Obama spoke about race-relations in the USA yesterday. Here is a transcript of this address, and links to some reactions in the US. [courtesy of the New York Times], and I can help but wonder if we need to see similar sentiments spoken and talked of in Australia today as we seek to close the gap.

On the US Election.

Senator Barack Obama’s speech after the Feb. 12 primaries. There's just something that grabs me about his fresh and optimistic idealism.

Kristof [NYT] on the dynastic question.

Beijing 2008

The 'Genocide' Olympics. [NYT]

[Speilberg follows his conscience]

On America

A happy new year, maybe - I was really intrigued by this article about American attitudes to 2008, and wondered what a similar survey would reveal about us?

Postscript: Here's a similar article about Britain.

Here's another site to watch, if like me, you are intrigued by the real life drama of the American Presidential Race.

Technology at the Cricket...

So summer comes around and with it the newspapers turn their attention to the errors of those in the chair (perhaps, more often than the errors of those at the crease, or on the court). I’m a traditionalist; I prefer to have the umpires make the decision. Human error is part of sport, the error of the players and the errors as the umpires, and even perhaps the error of a batsman walking; and a fielder saying I’m not sure I caught it. I guess I also like the what-ifs too – if Symonds or Ponting be given out earlier would it make any difference in the end.

Given Symonds comments yesterday (paraphrased as – “I was lucky, I was out”); I wonder if all of the captains of the test playing nations should get together and create a code of conduct – claiming catches, encourage players walking if, like Symonds, they know they were out.

It is quite interesting seeing players stand their ground, while appearing to know they are out, and eventually leaving cursing when they are given out (when they aren’t). I was encouraged when during the Sydney test Ricky Ponting expressed doubt over a couple of catches, which encouraged me a touch more than his behaviour when he was eventually given out.

Perhaps along with being a traditionalist I’m also an idealist. Maybe I need to get over this romantic notion, seeing sport has entered into a professional era, and the money involved has increased, the spirit has walked.

The road to The White House

One of the many things that The West Wing has taught me is that there is a long (and tough road) before gaining your parties nomination. We saw the first steps today with the first Caucus (in Iowa), leading up the ‘Super Tuesday’ (Feb 5). Obama gained 37% of the vote with Edwards and Clinton getting about 30% each. While the nomination is by no means decided, its would be quite a moment if Barack Obama was to gain the Demorcrat Party's nomination (here's an op-ed from the NYT, with Obama and Clinton's speeches).

While the actual nominee will be declared at the conventions during August (Democrats) and September (Republican) hopefully the picture will be clearer before then.

Perhaps surprisingly though, looking at the polling data – it looks like Clinton is most likely to get the Democratic nomination (over Obama), and Huckabee or McCain the Republican nomination.

If Clinton was to get the nomination (and of course win the November election) – would it be the closest we’ve been to a dynasty in U.S. politics – with the previous Presidents being: George Bush Snr- 1988-1992; Bill Clinton - 1992-2000, and George W. Bush - 2000-2008?

I was surprised to hear that in January 1992, Clinton had around 3% of the vote at this stage in 1992 – and we all know what happened.