American Daily: December 1, 2014

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

1 December 2014

  • It's incredibly rare for a grand jury not to indict a suspect.

A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasn’t a surprise — leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely — but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.

Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that don’t involve police officers.

Some of the towns in St. Louis County can derive 40 percent or more of their annual revenue from the petty fines and fees collected by their municipal courts. A majority of these fines are for traffic offenses, but they can also include fines for fare-hopping on MetroLink (St. Louis’s light rail system), loud music and other noise ordinance violations, zoning violations for uncut grass or unkempt property, violations of occupancy permit restrictions, trespassing, wearing “saggy pants,” business license violations and vague infractions such as “disturbing the peace” or “affray” that give police officers a great deal of discretion to look for other violations. In a white paper released last month, the ArchCity Defenders found a large group of people outside the courthouse in Bel-Ridge who had been fined for not subscribing to the town’s only approved garbage collection service. They hadn’t been fined for having trash on their property, only for not paying for the only legal method the town had designated for disposing of trash.
From reading headlines today, one might think colleges have suddenly become hotbeds of protest by celebrated anti-rape activists. But like most colleges across America, genteel University of Virginia has no radical feminist culture seeking to upend the patriarchy. There are no red-tape-wearing protests like at Harvard, no "sex-positive" clubs promoting the female orgasm like at Yale, no mattress-hauling performance artists like at Columbia, and certainly no SlutWalks. UVA isn't an edgy or progressive campus by any stretch. The pinnacle of its polite activism is its annual Take Back the Night vigil, which on this campus of 21,000 students attracts an audience of less than 500 souls. But the dearth of attention isn't because rape doesn't happen in Charlottesville. It's because at UVA, rapes are kept quiet, both by students — who brush off sexual assaults as regrettable but inevitable casualties of their cherished party culture — and by an administration that critics say is less concerned with protecting students than it is with protecting its own reputation from scandal. Some UVA women, so sickened by the university's culture of hidden sexual violence, have taken to calling it "UVrApe."
To most people outside Washington, D.C., and to many living there now, former Mayor Marion Barry’s political appeal remains a mystery. To them, he is a national embarrassment, the big-city mayor who ran America’s glittering national capital into the ground, the guy who was dumb enough to get caught on tape smoking crack while still in office.

Now, Perfume hope to drum up the same sort of recognition they have among artists with audiences. This has been long been the unattainable goal for Japanese pop artists. Kyu Sakamoto, reached number one on the Billboard charts in 1963 with “Ue o Muite Arukou,” but it was all downhill after that. The duo Pink Lady tried to break into the American disco market in the late ‘70s, but ended up starring in what many critics consider one of the worst network television shows ever. Popular ‘90s pair Puffy gained some recognition in the 2000s in North America — as cartoon characters. Ten years ago, Hikaru Utada — responsible for the best-selling album in Asian music history — teamed up with American producers such as Timbaland and The Neptunes to try to break into America. She fizzled out. Perfume are the highest-profile J-pop act to try in a decade, and they hope to succeed where so many others have failed.

Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

American Daily: November 24, 2014

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

24 November 2014

Obama is promising certain classes of immigrants that they won't be deported for a three-year span of time. The program will also issue work permits that are valid for the same amount of time. And in most states, deferred action is also enough to make someone eligible for a driver's license. But as soon as the three years are up, if an immigrant hasn't applied for renewal, he or she is vulnerable to deportation again.
And that assumes that the administration — or a different presidential administration — doesn't stop accepting applications or renewals, killing the program slowly over three years — or eliminating it immediately.
  • How Republicans did better in the midterms than even they expected.
The election of a historically large Republican majority coincided with the lowest turnout in a midterm election since 1942. But the 2014 race for the House played out in two very different sets of states. In the 24 states hosting high-profile, competitive Senate or gubernatorial races, raw votes cast in House races were down an average of 30.5 percent from 2012. But in the 26 states that weren’t, raw votes were down a much more severe 43.9 percent.
  • It's possible neither Republicans nor Obama care about bargaining over Keystone XL.

The superficial logic of a Keystone trade makes sense. Obama doesn’t really care about the project much one way or the other. He regards it as a sideshow with negligible effects on climate change. Republicans, on the other hand, constantly implore him to approve it. That would seem, on the surface, to lay the basis for a logical trade of one kind or another.

  • Walmart workers in California are striking in advance of Black Friday.
Organizers hoped the sit-down protest would raise the profile of their concerns about fair hours and wages in advance of Black Friday. The biggest retail day of the year has become a national day of protest among some Walmart workers, who believe the financial success of the business has not been fairly shared with its workers. The protest inside the Baldwin Hills Crenshaw store included about 25 workers with tape over their mouth, a symbol of the silence of their colleagues who are afraid of losing their jobs if they speak out. A larger protest was planned for later in the day outside the Walmart in nearby Pico Rivera.
  • The mayor of Seattle has "pardoned" a Tofurky for Thanksgiving.

Actually, Murray pardoned two of them. One, Braeburn, got the official pardon. The other, Honeycrisp, is described in a press release from the mayor’s office as an “understudy,” perhaps because one of the Tofurkeys, which come in a box and to be perfectly clear have never been nor ever will be alive, might have been camera-shy.

Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

Where war meets entertainment

By Thomas Humphries in Sydney, Australia

24 November 2014

The blog is currently featuring posts written by post-graduate students from the USSC 6903 Foreign and National Security Policy class, taught by Dr. Sarah Graham. You can see more of their posts here

In 1960, Eisenhower warned Americans about the emergence of a military-industrial complex. Today, it is now more accurate to call it a military-industrial-media-entertainment network, a collective that has subsumed and implicated large elements of global popular culture. At some point we have to ask what impact this is having on our perceptions of modern warfare.

On one level, we must be concerned about the melding of moral narratives and filmic representations of conflict. As Cynthia Weber has written, post-9/11 war films mark "a site which official US foreign policy converge with popular symbolic and narrative resources" whereby "traditional US moralities are confirmed in this cinematic space." And whilst it is true that these moralities are often confounded, there is a stark reality at the base of this phenomenon.

Consider that in order for movies to have access to military advisers, hardware, and soldier extras — in other words, markers of authenticity — the Pentagon must be given control over the final cut. If there are things it doesn't like — say soldiers or military projects depicted in a less than flattering way — entire movie projects can be altered or axed.

It is clear that this is of enormous economic benefit to both sides, given that movie producers gain access to first rate hardware and action scenes, while the Pentagon is able to ensure that a pertinacious image of the military gets disseminated into the popular consciousness. But serious questions must be asked about the ways these moral narratives are presented, which obfuscate the true nature of the network that produces these same narratives.

It is difficult to measure how large an influence Hollywood has over people’s conception of war, but it is clear in the public discourse that it is a driver of conversation. Consider the debate provoked by the depiction of torture in Zero Dark Thirty. The way we consume our entertainment stimulates the way we think about the nature of war. The problem is that popular products and their narratives are giving us a misleading picture

Read More

Perhaps the most insidious influence of this network is in the world of video games. The US military has invested significant sums of money in the development of games like America's Army and the Call of Duty series, because they function as both a propaganda tool and a training device. P. W. Singer's research on the growing field of cyberwarfare has revealed that these games, aimed at teenagers, familiarises them with controls that are used for drone flights and other unmanned combat systems. So skilled are gamers, in fact, that recruits as young as 19 are actually training prospective drone pilots, putting more experienced officers out of work. This is because the military is making UAV pilot controls as close to Xbox and Playstation controllers as functionality allows.

This trend also applies to the growing field of combat robotics, which one US general predicts could replace up to a quarter of combat soldiers in the Army by 2030. Robotics is the new defence boom industry — well supplied by private firms who have spent years developing the technology. We have to start thinking about how this will affect the conduct of war — separated by a screen and a wireless link, how will we approach the basic moral dilemmas that we have barely been able to answer when troops have been physically present in the immediacy of the battlefield?

If the wider public does not come to terms with these emerging trends, the conversation about military force risks becoming disconnected from the way war is actually conducted.


Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

American Daily: November 20, 2014

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

20 November 2014

  • Activists are pushing Obama to go even further in his executive action on immigration.
Many immigration advocates are using the final hours before President Barack Obama announces executive action on deportations to push the administration to go even further than planned — a last-minute Hail Mary underscoring that the White House move is likely to leave many activists unsatisfied.

Obama is expected to announce Thursday that he will be taking executive actions that will spare up to 5 million undocumented immigrants the threat of being forced to leave the country, based largely on time spent in the United States and family ties.
  • Jim Webb has formed an exploratory committee for a 2016 presidential run.

Jim Webb, a veteran of Ronald Reagan's administration who served one term as a Democratic U.S. senator from Virginia, has launched a presidential exploratory committee. Late Wednesday night, Webb uploaded a 14-minute statement to YouTube, and a campaign site — — went live.

  • GOP senators threaten to scuttle any nuclear deal with Iran they don't like.
Forty-three Republican senators sent a letter to the White House Wednesday night warning President Obama not to bypass Congress as the administration nears the deadline for a nuclear deal with Iran.

Sens. Marco Rubio and Mark Kirk wrote the letter, which is signed by every Republican senator who co-sponsored Kirk’s Iran sanctions legislation. That bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, was prevented from coming to a vote by Democratic leadership earlier this year. No Democratic senators signed this letter, which was obtained by BuzzFeed News on Wednesday evening. Sen. Mitch McConnell, who will become the Majority Leader of the new Congress, is among those who signed the letter.
  • Names preferred by Republicans vs names preferred by Democrats.
Of male names that are at least fairly common, the most Democratic are Jonah and Malik, and the most Republican are Delbert and Duane.
For females, the most Democratic are Natasha and Maya, and the most Republican are Bailey and Brittney.
  • Buzzfeed clickbait of the day: This collection of pictures from the Buffalo blizzard.

A photo posted by Reynolds Wrap (@corey12xy44) onNov 11, 2014 at 4:45pm PST

Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

American Daily: November 18, 2014

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

18 November 2014

  • Obama at the G20: holding the line on the rebalance, but not revitalising it. 
The speech was given at the University of Queensland, my alma mater, and I recall all too well that November is end-of-year exam time there. So it's only right to attempt a grading. On Asia, this speech scores a credit — solid and respectable, but not spectacular.
The most recent re-ordering of Europe began exactly 25 years ago with the fall of the Berlin Wall. After the passage of a quarter century, can we now conclude that Western leaders have repeated what might be termed the “Versailles folly”? When crowds surged through the Brandenburg Gate, presaging the birth of a new Europe, did America and its allies then bungle the moment and behave in a way that made today’s confrontation with Russia all but inevitable? Put bluntly, did they cheat and humiliate Russia at its moment of weakness, thereby sowing the seeds of President Vladimir Putin’s revanchism?

The current justices are intellectually qualified in ways we have never seen. Compared with the political operators, philanderers, and alcoholics of bygone eras, they are almost completely devoid of bad habits or scandalous secrets. This is, of course, not a bad thing in itself. But the Court has become worryingly cloistered, even for a famously cloistered institution. Every justice is unavoidably subjected to “public deference” when they ascend to the bench, as I heard Sonia Sotomayor describe it at a conference last June. Now, on top of that, today’s justices filter out anything that might challenge their perspectives. Antonin Scalia won’t read newspapers that conflict with his views and claims to often get very little from amicus briefs. John Roberts has said that he doesn’t believe that most law-review articles—where legal scholars advance new thinking on contemporary problems—are relevant to the justices’ work. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Scalia’s opera-going buddy, increasingly seems to revel in, rather than downplay, her status as a liberal icon. Kennedy spends recesses guest-teaching law school courses in Salzburg.

  • Do Democrats' midterm losses show the party needs to move to the left?

The Democrats’ widespread losses last week have revived a debate inside the party about its fundamental identity, a long-running feud between center and left that has taken on new urgency in the aftermath of a disastrous election and in a time of deeply felt economic anxiety.

The discussion is taking place in postelection meetings, conference calls and dueling memos from liberals and moderates. But it will soon grow louder, shaping the actions of congressional Democrats in President Obama’s final two years and, more notably, defining the party’s presidential primaries in 2016.


Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

Transcript of President Obama's address to the University of Queensland

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

17 November 2014

Here's the video for President Barack Obama's address at the University of Queensland on the weekend. Transcript is after the jump.

Read More

Thank you so much! (Applause.) Thank you! Thank you, everybody. Everybody, please have a seat. Hello, Brisbane! It’s good to be back in Australia. I love Australia — I really do. The only problem with Australia is every time I come here I’ve got to sit in conference rooms and talk to politicians instead of go to the beach. (Laughter.)

To Chancellor Story, Professor Høj, faculty and staff, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, and most of all, the students of the University of Queensland — it is great to be here at UQ. I know that we are joined by students from universities across this city, and some high school students, as well. And so I want to thank all of the young people especially for welcoming me here today.

On my last visit to this magnificent country three years ago, I had the privilege to meet some of the First Australians; we’re joined by some today. So I want to begin by acknowledging the Traditional Owners of this land and by paying my respects to your elders, past and present.

This university is recognised as one of the world’s great institutions of science and teaching. Your research led to the vaccine that protects women and girls around the world from cervical cancer. Your innovations have transformed how we treat disease and how we unlock new discoveries. Your studies have warned the world about the urgent threat of climate change. In fact, last year I even tweeted one of your studies to my 31 million followers on Twitter. (Laughter.) Just bragging a little bit. (Applause.) I don’t think that’s quite as much as Lady Gaga, but it’s pretty good. (Laughter.) That’s still not bad.

I thank Prime Minister Abbott and the people of Brisbane and Queensland for hosting us at the G-20 Summit. This city, this part of Australia, is just stunning — “beautiful one day, and then perfect the next.” (Laughter.) That’s what I understand. (Applause.) We travel a lot around the world. My staff was very excited for “Bris Vegas.” (Laughter.) When I arrived they advised I needed some XXXX. (Laughter.) You have some? (Laughter.)

Part of the reason I have fond memories of Australia is I spent some time here as a boy when I was traveling between Hawaii and Indonesia, where I lived for several years. And when I returned three years ago as President, I had the same feelings that I remembered as a child — the warmth of the people of Australia, the sense of humour. I learned to speak a little “strine.” (Laughter.) I’m tempted to “give it a burl.” That’s about as far as I can go actually.

But I do want to take this opportunity to express once again the gratitude of the American people for the extraordinary alliance with Australia. I tell my friends and family and people that I meet that there is an incredible commonality between Australia and the United States. And whether that’s because so many of us travelled here as immigrants — some voluntary and some not; whether it’s because of wide open spaces and the sense of a frontier culture — there’s a bond between our two countries.

And Australia really is everything that you would want in a friend and in an ally. We’re cut from the same cloth — immigrants from an old world who built a new nation. We’re inspired by the same ideals of equality and opportunity — the belief everybody deserves a fair go, a fair shot. And we share that same spirit — that confidence and optimism — that the future is ours to make; that we don’t have to carry with us all the baggage from the past, that we can leave this world a better, safer, more just place for future generations. And that’s what brings me here today — the future that we can build together, here in the Asia Pacific region.

Now, this week, I’ve travelled more than 15,000 miles — from America to China to Burma to Australia. I have no idea what time it is right now. (Laughter.) I’m completely upside down. But despite that distance, we know that our world is getting smaller. One of Australia’s great writers spoke of this — a son of Brisbane and a graduate of this university, David Malouf. And he said, “In that shrinking of distance that is characteristic of our contemporary world, even the Pacific, largest of oceans, has become a lake.” Even the Pacific has become a lake.

And you see it here on this campus, where you welcome students from all across Asia and around the world, including a number of Americans. You go on exchanges, and we’re proud to welcome so many of you to the United States. You walk the streets of this city and you hear Chinese, Vietnamese, Bahasa Indonesia, Korean, Hindi. And in many neighbourhoods more than half the people you meet were born somewhere else. This is a global city in a globalised world.

And I often tell young people in America that, even with today’s challenges, this is the best time in history to be alive. Never in the history of humanity have people lived longer, are they more likely to be healthy, more likely to be enjoying basic security. The world is actually much less violent today. You wouldn’t know it from watching television that it once was.

And that’s true here in the Asia Pacific as well. Countries once ravaged by war, like South Korea and Japan, are among the world’s most advanced economies. From the Philippines to Indonesia, dictatorships have given way to genuine democracies. In China and across the region, hundreds of millions of people have been lifted from poverty in the span of one generation, joining a global middle class. Empowered by technology, you — the young people in particular of this region — are connecting and collaborating across borders and cultures like never before as you seek to build a new future.

So the opportunities today are limitless. And I don’t watch a lot of Australian television, so — as you might imagine, because I’m really far away. (Laughter.) So I don’t know whether some of the same tendencies that we see in the United States — a focus on conflict and disasters and problem — dominate what’s fed to us visually every single day. But when you look at the facts, opportunities are limitless for this generation. You’re living in an extraordinary time.

But what is also true, is that alongside this dynamism, there are genuine dangers that can undermine progress. And we can’t look at those problems through rose-tinted glasses. North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs — that’s a problem. Disputes over territory, remote islands and rocky shoals that threaten to spiral into confrontation.

The failure to uphold universal human rights, denying justice to citizens and denying countries their full potential. Economic inequality and extreme poverty that are a recipe for instability. And energy demands in growing cities that also hasten trends towards a changing climate. Indeed, the same technologies that empower citizens like you also give oppressive regimes new tools to stifle dissent.

So the question that we face is, which of these futures will define the Asia Pacific in the century to come? Do we move towards further integration, more justice, more peace? Or do we move towards disorder and conflict? Those are our choices — conflict or cooperation? Oppression or liberty?

Here in Australia three years ago, in your parliament, I made it clear where the United States stands. We believe that nations and peoples have the right to live in security and peace; that an effective security order for Asia must be based — not on spheres of influence, or coercion, or intimidation where big nations bully the small — but on alliances of mutual security, international law and international norms that are upheld, and the peaceful resolution of disputes.

We believe in open markets and trade that is fair and free — a level playing field where economies play by the same rules; where the purpose of trade is not simply to extract resources from the ground, but to build true partnerships that raise capacity and living standards in poor countries; where small business owners and entrepreneurs and innovators have the freedom to dream and create and flourish; and how well a country does is based on how well they empower their individual citizens.

And we believe in democracy — that the only real source of legitimacy is the consent of the people; that every individual is born equal with fundamental rights, inalienable rights, and that it is the responsibility of governments to uphold these rights. This is what we stand for. That is our vision — the future America is working toward in the Asia Pacific, with allies and friends.

Now as a Pacific power, the United States has invested our blood and treasure to advance this vision. We don't just talk about it; we invest in this vision. Generations of Americans have served and died in the Asia Pacific so that the people of the region might live free. So no one should ever question our resolve or our commitment to our allies.

When I assumed office, leaders and people across the region were expressing their desire for greater American engagement. And so as President, I decided that — given the importance of this region to American security, to American prosperity — the United States would rebalance our foreign policy and play a larger and lasting role in this region. That’s exactly what we’ve done.

Today, our alliances, including with Australia, are stronger than they have ever been. American exports to this region have reached record levels. We’ve deepened our cooperation with emerging powers and regional organizations, especially in Southeast Asia. We expanded our partnerships with citizens as they've worked to bolster their democracies. And we’ve shown that — whether it’s a tsunami or an earthquake or a typhoon — when our friends are in need, America shows up. We’re there to help. In good times and bad, you can count on the United States of America.

Now, there have been times when people have been skeptical of this rebalancing. They're wondering whether America has the staying power to sustain it. And it's true that in recent years pressing events around the world demand our attention. As the world’s only superpower, the United States has unique responsibilities that we gladly embrace. We’re leading the international community in the fight to destroy the terrorist group ISIL. We're leading in dealing with Ebola in West Africa and in opposing Russia’s aggression against Ukraine — which is a threat to the world, as we saw in the appalling shoot-down of MH17, a tragedy that took so many innocent lives, among them your fellow citizens. As your ally and friend, America shares the grief of these Australian families, and we share the determination of your nation for justice and accountability. So, yes, we have a range of responsibilities. That's the deal. It's a burden we gladly shoulder.

But even in each of these international efforts, some of our strongest partners are our allies and friends in this region, including Australia. So meeting these other challenges in the world is not a distraction from our engagement in this region, it reinforces our engagement in this region. Our rebalance is not only about the United States doing more in Asia, it’s also about the Asia Pacific region doing more with us around the world.

So I’m here today to say that American leadership in the Asia Pacific will always be a fundamental focus of my foreign policy. It won’t always make the headlines. It won’t always be measured in the number of trips I make — although I do keep coming back. (Laughter.) But day in, and day out, steadily, deliberately, we will continue to deepen our engagement using every element of American power — diplomacy, military, economic, development, the power of our values and our ideals. And so in the time I have left, I want to describe, specifically, what America intends to do in the coming years.

First, the United States will continue strengthening our alliances. With Japan, we’ll finalise new defence guidelines and keep realigning our forces for the future. With the Republic of Korea, we’ll deepen our collaboration, including on missile defence, to deter and defend against North Korean threats. With the Philippines, we’ll train and exercise more to prepare for challenges from counterterrorism and piracy to humanitarian crises and disaster relief. And here in Australia, more U.S. Marines will rotate through to promote regional stability, alongside your “diggers.”

Although I will say when I went out to Darwin to inaugurate the new rotation of our U.S. Marines there, that the mayor, I think it was, took out crocodile insurance, which disturbed me. (Laughter.) I mean I was flattered that he took out insurance on my behalf. (Laughter.) But I did ask my ambassador what this was all about. (Laughter.) And he described to me how crocodiles kill more people than sharks, and there are just a lot of things in Australia that can kill you. (Laughter.) But that's an aside. (Laughter.)

We have an ironclad commitment to the sovereignty, independence, and security of every ally. And we’ll expand cooperation between allies, because we believe we’re stronger when we stand together.

The United States will continue to modernise our defence posture across the region. We’ll deploy more of our most advanced military capabilities to keep the peace and deter aggression. Our presence will be more distributed, including in Southeast Asia with partners like Singapore. And we’ll increase military training and education, including working with the military partners we have in this region around the respect for human rights by military and police. And by the end of this decade, a majority of our Navy and Air Force fleets will be based out of the Pacific, because the United States is, and will always be, a Pacific power.

And keep in mind we do this without any territorial claims. We do this based on our belief that a region that is peaceful and prosperous is good for us and is good for the world.

The United States will continue broadening our cooperation with emerging powers and emerging economies. We intend to help Vietnam pursue economic reforms and new maritime capabilities. We will continue to move ahead with our comprehensive partnership with Indonesia, which is a strong example of diversity and pluralism. We’ll continue to expand ties with Malaysia, a growing centre of entrepreneurship and innovation. And we support a greater role in the Asia Pacific for India, which is the world’s largest democracy.

The United States will continue expanding our engagement with regional institutions, because together we can meet shared challenges — from preventing the horror of human trafficking to countering violent extremism, to stemming the flow of foreign terrorist fighters. Together, we can improve maritime security, upholding freedom of navigation and encouraging territorial disputes are resolved peacefully. We’ll work with partners to develop the East Asia Summit into the region’s leading forum for addressing political and security challenges. And we’ll support ASEAN’s effort to reach a code of conduct with China that reinforces international law in the South China Sea.

And speaking of China, the United States will continue to pursue a constructive relationship with China. By virtue of its size and its remarkable growth, China will inevitably play a critical role in the future of this region. And the question is, what kind of role will it play? I just came from Beijing, and I said there, the United States welcomes the continuing rise of a China that is peaceful and prosperous and stable and that plays a responsible role in world affairs. It is a remarkable achievement that millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in China because of the extraordinary growth rates that they’ve experienced. That is a good thing. We should want and welcome that kind of development.

And if, in fact, China is playing the role of a responsible actor that is peaceful and prosperous and stable, that is good for this region, it’s good for the world, it’s good for the United States. So we’ll pursue cooperation with China where our interests overlap or align. And there are significant areas of overlap: More trade and investment; more communications between our militaries to prevent misunderstandings or possible conflict; more travel and exchanges between our people; and more cooperation on global challenges, from Ebola to climate change.

But in this engagement we are also encouraging China to adhere to the same rules as other nations — whether in trade or on the seas. And in this engagement we will continue to be frank about where there are differences, because America will continue to stand up for our interests and principles, including our unwavering support for the fundamental human rights of all people.

We do not benefit from a relationship with China or any other country in which we put our values and our ideals aside. And for the young people, practicality is a good thing. There are times where compromise is necessary. That’s part of wisdom. But it’s also important to hang on to what you believe — to know what you believe and then be willing to stand up for it. And what’s true for individuals is also true for countries.

The United States will continue to promote economic growth that is sustainable and shared. So we’re going to work with APEC to tear down barriers to trade and investment and combat the corruption that steals from so many citizens. We’ll keep opposing special preferences for state-owned companies. We’ll oppose cyber-theft of trade secrets. We’ll work with partners to invest in the region’s infrastructure in a way that’s open and transparent. We’ll support reforms that help economies transition to models that boost domestic demand and invest in people and their education and their skills.

We’ll keep leading the effort to realise the Trans-Pacific Partnership to lower barriers, open markets, export goods, and create good jobs for our people. But with the 12 countries of the TPP making up nearly 40 per cent of the global economy, this is also about something bigger. It is our chance to put in place new, high standards for trade in the 21st century that uphold our values. So, for example, we are pushing new standards in this trade agreement, requiring countries that participate to protect their workers better and to protect the environment better, and protect intellectual property that unleashes innovation, and baseline standards to ensure transparency and rule of law.

It’s about a future where instead of being dependent on a single market, countries integrate their economies so they’re innovating and growing together. That’s what TPP does. That’s why it would be a historic achievement. That’s why I believe so strongly that we need to get it done — not just for our countries, but for the world.

But that’s also why it’s hard — because we’re asking all these countries at various stages of development to up their game. And it requires big transitions for a lot of these countries, including for the United States. And TPP is just one part of our overall focus on growing the global economy. That’s what the G-20 meetings are all about.

Over the last few years, the United States has put more people back to work than all other advanced economies combined. But America can’t be expected to just carry the world economy on our back. So here in Brisbane, the G-20 has a responsibility to act — to boost demand, and invest more in infrastructure, and create good jobs for the people of all our nations.

As we develop, as we focus on our econ, we cannot forget the need to lead on the global fight against climate change. Now, I know that’s — (applause) — I know there’s been a healthy debate in this country about it. (Laughter.) Here in the Asia Pacific, nobody has more at stake when it comes to thinking about and then acting on climate change.

Here, a climate that increases in temperature will mean more extreme and frequent storms, more flooding, rising seas that submerge Pacific islands. Here in Australia, it means longer droughts, more wildfires. The incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threated. Worldwide, this past summer was the hottest on record. No nation is immune, and every nation has a responsibility to do its part.

And you’ll recall at the beginning I said the United States and Australia has a lot in common. Well, one of the things we have in common is we produce a lot of carbon. Part of it’s this legacy of wide-open spaces and the frontier mentality, and this incredible abundance of resources. And so, historically, we have not been the most energy-efficient of nations, which means we’ve got to step up.

In the United States, our carbon pollution is near its lowest levels in almost two decades — and I’m very proud of that. Under my Climate Action Plan, we intend to do more. In Beijing, I announced our ambitious new goal — reducing our net greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by the year 2025, which will double the pace at which we’re reducing carbon pollution in the United States. Now, in a historic step, China made its own commitment, for the first time, agreeing to slow, peak and then reverse the course of China’s carbon emissions. And the reason that’s so important is because if China, as it develops, adapts the same per capita carbon emissions as advanced economies like the United States or Australia, this planet doesn’t stand a chance, because they’ve got a lot more people.

So them setting up a target sends a powerful message to the world that all countries — whether you are a developed country, a developing country, or somewhere in between — you’ve got to be able to overcome old divides, look squarely at the science, and reach a strong global climate agreement next year. And if China and the United States can agree on this, then the world can agree on this. We can get this done. And it is necessary for us to get it done. (Applause.) Because I have not had to go to the Great Barrier Reef — (laughter) — and I want to come back, and I want my daughters to be able to come back, and I want them to be able to bring their daughters or sons to visit. (Applause.) And I want that there 50 years from now.

Now, today, I’m announcing that the United States will take another important step. We are going to contribute $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund so we can help developing nations deal with climate change. (Applause.) So along with the other nations that have pledged support, this gives us the opportunity to help vulnerable communities with an early-warning system, with stronger defences against storm surges, climate-resilient infrastructure. It allows us to help farmers plant more durable crops. And it allows us to help developing countries break out of this false choice between development and pollution; let them leap-frog some of the dirty industries that powered our development; go straight to a clean-energy economy that allows them to grow, create jobs, and at the same time reduce their carbon pollution.

So we’ve very proud of the work that we have already done. We are mindful of the great work that still has to be done on this issue. But let me say, particularly again to the young people here: Combating climate change cannot be the work of governments alone. Citizens, especially the next generation, you have to keep raising your voices, because you deserve to live your lives in a world that is cleaner and that is healthier and that is sustainable. But that is not going to happen unless you are heard.

It is in the nature of things, it is in the nature of the world that those of us who start getting grey hair are a little set in our ways, that interests are entrenched — not because people are bad people, it’s just that’s how we’ve been doing things. And we make investments, and companies start depending on certain energy sources, and change is uncomfortable and difficult. And that’s why it’s so important for the next generation to be able to step and say, no, it doesn’t have to be this way. You have the power to imagine a new future in a way that some of the older folks don’t always have.

And the same is true when it comes to issues of democracy and human rights. There are times where when we speak out on these issues we are told that democracy is just a Western value. I fundamentally disagree with that. (Applause.) Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, they have built thriving democracies. Filipinos showed us the strength of People Power. Indonesians just voted in a historic election. I just came from Burma; this is a place that for 40 years was under the grip of a military junta, one of the most closed and oppressive nations on Earth. And there, I was inspired by citizens and civil society and parliamentarians who are now working to sustain a transition to a democratic future. I had a town hall meeting with young people like you, in which they were asking, what does it mean to create rule of law? And how should we deal with ethnic diversity in our city? You could feel the excitement. What does a free press look like, and how does it operate? And how do we make sure that journalism is responsible? Incredible ferment and debate that’s taking place.

Those young people, they want the same things that you do. The notion that somehow they’re less interested in opportunity or less interested in avoiding arbitrary arrest, or less interested in being censored is fundamentally untrue. Today, people in Hong Kong are speaking out for their universal rights.

And so here in Asia and around the world, America supports free and fair elections, because citizens must be free to choose their own leaders — as in Thailand where we are urging a quick return to inclusive, civilian rule. We support freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, a free and open Internet, strong civil societies, because the voices of the people must be heard and leaders must be held accountable — even though it’s uncomfortable sometimes. I promise you, if you lead a country, there are times where you are aggravated with people voicing opinions that seem to think you’re doing something wrong. You prefer everybody just praise you. I understand. (Laughter.) But that’s not how societies move forward.

We support strong institutions and independent judiciaries and open government, because the rule of force must give way to the rule of law.

And in that same fashion, the United States will continue to stand up for the inherent dignity of every human being. Now, dignity begins with the most basic of needs — a life free of hunger and disease and want. So, yes, we’ll speak out on behalf of human rights, but we are also going to invest in the agriculture that allows farmers to feed their families and boost their incomes. We’ll invest in the development that promotes growth and helps end the injustice of extreme poverty in places like the Lower Mekong Delta. We intend to partner with all the countries in the region to create stronger public health systems and new treatments that save lives and realize our goals of being the first AIDS-free generation.

And what we’ve learned from the Ebola outbreak is that in this globalized world, where the Pacific is like a lake, if countries are so poor that they can’t afford basic public health infrastructure, that threatens our health. We cannot built a moat around our countries, and we shouldn’t try. What we should be doing is making sure everybody has some basic public health systems that allow for early warning when outbreaks of infectious disease may occur. That’s not just out of charity. It is in our self-interest.

And again, I want to speak to young people about this. When we talk about these issues of development, when we invest in the wellbeing of people on the other side of the globe, when we stand up for freedom, including occasionally having to engage in military actions, we don’t do that just because we are charitable. We do that because we recognise that we are linked, and that if somebody, some child is stricken with a curable disease on the other side of the world, at same point that could have an impact on our child.

We’ll advance human dignity by standing up for the rights of minorities, because no one’s equality should ever be denied. We will stand up for freedom of religion — the right of every person to practice their faith as they choose — because we are all children of God, and we are all fallible. And the notion that we, as a majority, or the state should tell somebody else what to believe with respect to their faith, is against our basic values.

We will stand up for our gay and lesbian fellow citizens, because they need to be treated equally under the law. (Applause.) We will stand up for the rights and futures of our wives and daughters and partners, because I believe that the best measure of whether a nation is going to be successful is whether they are tapping the talents of their women and treating them as full participants in politics and society and the econ. (Applause.)

And we’re going to continue to invest in the future of this region, and that means you, this region’s youth — all of you — your optimism, your idealism, your hopes. I see it everywhere I go. I spend a lot of time with young people. I spend a lot of time with old people, too. But I prefer spending time with young people. (Laughter.) I meet them in Tokyo and Seoul, and Manila and Jakarta. It’s the spirit of young men and women in Kuala Lumpur and Rangoon, who are participating in our Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative. And like you, they’re ready to lead.

To the young woman with an idea who dreams of starting her own business — if she just had the network, if she just had the capital, America wants to be her partner, because we believe in the entrepreneur that you can be, the innovations you can spark and the jobs you can create. And when you succeed, we’ll all be more prosperous.

To the young man who’s working late in a clinic, tending to a patient, who dreams not just of treating diseases, but preventing them — if I just had the resources, if I just had the support — we want to be your partner, because we believe in the advocate that you can be, and in the families you can reach and the lives you can save. And when you succeed, our world will be better.

To the young woman tired of the tensions in her community, who dreams of helping her neighbours see beyond differences — if she could just start a dialogue, if she knew how others had walked the same path — well, America wants to be your partner, because we believe in the activist that you can be, and the empathy that you can build, and the understanding you can foster between people. And when you succeed, our world will be a little more peaceful.

And to the young man who believes his voice isn’t being heard, who dreams of bringing people like him together across his country — if he just knew how to organise and mobilise them — we want to be your partner, because we believe in the leaders that you can be, in the difference you can make to ignite positive change. And when you succeed, the world will be a little more free.

So that’s the future we can build together. That’s the commitment America is making in the Asia Pacific. It’s a partnership not just with nations, but with people, with you, for decades to come. Bound by the values we share, guided by the vision we seek, I am absolutely confident we can advance the security and the prosperity and the dignity of people across this region. And in pursuit of that future, you will have no greater friend than the United States of America.

So thank you very much. God bless Australia. (Applause.) God bless America. God bless our great alliance. Thank you.


Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

American Daily: November 14 2014

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

14 November 2014

We could call 2014 a surprising unsurprising election. Republican gains proved larger than most anticipated. But there were few shockers in statewide races; instead, Republicans simply won most of the competitive contests. For all the talk of anti-incumbency, only three sitting governors lost. The bigger surprise was the number of controversial governors who won re-election: Rick Scott (R-FL), Scott Walker (R-WI), Rick Snyder (R-MI), Sam Brownback (R-KS), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Dan Malloy (D-CT). The ultimate outcome was not out of line with one would expect in a midterm election with a fairly unpopular Democratic president. (I was part of an APSA discussion where we all commented on how Democrats were outperforming the fundamentals. In the end, the fundamentals won). It was also consistent with the long-run tendency towards a nationalized and partisan politics where individual personalities and geographic quirks matter less and the (D) or (R) after a candidate’s name counts for everything.
  • You don't have to know a news outlet to trust — or distrust — it.
Taken together, this suggests that this sense of trust or distrust may not actually stem from an individual’s recent exposure to news content. Instead, it may flow from any other information they may have about the news source – whether that comes from friends, family, other media or a past experience with it.
  • "Pointergate": The racist faux-scandal being peddled by a Minneapolis TV station.

A seemingly innocuous photo of the mayor of Minneapolis and a community volunteer has sparked nationwide conversations about racism, the criminal justice system, and responsible journalism. The controversy has a name, as all controversies do in this digital age: #Pointergate. And it's been called the "most racist news story of 2014."

On the evening of Nov. 15, 1864, Union Lt. Col. Charles Fessenden Morse sat on the roof of a house and watched Atlanta burn. It was a “magnificent and awful spectacle,” he wrote later to his brother Robert. “For miles around the country was as light as day, … the flames shooting up for hundreds of feet into the air.” Earlier, over the roar and crackle of the flames, Morse had heard the 33rd Massachusetts band serenade Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, who ordered the city torched. “It was like fiddling over the burning of Rome.” The next morning, nothing was left of the city “except its churches the city hall and the private dwellings. You could hardly find a vestige of the once splendid R.R. depots, warehouses, &c. It was melancholy,” Morse lamented, “but it was war, prosecuted in deadly earnest.”

4. The Mindy Project (Fox)

There is a lot about New York City that The Mindy Project gets wrong. For one, and this could be said for about 99 percent of shows that take place here, her apartment is completely and irritatingly implausible. I will suspend my disbelief enough to begrudgingly accept the foyer and the walk-in closet the size of my bedroom — she is a private-practice physician, after all — but a spiral staircase? That’s just insulting. However, although most NYC shows don’t include many subway scenes (they can be hard to shoot), Mindy has had plenty — even though, as Gothamist points out, its subway is also inaccurate. But The Mindy Project does, to a certain extent, nail the subway experience: The crowded commute full of weirdos, the fiasco of missed connections, and, most importantly, it’s the place where Mindy often drifts off and gets lost in her thoughts, letting her inner monologue takeover.

Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

American Daily: November 10, 2014

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

10 November 2014

The 2014 elections probably won’t have any effect on the 2016 presidential contest, but they will have an effect on that year's congressional races. The Republicans will have more incumbents in the House, making their majority highly likely to survive even a good Democratic year. And in the Senate, while the map will strongly favor Democrats, Republicans will have some capacity for absorbing losses.
  • Is North Carolina the most electorally competitive state in the union?
On Election Day 2012, Kay Hagan became the most vulnerable U.S. senator in the country. While Democrats elsewhere were celebrating Barack Obama's re-election, in North Carolina they took a beating. Republicans gained control of the governor's mansion for the first time in 20 years, and Mitt Romney edged out Obama for the state's 15 electoral votes. Republicans declared the president's 2008 victory here a fluke.
They were salivating over an easy pick up that would take North Carolina out of play in the 2016 presidential election. Instead, they walked into a dogfight that drained precious resources and gave GOP strategists heartburn. Their hand-picked candidate, state House Speaker Thom Tillis, didn’t put Hagan down until the final days of a year-long campaign.
Black members elected to Congress
  • This is how liberals and conservatives insult one another.
Some of the results reveal cultural stereotypes unique to the US. Liberals are more associated with being “elitists,” for example, which his the same moniker often used to describe the UK’s conservative party. American conservatives, meanwhile, are often called “misogynists.”
  • This is what happens when Miami's baseball team hits a home run at Marlin Park.

Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

The US and Ebola: On the brink of catastrophe

By James Coward in Sydney, Australia

10 November 2014

The blog is currently featuring posts written by post-graduate students from the USSC 6903 Foreign and National Security Policy class, taught by Dr. Sarah Graham. You can see more of their posts here

Ebola cases in West Africa

The name Craig Spencer has been catapulted into American consciousness over the past few weeks. Why? Spencer, a doctor who had been treating Ebola patients in Guinea, became New York’s first resident to test positive for the potentially deadly virus. Spencer’s infection is the latest incidence of Ebola in the United States, which has now seen four confirmed cases of the virus since Liberian national Thomas Duncan was first diagnosed in September.

The insidious disease, which is spread through direct contact with bodily fluids, has caught West Africa in the midst of a vice-like grip. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the current outbreak of Ebola has now has now exceeded 10,000 cases, which includes 4,992 deaths.  The vast majority of the infections and all bar three of the deaths, have occurred in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. However, cases of Ebola have already been reported in neighbouring countries such as Senegal and Mali and as far away as Spain.

Read More

How has Barack Obama responded to this potentially catastrophic global disaster? Turns out not very well. Frankly, the United States has been caught woefully off-guard by what is now the deadliest outbreak of Ebola since the disease was discovered almost four decades ago. It seems near unfathomable that a person displaying Ebola-like symptoms would be allowed to jump onboard a commercial flight with 132 other passengers. Yet this is precisely what happened two weeks ago with Dallas nurse Amber Vinson.

The White House’s slow and ineffectual response to Ebola has raised some serious questions, namely if a country such as Nigeria was able to successfully contain the Ebola virus, then why has the United States, a country with far superior public health infrastructure and resources, failed so dismally?

Now that the White House has realised the inadequacy of its Ebola strategy, it has significantly stepped up its response. The United States has sent 4,000 troops to West Africa to combat the spread of the virus and has appointed Ron Klain, a former chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, as the national Ebola czar. Despite these improvements, however, the President’s inept response to Ebola is a laughing stock — literally, as Saturday Night Live viewers would know. On a more serious note, the Ebola crisis has the potential become a sort of Katrina-type moment for Obama; an anchor which threatens to sink his entire presidency.

Have the recent steps taken by Obama in the fight against Ebola been enough though? Republicans certainly don’t think so. Partisanship aside, Obama’s response to the Ebola crisis in West Africa is indicative of the way successive presidential administrations have treated the entire region as a complete afterthought in terms of foreign policy. Time after time, Africa has played second-fiddle to other parts of the world with more power and more resources. Right now though, the United States simply has no other choice but to elevate West Africa to the top of its foreign policy agenda. Otherwise, there’s no telling how bad this Ebola crisis may get.


Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

American Daily: November 3, 2014

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

3 November 2014

Who wins the governorship matters a lot to citizens of Florida or Wisconsin and elsewhere, affecting important issues such as taxes and Medicaid expansion. The affect on the 2016 presidential race, however, will be minimal. A case in point: In 2012, five of the most competitive battleground states were Ohio, Florida, Virgina, Wisconsin and Iowa. All had Republican governors; all five voted for Barack Obama.

In one of the most competitive Senate races in the country, political ads in Iowa are running nonstop on Des Moines station WHO-DT. And it can hardly keep up with the demand.

At a time when fewer people are watching news on TV, the station added an hour-long daily news program focused on politics — and hired four journalists to fill the time — just so it can sell more lucrative commercials featuring scenes such as Republican candidate Joni Ernst surrounded by snorting hogs.

Democrats have known that 2014 would be a challenging election cycle since November 2008, when, buoyed by an economic crisis that began under an unpopular Republican president, they managed to capture Senate seats in Republican strongholds like Alaska and North Carolina, and hang on to seats in conservative-trending states like Arkansas and Louisiana.

Kolko's theory isn't an outlier. There is a deep literature tying liberal residents to illiberal housing policies that create affordability crunches for the middle class. In 2010, UCLA economist Matthew Kahn published a study of California cities, which found that liberal metros issued fewer new housing permits. The correlation held over time: As California cities became more liberal, he said, they built fewer homes.

He was a smart football fan, though, to judge from that 1956 interview. “Sometimes he had a play or a new strategy he wanted me to use,” said Crisler. “Some of the ideas Scott used to suggest to me over the phone were reasonable—and some were fantastic.”

In the fantastic department, Crisler cited an example: Fitzgerald, he said, “came up with a scheme for a whole new offense. Something that involved a two-platoon system.”

Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

« Prev Next »

Recent Posts