Much is being said about the fact that the new president of a predominantly pink/white nation is predominantly darker than the majority of the population. Allot is being said about the new President being able to deliver the nation from its current economic, political and social malaise, Barak Obama is probably the most popular incoming President in history in as much as his predessor is the most unpopular outgoing one in history, that its scary.
So much expectation is being placed on Mr Obama to produce a miracle, you actually have to feel sorry. Like allot of human beings, particularly those who have achieved high office, President Obama is bound to dissapoint and we have to hope that those who placed such high expectations will be able to accept the reality of what the man is actually able to achieve.
Having said all of that, the signs of President Obama and his adminsitration being able to do something good for the nation that has done so much for the world, are encouraging. Unlike the Bush Administration, President Obama has been quick to offer high profile post to former rivals (Hillary Clinton in the State Department) and COMPETENT (people who could be good on the job rather than buddies).
More importantly, President Obama has offered a new philosophy to dealing with enemies - he's offering to meet and talk to them unconditionally. Unlike the No-Balls Faggot he succeded, President Obama seems assured that the USA does not want to get trapped in a vicious cycle of violence and hatred with people who are actually very good at being violent and hateful.
It takes balls to try something different. This is particularly true when you're talking about terrorism. Nobody wants to be seen as "Appeasing Terrorism," and "Negotiating with Terrorism," leaves you open to being accused of being a wimp. The common refrain when it comes to terrorist is to beat the living crap out of them - people who are seen to beat up terrorist are seen as tough and manly - which explains why Bush and the neoCONS were so keen to show their manhoods with other people's lives when they kept declaring "WE DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORIST."
The problem that the guys who never served in the military understood is the fact that terrorism is not an ideology. There's no job vacancy called "Terrorist." If you look at terrorist organisations, they're held together by an ideology but using techniques that we call terrorist. This is not a defence of terrorism but an obvious fact. - The IRA claimed to do what they did in the name of kicking out the Brits of Ireland (A cause Americans seemed more than willing to support with money). On the other side you had the UDA comitted to keeping Northern Ireland part of the UK (It took the British government a long time to classify the UDA as what they were-terrorist murderers). Likewise you have Hamas, which claims to be fighting for Palestinians. Even Al-Qaeda has an ideology that it fights for.
No matter what you think of such organisations, you cannot just beat them up and hope they go away. Yes, there are times when it is necessary to shoot people in a military fashion - ie if the nut is about to set off some explosives and the only way to stop him is to shoot - then you do it. However, pure military solutions don't work.
If anything the recent activities in the Middle East prove, is that extreme violence will only encourage extreme violence. Looks at the recent Gaza conflict. Israel blockades the Gaza strip because it says Hamas won't recognise its right to exist. Hamas fires rockets into Israel because the Israeli blockade is suffocating the people. Israel then shells and bombs the entire Gaza strip to stop the rockets. The cycle of violence and hatred not only continues and grows. The Bush Administration proceeded to drag America into this cycle by endorsing Israel's blockade and blatant shelling of Arab nations as the noble form of terrorism. He inadvertantly also confered rock star like status on Hezbollah's Hassan Nazrullah and Hama's Ismail Haniyah by proving that the West regards Arab suffering as a minnor inconvenience.
Let's hope the Obama Administration is serious about breaking out of this cycle. Imagine President Obama made Israel and Hamas sit down at the negotiating table. Imagine a US President telling Hamas, "You got accept that Israel is here to stay and you're better of working together than killing each other," but at the same time telling Israel, "They've got a democratic mandate and you got to pull back to your 1967 borders (As the Saudi's suggested in 2002 and 2006).
Even if that happened it would be hard to be put into practice. Extremist on both sides will have to be dealt with. Anwar Sadat, the first Arab leader to sign a peace treaty with Israel was shot by his own people. Likewise, Yitzahk Rabin, the only Israeli Prime Minister to recognise the Palestinians as human was shot by an Israeli who couldn't accept that Israel had to give up land for peace. But this is still better than what we have today, a situation of never ending violence and hatred.
James Baker, Secratery of State under Bush I mentioned that it will be necessary for Israel to negotiate with Hamas. There is no way peace between Israel and the Palestinians can be achieved if the party democratically elected by the Palestinians is not recognised as a negotiating partner. Nobody in the USA or Israel will want to be seen to "Negotiate with Terrorist," particularly when the likes of possible Israeli Prime Minister Nethanyahu has a national service record of a transvestite - it would make him appear more unmanly than he actually is.
But is the current situation better. I'm embarrased to admit it, but Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew publically endorses men with no balls, particularly when he writes for Forbes scolding the unfortunates in Southern Lebanon and the Gaza strip for refusing to be lie down and die in the face of supperior military force invading their homelands. The man celebrates being a eunach - during the US election, he asked Singaporeans - "Ask yourself, is the world safer with a President McCain or a President Obama?"
Thankfully, the rest of the world decided to vote for the young man who had balls to publically suggests that the status quo won't do as opposed to the man with very big balls who decided to cut them off during the election.
Mr Lee may get turned on by the idea of a world filled with eunachs - thank goodness the rest of us can ignore him from time to time.