Archive for the ‘Asia’ Tag

Radio Show 193 Thursday February 2, 2017 9-11pm Eastern US Time 107.1 FM and WBKM.ORG   Leave a comment

WBKM

WBKM

 

Tonight’s local music radio show on WBKM 107.1FM will run from 9-11pm US Eastern time and can be heard over the air on both sides of the Champlain Valley or from the Facebook link above. It will go as follows:

Song Before: Red – King Crimson

intro

From our small city to the great big world, these are the Sounds of Burlington. There is a ton of great music happening this week and it’s almost all on Saturday. Let’s begin with a band who are a local treasure.

1.) Cancer – SWALE
2.) Mother’s OK – Split Tongue Crow
3.) As Glass – Wren Kitz
4.) Jessie – Danny LeFrancois

I saw Danny a couple of weeks ago play with The Parts at Manhattan. They opened with that song. He just sent me his solo album The Ghost Of Kevin Bacon and that one jumped out at me. Wren is another local treasure. Great song from Crow and gorgeous song by Swale. I want to take a moment to say how professional our local doctors are and to give a shout out to all the wonderful nurses in our town and all around our planet. You are amazing and do wonderful work. OK, let’s play the final song on Shovel Down, even though it’s not listed on the album.

5.) Just Open The Door – Seth Yacovone Band
6.) Winter Is Over – Apartment 3
7.) These Summer Nights – Sarah Blacker & New England Groove Association
8.) Brainwashed Nation – The Snaz

I think the Snaz have a new album but I have not checked it out yet. That’s an older classic. I love to play the Sarah song in the middle of winter and dream of summer. Apartment 3 are releasing their new album Saturday night at ArtsRiot. Great song from Seth. I’ll have to start a new album next week. I want to thank Higher Ground for sponsoring WBKM.ORG. The Snaz will play there Saturday and open for this next artist.

9.) I Can’t See the Light – Marco Benevento
10.) Follow The Arrow – Marco Benevento
11.) Worlds Are Colliding (George Is Getting Upset) – Sad Turtle
12.) The Big One – The High Breaks

The High Breaks will bring their surf rock sound to Finnegan’s on Saturday and Turtle will open for them. Marco is just going to rock Higher Ground on Saturday. Also on Saturday, The Nancy Druids will rock The Monkey House. Sean Toohey and Ann Mindell used to play in Envy and Sean used to play in this next band so their show will sound a little like these next two songs.

13.) Jet Pilot High – The Red Telephone
14.) Falling In And Out Of Sleep – Envy
15.) Nothing In This – The Mountain Says No
16.) Give Love – 1881

That’s another great song from their Action EP. Mountain will release their new album Golden Landfill soon. Classics from Envy and Red Telephone. Last weekend was fun, I got to see Joe Adler and Binger Friday and Jeremy Gilchrist and Joe Adler on Saturday. It sounded a bit like this.

17.) Relax – Joe Adler
18.) Resurrection In Sanskrit I – Binger
19.) If I Knew – Binger
20.) Letter From The 21st – Jeremy Gilchrist – Singer-Songwriter

Jeremy did not play that song, but it’s one of my favorites so I had to play it for you tonight. Binger played Resurrection and If back to back and made them sound great. Joe played a great version of Relax. OK, let’s pull out a fun song from the ’90’s.

21.) On My Way – Hover
22.) Way With Words – Kat Wright
23.) Sally – Daniel Waterhouse
24.) Happy Birthday Harry – Hana Zara

I love that song from Hana, and everything else that she does. Cool song from Daniel. Great song from Kat and the band. Hover were so much fun. OK, let’s play another song from Golden Landfill.

25.) Game Of Thrones – The Mountain Says No
26.) Waiting – Mr. Doubtfire
27.) Black, Blue, And White – The New Siberians

Great song from Siberians. Doubtfire have been rocking our town a lot lately and are writing lots of new songs. Hmmm, Mountain. I hope you enjoyed checking out the music of our town. Let’s do it again next week, shall we?

28.) Sayonara – Black Rabbit
outro

Songs after:

What Color Is God? – Fish
Peace – A Beginning – King Crimson
The Devil’s Triangle (Merday Morn- Hand of Sceiron – Garden of Worm) – King Crimson
Peace – An End – King Crimson
Heat Of The Moment – Asia
Parisian Walkways – Greg Lake and Gary Moore
Above The Frequency – Invisible Homes
Love Is Everything – jane siberry
King Of The Mountain (live) – Kate Bush
Cascade – Andriana Chobot
Megaphone – Joshua Glass Music
regular programming

 

Advertisements

Quote of the day   Leave a comment

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: But first, here is my take. Despite this week’s elections, President Obama has the opportunity to do big things over the next two years, but they will have to be in the world beyond Washington. Next week’s trip to Asia would be a good place to start. In fact, it’s odd that Obama has not already devoted more time, energy, and attention to foreign policy.

It’s been clear for a while now that there is no prospect of working with the Republican Party on any major domestic policy, but if Obama seeks some kind of foreign policy legacy, he will first have to maintain the discipline with which he began his presidency.

If he ends up with incremental, escalating interventionism in Syria it will absorb fully the White House’s mind share, the public’s interests and the country’s resources. It will also not succeed if by success we mean the triumph of pro-democratic forces in the Syrian civilian war.

Obama’s biggest foreign policy initiative is powerful and intelligent — the pivot to Asia. The greater threat to global peace and prosperity over the next decades comes not from a band of assassins in Syria but from the rise of China and the manner in which that will reshape the geopolitics of Asia and the world.

If Washington can provide balance and reassurance in Asia, it will help ensure that the continent does not become the flash point for a new Cold War.

But the Asia pivot remains for rhetoric than reality. Having promised a larger U.S. military presence in the Philippines, Singapore and Australia, there is little evidence of any of this on the ground. The most ambitious element of the Asia pivot is the Transpacific Partnership. The idea is simple. To lower trade barriers and other impediments to commerce among 12 large Pacific economies comprising 40 percent of the global GDP.

This will provide a boost to global growth but, more importantly, shore up the principles and practice of open markets and encourage open economies at a time when state capitalism like the Chinese model and new nationalist barriers are creeping up everywhere. The good news is that the Republican victory this week actually might make this more likely. Trade is one of the few issues on which the GOP agrees with the president.

Obama has one other major foreign policy initiative — nuclear negotiations with Iran. Again, here the basic strategy has been smart, sanctions plus talk, but it has not received presidential attention and focus.

It remains unclear whether Iran is ready to make peace with America and the West, but if it is, Obama should present Washington and the world with the deal, even though it will surely be denounced as treason by Republicans and attacked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

I know the world looks messy and the administration is now on the defensive, but recall what the world looked like when Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger were conducting foreign policy. America was losing a war in Asia in which it had deployed half a million troops. The Soviet Union was on the march. Domestic opposition and troubles were mounting.

Nixon and Kissinger had to initiate a major retreat, but as Robert Zoellick has pointed out, they combined this with the seize of bold, positive, assertive moves, arms control deals was the Soviet Union, the opening in China, shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East. The result was that by 1973 people were dazzled by the energy and ingenuity of American foreign policy.

The historian John Gaddis has described this as one of the most successful reversals of fortune for American foreign policy in modern history.

To achieve a similar kind of legacy, it’s now time for a foreign policy presidency.

Posted November 10, 2014 by tmusicfan in Politics, Quote of the Day

Tagged with , , , , ,

Quote of the Day   Leave a comment

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: But first here’s my take. Vladimir Putin might be a 19th century statesman using old fashioned muscle to get his way but this week it has become that China’s president, Xi Jinping, goes one step further, comfortably embracing both the 19th and the 21st century. This also means that the challenge from China is going to be more complex than one the United States has ever faced before.

Let’s start with the 19th century aspect, the huge Sino-Russian natural gas deal signed this week is perfectly understandable in terms of old-fashioned real politics. Beijing has long sought secure energy supplies and it places that vital interest above any desire to punish Russia for its annexation of Crimea or strengthen global norms against aggression. In fact, the Chinese recognize that the Russians facing sanctions were anxious to diversify away from their dependence on European customers and so Beijing probably got a good deal.

While the gas agreement has received all the attention, it’s also worth studying Xi’s future Shanghai, given the same day that the deal was struck. The venue was the gathering of an obscure Asian regional group, the one that includes Turkey, Iran and Russia, and not the United States. His message was that Asians should take care of their own security. Xi presented the Chinese view of the region, which he calls Asia and never the preferred U.S. term Asia Pacific. That term excludes the United States and implies that Washington as an outside power should not play a major role in Asian affairs. But this week, we also saw a new world of great power intrigue. The Justice Department filed former charges against five officials in the Chinese military and detailed the economic espionage that they allegedly have conducted against American companies over the last eight years.

The action is unprecedented, especially since these officials are never going to be arrested and will probably never leave China, and no one believes it will make a difference because the Chinese officials aren’t likely to face any kind of sanction at home. In fact if anything, they might regard being on this list as a badge of honor.

Now some experts believe that the scale of China’s cyber espionage is staggering. Quote, “It is the largest theft in human history,” unquote, says Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution. And he points to one specific example. The United States will spend about a trillion dollars developing, operating and maintaining the F-35 fighter which will be its most advanced weapon system.

Singer says, “We can now see clearly that elements of the F-35 have made their way into a similar Chinese plane. American investments that were meant to give it a 15-year battlefield advantage have been totally undermined.”

And Singer points out, China targets everyone from defense contractors down to small furniture makers whose chair designs get stolen and copied within a year.

Cyber attacks are part of a new messy chaotic world fueled by globalization and the information revolution in a wired networked world, it is much harder to shut down this kind of activity and it certainly will not be possible to do it using traditional mechanisms of national security. Notice that Washington is using a legal mechanism, which will be ineffective and largely symbolic for what is really a national security issue.

The Sino-Russian gas deal reminds us that traditional geopolitics is alive and well and Washington knows how to work its way in that world, but cyber espionage represents a new frontier and no one really has ideas, tools or strategies to properly address this challenge.

CNN.com – Transcripts

Quote of the Day   Leave a comment

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: But first here’s my take. Foreign policy commands attention when it’s crisis management. A street revolt breaks out in Egypt or Libya or Kiev and everyone asks, how should the president respond?

Now these are important parts of America’s role in the world, but they are essentially reactive and tactical. The broader challenge is to lay down a longer-term strategy that endures after the crisis of the moment. The Obama administration has tried to do this with its Asia’s strategy, and the president’s trip this week is a part of that, but progress has been halting and incomplete.

So for all its problems, the real threat to a serious Asia strategy comes not from the administration but from Congress and maybe the American public. In fact, the difficulties in the execution of the Asian pivot raised the broader question — can America have a grand strategy today?

Obama’s basic approach is wise and in many ways a continuation of U.S. foreign policy since Bill Clinton’s presidency, including George W. Bush. On the diplomatic front, it has two elements — deterrence and engagement. All countries in Asia as well as the United States seek stronger and deeper economic ties with China and want to ensure that that country does not become an expansionist regional bully.

Now getting the balance between those two elements — engagement and deterrence — is hard to do and easy to criticize. There is, however, a broader aspect to Asia policy, one that is constructive. At the center of this is the Transpacific Partnership. It would not only be the largest trade deal in decades if it happened involving most of Asia’s large economies and perhaps eventually even including China but it would strongly reinforce America style rules about free and open trade worldwide.

Yet the president has not been able to get the fast track authority that makes it possible to negotiate such a trade deal. The Democratic Party, once the greatest champion of free trade, has long turned its back on it. A sad shift in a once open and optimistic party. And in recent years, Republican support for trade has also gotten much weaker.

America’s military strategy in Asia requires significant budgets, and these are under pressure from both sides of the aisle. Public support for any kind of ambitious, generous foreign policy is pretty low these days.

Now the most worrying obstacle to a serious American strategy might seem at first to be a highly technical issue. The administration has proposed reform of the International Monetary Fund which congressional Republicans are blocking. But reforming the agency is crucial to America’s future global vote.

Let me explain. The IMF governing board has long been dominated by the United States and Europe. As Asian countries have become a large part of the global economic pie, the Obama administration has proposed enlarging their votes on the board. Now this mostly would take power away from Europe, not the United States. And yet congressional Republicans have held up this plan for three years, and they show no signs of being ready to pass it.

This issue has united Asian countries from China to Indonesia to Singapore who see it a sign that the West will never let them share real power in these institutions. And you know what? They have a point. After World War II, the United States confronted Soviet communism but it also built a stable world order by creating many institutions that set global rules and norms, and shared power from the U.N. itself to the IMF and the World Bank.

The urgent task is to expand these institutions to include the rising powers of Asia. If Washington does not do this, it will strengthen those voices in Asia, especially in China, who say that their countries should not try to integrate into a Western framework of international rules because they will always be second class citizens, and they should, instead, buy their time and create their own institutions, played by their own rules and do their own thing.

And at that point, we will all deeply regret that we did not let these countries into the club when we had a chance.

CNN.com – Transcripts

Posted April 28, 2014 by tmusicfan in Politics, Quote of the Day

Tagged with , , , , , ,

Quote of the Day   Leave a comment

Fareed Zakaria:

But, first, here’s my take. Later this year, the Obama administration will have to make a decision on whether to green light the Keystone pipeline; that’s the 2,000-mile pipeline that would bring oil from the tar sands of Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

I’m sure you’ve heard all the dire warnings about it. But another way to think about this is to ask what would happen if the project did not go forward?

The Department of State released an extremely thorough report that tries to answer just this question. It concludes, basically, that the oil derived from Canadian tar sands would be developed at about the same pace whether there was a pipeline or not.

In other words, stopping Keystone might make us feel good, but it really won’t do anything about climate change. Why? Well, given the demand for oil in the United States, Canadian producers would still get Alberta’s oil to the refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.

There are other pipeline possibilities, but the most likely method is by train. The report estimates that it would take daily runs of 15 trains with about 100 tanker cars each to carry the amount planned by TransCanada, the company.

That’s a large increase, but one likely to be met. The increases in oil transported by rail in the United States are already staggering. Carloads of crude oil on trains doubled between 2010 and 2011, then they tripled between 2011 and 2012.

And remember, research shows that moving oil by train produces much higher emissions of carbon dioxide than with the oil to flow through a pipeline.

Canada could also transport the oil to Asia, where demand is booming. Right now that seems a distant and costly prospect, but having visited Alberta recently, I can attest that Canadian businesspeople and officials are planning seriously for Asian markets, especially since they now regard American policy as politicized, hostile and mercurial.

Also, if we don’t use oil from Alberta, we need to get it the oil from somewhere else, Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia or California. Some of these oils are heavy crude, and processing, refining and burning them is believed to be even more harmful to the environment than burning Canadian oil sands.

To the extent that it makes us use more coal for electricity generation, that’s a big step backwards for the environment. For many of these reasons, the scientific journal, “Nature,” which has long a leader on climate change, argued in an editorial that Obama should approve the Keystone project.

Many environmental groups are taking an approach towards this project that resembles the way the United States government fights the war on drugs. They attack supply rather than demand.

In this case, environmentalists have chosen one particular source of energy, Alberta’s tar sands, and are trying to shut it down. But as long as there is demand for oil, there will be supply. The far more effective solution would be to try to moderate demand by putting in place a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system.

Ideally, we would use the proceeds from these taxes to fund research on alternative energy, which we badly need to do.

Opponents of Keystone say the facts are less important in this case, it is the symbolism that matters. We have to stop this big project.

Symbolism does matter. If we were to block this project, one that is no worse than many other sources of energy, one that rebuffs our closest trading partner and ally, that spurns easily accessible energy in favor of Venezuelan or Saudi crude, it would be a symbol, a terrible symbol.

It would be a symbol that emotion had taken the place of analysis and that ideology now trumps science on both sides of the environmental debate.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1303/10/fzgps.01.html

Quote of the Day   Leave a comment

Fareed Zakaria ” Secretary of State John Kerry is making news on his first foreign trip swinging through nine countries in Europe and the Middle East.

He’s talking about European trade deals, about providing greater assistance to the Syrian opposition and he’s talking about Iran, of course. These are all important issues.

But I wonder if Kerry should instead have just visited two countries on his first trip, China and Japan. That’s where the most significant and dangerous new developments in international relations are unfolding and where American diplomacy could make a bit difference.

The world’s second- and third-largest economies have been jostling for months over territory, reviving ugly historical memories and making clear that, in the event of a crisis, neither side would back down.

Trade between the two countries, which usually hovers around $350 billion a year, is down substantially. An accident, miscalculation or unforeseen event in the East China Seas could easily spiral out of control.

And that would mean conflict between great powers in the fastest growing region of the world. The kind of problems that always has global consequences. The Obama administration came into office determined to make Asia a priority, topped by its ties to China. Hillary Clinton’s first trip as Secretary of State was to Asia. The administration wanted to engage China as a partner.

China’s reaction to these overtures was confused and muddled. Beijing worried that it was being asked to involve itself in superpower diplomacy, which would distract it from its single-minded focus on economic development.

Some in the Beijing foreign-policy elite wondered if this was a trap, forcing their government to rubber-stamp decisions that would be shaped out of Washington. As a result, Beijing’s response to the administration’s initial diplomacy was cool, sometimes even combative.

Meanwhile in Asia, many of the continent’s other powers had begun worrying about a newly assertive China. From Japan to Vietnam to Singapore, governments in Asia signaled that they would welcome a greater American presence in the region, one that would assure them that Asia was not going to become China’s back yard.

The Obama administration shrewdly responded with its pivot in 2011, combining economic, political and military measures, all designed to signal that the U.S. would strengthen its role in Asia, balancing any potential Chinese hegemony.

The result of the pivot, however, was to further strain relations with Beijing. Today China and the United States maintain mechanisms, like the strategic and economic dialogue between senior officials, but they are formal and ritualistic.

No American and Chinese officials have developed genuinely deep mutual trust. Beijing views the pivot as a containment strategy and believes that rising Japanese nationalism, tolerated by Washington, is responsible for the crisis in the East China Sea.

The lack of progress in U.S.-China relations stands as the single greatest vacuum in President Obama’s otherwise reasonably successful foreign policy.

Whoever is to blame, the fact remains that the only durable path to peace and stability in Asia is a strong relationship between the United States and China. The two countries are not always going to agree, but they need to have much better and deeper ties.

So when he gets back from his trip, Secretary Kerry should start planning his next one, to Asia.”

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1303/03/fzgps.01.html