Harry Reed, Parliamentarian

If you are following the domestic health care policy bill/debate, you’re undoubtedly picking up the fact that the Senate Majority Leader is not only the political go-to guy for his party (along with the go-to gal, Nancy Pelosi in the House), but he’s also a strategist in Robert’s Rules—of necessity:

At some point, Mr. Reid will have to push for a vote to end debate. And to do that, he will once again need the support of 60 senators — either the entire Democratic caucus or some Republicans to make up for any defections.

At least four senators — three Democrats and one independent — who voted yes on sending the measure to the floor for debate have already publicly threatened to block any effort to get a vote on final passage.

Mr. Reid succeeded in getting the bill to the Senate floor with no clear path to a final vote to get it off the floor.

via Rough Race to the Finish for Senate Democrats – Prescriptions Blog – NYTimes.com.

Two Professors, One Valuable Lesson: How to Respectfully Disagree – Commentary – The Chronicle of Higher Education

Would you take a course from the Odd Couple—two profs with entirely different approaches, ideas, and temperaments?  Does this further the ideal of teaching effective communication, especially when disagreement in part of the equation?

We could not be more different. Mel Seesholtz has a reputation for criticizing the dogma-based sociopolitical agenda of organized religion; Bryan Polk is the chaplain at Abington College. Mel is a James Joyce scholar; Bryan prefers to study Neolithic stone circles in England. Although we both teach English classes, Mel focuses on literature and courses on science, technology, and society; Bryan teaches religious studies and mythology. Mel is a laid-back facilitator of classroom discussions; Bryan is a more formal lecturer. Mel is a vegetarian (heading toward vegan); Bryan is a gourmet cook who enjoys virtually every kind of meat. …

But our version of team-teaching is expensive. Do its benefits outweigh its costs? Aside from students liking the approach, clearly it has helped them understand how to disagree without becoming inconsiderate, ranting bloviators. Based on student feedback and evaluations, campus administrators have agreed to continue the course for at least another year, and in response to student requests, we are writing a textbook that presents the material in a framework reflecting the modeling goals that inspired the course.

via Two Professors, One Valuable Lesson: How to Respectfully Disagree – Commentary – The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Historians Reassess Battle of Agincourt – NYTimes.com

Addendum! Our public speaking lecture needs to be corrected, as we tried to motivate you by showing the, er, motivational Henry V (Kenneth Branaugh edition) speech.  Turns out, the English lost.

But Agincourt’s status as perhaps the greatest victory against overwhelming odds in military history — and a keystone of the English self-image — has been called into doubt by a group of historians in Britain and France who have painstakingly combed an array of military and tax records from that time and now take a skeptical view of the figures handed down by medieval chroniclers.

via Historians Reassess Battle of Agincourt – NYTimes.com.

From Ousted Harvard Prez to Trusted Insider to POTUS

Sometimes, the smart move politically is to say nothing.  (Yes, you can say too much.)

Lawrence B. Lindsey lost his job as director of the National Economic Council in part for excessive public candor. Lawrence H. Summers, its current director, will not be making that mistake.

via “When Keeping Quiet May Be Just the Right Thing To Do” – NYTimes.com

YouTube – Miracle-Herb Brooks” Pre-Game Speech

YouTube – Miracle-Herb Brooks” Pre-Game Speech.

Hockey fans, take note.  All others, if your public speaking ability is this good, you are guaranteed an “A” for the semester. Via Drew Ludlow.

Secret Lives of the Presidents – Timothy Egan Blog – NYTimes.com

This veers off the typical globo diplo theme–but gets at the heart of a frustration most of of experience:  what to think about politicians who say things are are so, er, um, “political.”  What to believe?

George W. Bush, who got Ned Flanders Nation to see him as a righteous Christian guided by Biblical principle, had a soft spot for gay marriage, and didn’t believe his own speeches on the subject. This from ex-speech writer Matt Latimer.

Bill Clinton, the master multi-tasker who never seemed to sweat despite his many self-inflicted travails, was actually quite fragile just before the Monica Lewinsky affair. “I cracked,” he said, in the recollections of chosen chronicler, Taylor Branch. “I just cracked.”

And Richard Nixon, whose dark side has been dribbling out in taped snippets over the last 35 years, shows himself to be even more cynical and intolerant than we’d already known, in excerpts released over the summer months.

via Secret Lives of the Presidents – Timothy Egan Blog – NYTimes.com.

The Top 10 Craziest Things Ever Said at the U.N. General Assembly – Joshua Keating | Foreign Policy

So much fun you wonder how reading this can even be considered a class assignment:

#1 Indian Diplomat Filibusters Himself to (near) Death

Year: 1957

Quote: “The Security Council regards this as a dispute. It is not a dispute for territory. There is only one problem before you … that problem is the problem of aggression.”

Impact: With this epic filibuster during a debate on Kashmir, Indian U.N. envoy Krishna Menon holds the record for the longest speech in the history of the U.N. Security Council. In total it lasted over eight hours. Menon actually collapsed from exhaustion partway through and had to be hospitalized. He returned later and continued for another hour while a doctor monitored his blood pressure.

via The Top 10 Craziest Things Ever Said at the U.N. General Assembly – Joshua Keating | Foreign Policy.

Grading the Obama UN GA Speech

First, let’s see what the chatter is from across the media, in a for/against alternating pattern:

Simply put, Barack Obama is loved at the UN because he largely fails to advance real American leadership. This is a dangerous strategy of decline that will weaken US power and make her far more vulnerable to attack. …

The Obama administration is now overseeing and implementing the biggest decline in American global power since Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately it may well take another generation for the United States to recover.

via The UN loves Barack Obama because he is weak – Telegraph.

At exactly this point in his presidency, John F. Kennedy did what Barack Obama did on Thursday—challenge the United Nations to eliminate nuclear weapons. Obama becomes the first U.S. president to chair an extraordinary session of the U.N. Security Council, with its nations represented by heads of state, not diplomats. As chair, it was his prerogative to set the agenda, and he chose nuclear non-proliferation and “disarmament”—a word that all but disappeared from the rhetoric of American presidents decades ago. It tips Obama’s hand that, because of him, the word disarmament is back.

via Drop the Bomb Obama – The Daily Beast

Underneath the vast rock-candy mountain of Obama’s insubstantial rhetoric, this was a speech that was both hard-headedly “realist” and naively utopian. “Realist” in that it sought deals with governments of all stripes by promiscuously making concessions to them while staunchly refusing to criticize their faults; utopian in that it had no additional or more persuasive strategy to advance its ambitious aims.Uncle Sam arrived at the U.N. in penitential mode. He promised to mend his ways, to treat the other governments with proper deference, and to continue to pay everyone’s bills. He can get ovations every time with similar speeches. But he will also continue another trend that began yesterday: losing their respect.

via Obama’s Confession – National Review Online

Obama’s promise was and is a re-branding of America (which was the primary reason I supported him). Of course, if you are a neocon, you see no need to rebrand after Gitmo, Iraq, Bagram and Abu Ghraib. Torture and pre-emptive wars waged on false pretenses are things to be proud of. But if you are capable of absorbing complicated reality, you realize that such a re-branding was essential if the US were to dig itself out of the Bush-Cheney ditch and to advance its interests by defter means than raw violence and occupation…

What I’m seeing in American foreign policy, in other words, is less fear and more confidence. Confidence is not the same thing as weakness. It is better understood, I think, as a rational attempt to seek self-interest through international cooperation, to see the US less as the hegemon than as the facilitator. If it works, it will be a breakthrough. If it works.  But isn’t it worth trying?

via Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan -  The Atlantic

Obama then listed a series of decisions that he hoped might placate the assembled thugs, dictators, and hypocrites — a crowd from which he feels compelled to seek approval on behalf of the United States. Obama noted that he has banned torture, closed Gitmo, moved to end the war in Iraq, moved towards disarmament, attempted to advance the ball on creating a Palestinian state, “re-engaged the United Nations, paid our bills, joined the Human Rights Council.”

So here was the president of the United States doing everything but getting down on his hands and knees before the representatives of every wretched regime in the world to plead that the U.S. has turned over a new leaf and, in effect, become harmelss.

via Paul Hinderaker – Powerline blog

How does interpretation work at the United Nations? – By Christopher Beam – Slate Magazine

Interesting explanation of a very complex process–I’m getting a headache thinking about it right now:

Speakers at the United Nations are supposed to deliver their speeches in one of the organization’s six official languages: English, French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, and Chinese. U.N. interpreters then translate the lecture into the other five languages. If the speaker doesn’t use an official language—either as a political statement or because he doesn’t know one—the speaker has to bring along his own interpreter. That interpreter then translates into one of the official languages—usually English or French—and the other interpreters translate from that interpretation. (Qaddafi brought his own interpreter.) Alternatively, the speaker can provide a written translation of his speech in one of the official languages, as long as he doesn’t deviate from the text in his remarks.

via How does interpretation work at the United Nations? – By Christopher Beam – Slate Magazine.

Ahmadinejad @ the UN

How effective will Ahmadinejad be at the UN—how will the story go?

Mindful of the horrific human rights abuses that have taken place in Iran in the aftermath of the stolen elections, and the continuing protests and resistance by ordinary Iranians, one would think that Ahmadinejad’s lack of internal legitimacy would be the natural topic of conversation. But Ahmadinejad is not a man of limited resources.

He knows how to deflect the attention of the media and he is a master of changing the subject. And he knows all too well how to push the buttons of Western audiences.

So it is not a surprise that after having been relatively quiet about the Holocaust for almost two years, Ahmadinejad suddenly decided to question it once again just a few days before landing in New York. At the Friday prayer sermons on September 18, Ahmadinejad called the Holocaust a “lie.”

His calculation seems to be as follows: Just as before, Western journalists will focus on the controversy around his Holocaust denial, while neglecting about the abuses and violations that are taking place in Iran on a continuous basis. The controversial Holocaust comments will overshadow everything else and will be the focus of not only Western media, but also the protests in New York as well as the statements and comments by European officials. At a minimum, it may help Ahmadinejad portray the situation as such to his audience in Iran.

via Trita Parsi: Will the Focus at the UN Be on Ahmadinejad’s Human Rights Abuses?.

Iranian Protesters in NY outside the UN weren’t happy [video]

And finally, Thomas Friedman provides a dialogue on how the US should handle this very tricky moment with Iran:

“The Obama administration must reconcile how to deal with a disgraced regime, which presents urgent national security challenges, while at the same time not betray a democratic movement whose success could have enormously positive implications for the U.S.,” said Sadjadpour.