View from America: The Clinton Doctrine of American Foreign Policy

http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/the-clinton-doctrine-add-links-from-original/
By DAVID ROHDE

The partisan political theater, of course, was top-notch. Senator Rand Paul’s declaration that he would have fired Hillary Rodham Clinton; herangry rebuttal of Senator Ron Johnson’s insistence that the Obama administration misled the American people about the Benghazi attack;Senator John McCain’s continued outrage at the slapdash security the State Department provided its employees.

Beneath the posturing, though, ran larger questions: what strategy does the United States have to counter the militant groups running rampant across North and West Africa? And what kind of secretary of state has Mrs. Clinton been? In her last Congressional hearing in that position, Mrs. Clinton expressed exasperation with Washington’s political trench warfare.

“We’ve got to get our act together,” she said.

Mrs. Clinton has been a very good but very cautious secretary of state, many analysts say — one who, for the most part, kept her distance from Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine and other seemingly intractable conflicts.

One State Department official, while praising Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, nonetheless looked forward to the arrival of Senator John Kerry, her designated successor: “I came to admire Clinton as secretary of state, her focus on women and innovation in particular,” the official told me. “But am really happy to have someone in the job who does not retain political ambitions.”

In a recent assessment of Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution argued that she had enjoyed some success, including restoring the United States’ image abroad, but she made no historic breakthroughs, he said.

Mr. O’Hanlon argued that Mrs. Clinton’s famed work ethic paid off. She made few mistakes, no major gaffes and did not “needlessly antagonize” friends or enemies. Mr. O’Hanlon called Mrs. Clinton’s role in the administration’s “pivot to Asia” and tough stance toward China arguably “her greatest and most memorable contribution.”

The problem, as last week’s hearing showed, is that the Middle East and the threat of terrorism continue to dominate American foreign policy. Even as the United States becomes more energy independent, terrorist attacks like the kidnappings in a remote oil facility in Algeria will make headlines andinfluence markets. Barring a massive shift in American domestic politics, Israel’s security will continue to be viewed as a vital interest of the United States.

Mrs. Clinton, to her credit, made 40 trips to Europe that helped produce crippling new sanctions on Iran. Last fall, she helped broker a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. But she failed to personally engage in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

To be fair, the Obama White House may have limited her options. After promising more open debate than occurred under President George W. Bush, the Obama White House tightly controlled the formulation of American foreign policy. Critics have also accused Mr. Obama of being overly cautious in foreign affairs.

With the exception of the Libya intervention and the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, Mr. Obama was “coolly calculating and reluctant to engage” in his first-term foreign policy, The Economist magazine recently argued.

Mr. Obama, of course, is trying to avoid the over-reach his predecessor displayed in Iraq. He also faces enormous fiscal pressures at home. But there is a risk that the pendulum is swinging too far toward a smug isolationism in Washington.

As Mrs. Clinton departs, worrying trends are emerging in the way America engages with the world. The new U.S. weapon of choice is the drone strike — a tactic that carries zero political risk at home but spreads anti-Americanism abroad.

Complex foreign policy problems that threaten American security are increasingly seen as “entanglements” best avoided. There is a convenient view that there are no “good guys” in the power struggles now unfolding in the post-Arab-Spring Middle East.

The potential lesson of the bruising political battle over Benghazi is simple: Take few risks, turn embassies into bunkers and avoid political firestorms at home. In her testimony, Mrs. Clinton passionately argued against that approach.

Declaring Somalia and Colombia success stories, she said the United States could counter militancy in Africa and the Middle East by working with regional organizations and training local security forces. U.S. funding and training of an African Union Mission in Somalia, or AMISOM, Mrs. Clinton said, had slowly succeeded in driving back al-Shabaab and other Islamist forces. In Colombia, the government has driven back FARC rebels and narco-traffickers.

There have been setbacks and the efforts in both countries are imperfect. But local security forces trained and funded by the international community slowly gained ground in painstaking efforts over many years.

“What we have to do is recognize that we’re in for a long-term struggle here,” Mrs. Clinton said at the hearing. “And that means we’ve got to pay attention to places that historically we have not chosen to or had to.”

During their heated exchange, Mr. McCain criticized Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration for not doing enough to train Libya’s security forces. Secretary Clinton replied that House Republicans had put a hold on the funding the administration requested to train Libyans.

“If this is a priority and we are serious about trying to help this government stand up security forces,” she said, “then we have to work together.”

Mrs. Clinton is right. And so is Mr. McCain. Congressional politicking hinders the State Department. The State Department executed terribly in Benghazi. But Mrs. Clinton, who I have criticized in the past, won the day.

“We are in a new reality,” she said, referring to the change sweeping across the Middle East. “We are trying to makes sense of events that nobody had predicted but that we’re going to have to live with.”

Mrs. Clinton called for the United States to show “humility” abroad and stop making national security issues “political footballs” at home. She said a Cold War style bipartisan agreement should be reached to launch a long-term American effort to strengthen local security forces and promote democracy across Africa and the post-Arab-Spring Middle East.

“Let’s be smart and learn from what we’ve done in the past,” she said. “Put forth a policy that wouldn’t go lurching from administration to administration but would be a steady one.”

“We have more assets than anyone in the world,” Mrs. Clinton added, “but I think we’ve gotten a little bit off track in trying to figure out how best to utilize them.”

A “little bit off track” is a euphemism for partisanship endangering national security. If the U.S. doesn’t get its act together, expect more Benghazis.

Punya Payung Dikira Sok Kaya

http://intisari-online.com/read/punya-payung-dikira-sok-kaya



Intisari-Online.com - Bahasa Ingggrisnyaumbrella. Maknanya tidak bergeser jauh dari kata asli dalam bahasa Latin yang diserapnya,umbra: tempat teduh. Orang sekarang memang memakai payung sebagai pelindung sengatan matahari dan hujan. Meskipun dalam kebudayaan kita dipakai juga untuk alat pelengkap tari, upacara kematian, hiasan, dan lainnya.

Namun para bangsawan Mesir, Mesopotamia, maupun Cina sejak tahun 12 SM menjadikan payung sebagai atribut kebangsawanannya. Bahkan para wanita teman tidur raja Siam hanya dilengkapi tiga buah payung sebagai pelindung tubuh. Berhubung mahal dan langka, hanya orang tertentu yang punya. Makanya para raja bangga jika memilikinya. Apalagi kalau bisa mengoleksi berbiji-biji seperti halnya penguasa Ava sampai ia menyebutkan dalam gelarnya "Raja Para Gajah Putih dan Penguasa 24 Payung".

Lalu saking beratnya payung zaman dulu, harus ada orang lain - biasanya budak - yang memegangi atau membawakannya. Seperti tampak dalam gambar-gambar kuno, para raja, pejabat, atau pendeta diiringi pembawa payung yang tugasnya melindungi sang majikan dari terik matahari. Payung lalu menjadi simbol status kehormatan.

Lambat laun orang Eropa pun mengenalnya meski kaum bangsawan dan orang kaya di sana hanya menggunakannya sebagai pelindung dari sengatan matahari. Pada abad XVII payung semakin memasyarakat setelah teknik pembuatannya maju dan ditemukan bahan murah. Atap payung dari kulit diganti kain ringan, misalnya sutera yang lalu jadi populer. Rangkanya dari tulang ikan paus. Payung berangsur-angsur semakin ringan sehingga bantuan untuk membawanya tak perlu lagi.

Fungsinya juga bertambah sebagai pelindung dari hujan. Orang Prancis lalu membedakan payung sesuai fungsinya dengan istilah parasol - payung matahari, dan parapluei - payung hujan. Namun pada zaman itu belum semua masyarakat menerimanya. Misalnya, kaum pria Prancis menganggap genit lelaki yang memakai payung dan bisa menurunkan derajatnya. Juga ada yang menilai payung hanya pantas bagi mereka yang tidak mampu membeli kereta. Pemilik payung identik dengan bukan orang kaya, tapi sok kaya. Benda yang semula simbol status kekuasaan, berubah peran jadi sarana murah pengganti kereta.

Adalah Jonas Hanway (1712-1786) yang pertama membuat Inggris jatuh cinta pada payung. Tadinya Hanway diolok-olok orang tiap kali terlihat berjalan dengan "senjata" payung untuk menentang cuaca buruk. Lebih kacau lagi, ia dimusuhi tukang pikul tandu dan sais kereta yang merasa terancam periuk nasinya gara-gara payung. Payung baru populer setelah dipakai Beau Macdonald, pria pesolek amat kesohor di Inggris, meskipun ia pernah dianggap aneh sampai saudara perempuannya sendiri menolak tampil bareng bersamanya.

Rangka tulang paus digeser logam. Pada 1850-an Samuel Fox pertama kali merancang bingkai sehingga lebih ringan, tapi lebih kuat. Payung makin disukai sebagai alat pelindung setelah muncul tren mode kulit tubuh yang pucat dan putih mulus. Namun tren ini tak bertahan lama. Sebab tak lama setelah PDI, muncul pendapat bahwa sinar matahari itu menyehatkan. Fungsinya pun kembali sebagai penangkal hujan dan lambang status saja.

Dari sudut lain, Sigmund Freud, pakar psikoanalisis, mengatakan bahwa payung dalam mimpi biasanya berkaitan dengan kehidupan seksual yang memuaskan. Sebab payung itu simbol phallus(alat kelamin lelaki). Payung pernah membuat Hitler kecele sehabis melihat PM Inggris Lord Chamberlain turun dari pesawat sambil menenteng payung. Menurut Hitler, sebuah bangsa yang pemimpinnya begitu repot melindungi diri dari hujan saat negara-negara di dunia dalam kekuatan seimbang, tentu tidak punya pertahanan tangguh. Ternyata dari hasil PD II, kesimpulannya itu salah. (Intisari)

"Cathinone", dari Tumbuhan sampai Zat Sintetis

http://sains.kompas.com/read/2013/01/30/14283372/Cathinone.dari.Tumbuhan.sampai.Zat.Sintetis?utm_source=WP&utm_medium=box&utm_campaign=Kknwp
ATIKA WALUJANI MOEDJIONO



KOMPAS.com - Cathinone menjadi perbincangan setelah tujuh orang ditahan usai penggerebekan di rumah seorang artis di Jakarta Selatan. Dua orang di antaranya terindikasi mengonsumsi derivat dari cathinone, yakni 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone. Zat sintetis itu juga dikenal sebagai methylone.

Cathinone, S(-)-alpha-aminopropiophenone, merupakan zat yang konfigurasi kimia dan efeknya mirip dengan amfetamin. Demikian laporan Kalix P dari Fakultas Farmakologi, Universitas Geneva, Swiss, dalam publikasi Pharmacology and Toxicology, edisi Februari 1992.

Secara alami cathinone terkandung dalam khat (Catha edulis Forsk), tumbuhan semak yang banyak terdapat di Afrika timur dan tengah serta sebagian Jazirah Arabia. Daun khat sejak dulu dikonsumsi dengan cara dikunyah, dibuat jus, atau diseduh seperti teh oleh penduduk di wilayah itu.

Adapun cathinone sintetis, sebagaimana disebut dalam situs European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), berbentuk serbuk kristal putih atau kecoklatan, kadang-kadang dikemas dalam kapsul. Zat itu juga ditemui dalam bentuk tablet sebagai pengganti pil ekstasi. Cara penggunaan biasanya dihirup, ditelan, atau disuntikkan setelah dicampur air.

Di banyak negara, khat bukan barang terlarang meski penggunaannya dikontrol di beberapa negara Eropa. Adapun cathinone dimasukkan sebagai golongan I Konvensi PPB untuk Zat-zat Psikotropika Tahun 1971. Cathine yang juga terdapat dalam khat masuk golongan III, sedangkan cathinone sintetis, yakni amfepramone dan pyrovalerone masuk golongan IV konvensi itu.

Cathinone yang dalam bahasa Indonesia dikenal sebagai katinona tercantum dalam Lampiran Undang-Undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2009 tentang Narkotika pada daftar narkotika golongan I.

Stimulan

Al Bachri Husein, pengajar di Bagian Psikiatri Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Indonesia/RS Cipto Mangunkusumo, yang dihubungi pada Selasa (29/1/2013) menyatakan, sejak tiga tahun atau empat tahun lalu ia sudah menangani gejala klinis akibat cathinone. Artinya, zat itu sudah lama ada di Indonesia.

”Cathinone merupakan zat stimulan untuk sistem saraf pusat yang banyak digunakan sebagai club drug atau party drug,” katanya.

Menurut Al Bachri, zat yang dibuat di laboratorium klandestin itu digunakan untuk ”membuat orang senang menjadi lebih senang”. Yang dirangsang adalah ujung-ujung saraf.

Efek mirip amfetamin itu menimbulkan rasa gembira, meningkatkan tekanan darah,

kewaspadaan, serta gairah seksual. Namun, hal itu bisa diikuti dengan depresi, mudah terganggu, anoreksia, dan kesulitan tidur.

Semula, demikian EMCDDA, cathinone sintetis digunakan sebagai obat. Amfepramone dan pyrovalerone digunakan sebagai obat pengurang nafsu makan. Adapun bupropion yang bersifat antidepresan digunakan untuk orang yang ingin berhenti merokok.

Namun, sejak pertengahan tahun 2000-an, derivat cathinone ilegal beredar di pasar zat rekreasi di Eropa. Zat yang banyak ditemukan adalah mephedrone dan methylone. Methylone digolongkan sebagai zat yang dikontrol di Denmark, Irlandia, Romania, dan Swedia, bersama sejumlah derivat cathinone lain. Jenis-jenis cathinone sintetis makin banyak beredar mulai tahun 2009.

Merusak kesehatan

Laporan mengenai keracunan dan bahaya bagi kesehatan akibat penggunaan cathinone sintetis menyebabkan zat tersebut menjadi isu kesehatan masyarakat dan keamanan yang serius di Amerika Serikat.

Dalam situs National Institute on Drug Abuse dilaporkan, efek cathinone mirip amfetamin dan kokain. Zat itu merangsang peningkatan kadar neurotransmitter (zat pengantar impuls saraf) dopamin yang menimbulkan rasa gembira dan meningkatkan tenaga. Efek lain adalah peningkatan kadar norepinefrin meningkatkan detak jantung dan tekanan darah. Namun, pengguna bisa mengalami halusinasi akibat peningkatan kadar serotonin. Akibat buruk lain adalah dehidrasi, kerusakan jaringan otot, dan gagal ginjal yang berujung pada kematian.

”Penggunaan cathinone dalam jangka lama dan berlebihan menyebabkan kerusakan sel otak. Akibatnya, orang menjadi paranoid dan berhalusinasi. Gejala yang lebih ringan, pengguna merasa lemas jika tidak mengonsumsi,” kata Al Bachri.

Psikiater Danardi Sosrosumihardjo menyatakan, cathinone sintetis bukan diekstrak dari daun khat, melainkan disusun dari zat-zat prekursor.

Jika cathinone alami merupakan stimulan potensi rendah, bahkan lebih ringan dari alkohol dan tembakau, tidak demikian dengan zat sintetisnya. ”Tujuan pembuatan sintetis dari cathinone adalah memperkuat efek serta menghindari aturan hukum,” ujar Danardi.

Menurut National Institute on Drug Abuse, pada Juli 2012, cathinone sintetis, yaitu pyrovalerone dan mephedrone, dinyatakan sebagai zat ilegal bersama sejumlah zat sintetis lain. Meski UU yang baru ditandatangani Presiden Barack Obama itu melarang zat-zat kimia yang analog dengan zat tersebut, diramalkan para pembuat akan merancang derivat baru yang cukup berbeda untuk menghindari jerat hukum.

Sebagai contoh, saat mephedrone dilarang di Inggris tahun 2010, segera muncul zat kimia disebut naphyrone untuk menggantikannya. Zat itu dijual dengan istilah ”jewelry cleaner” dengan merek Cosmic Blast.

Pemerintah Indonesia bisa belajar dari pengalaman negara lain.

Jokowi & A Hok handle banjir sementara tunggu Anggaran disahkan...

https://www.facebook.com/paul.zacharia/posts/10200450067800726

Nggak lama setelah @janes_cs sharing tentang 100 Hari Jokowi, temannya yang juga reporter stasiun TV berita yang saat ini bertugas meliput Ahok selama menjabat sebagai Wakil Gubernur DKI juga ikut berbagi cerita pengalamannya menjadi ‘follower’ Ahok. 

Berikut kisah dari @indahbeauty di timeline Twitternya yang diproteksi itu, dimulai dari percakapannya dengan Janes…

Baik Jokowi maupun Ahok, memang peduli ya, Janes, sama kuli tinta kayak kita. 

Kalau di Ahok, selalu ingatkan stafnya untuk kasih lunch buat wartawan. Bukannya kita kuli tinta yang nempel Ahok, ngeliput cuma buat dapat lunch. Tapi kepeduliannya itu, yang jarang kita temui di pejabat-pejabat lain. 

Poinnya, mereka anggap kita bukan sekadar pencari berita, tapi penghargaan mereka akan kerja keras kita dihargai. 

Boss tempat kita kerja aja, nggak segitu-gitunya merhatiin kita ya, Janes. *Peluk Jokowi-Ahok.*

Ahok juga suka marah-marah sama kepala dinas yang nggak becus. Tapi dia nggak ragu muji, sama kepala dinas yang sudah diomelin, terus balik kerja bagus.

Gue salut sama Jokowi-Ahok, yang bisa atasi banjir, padahal APBD belum ketok palu. 

Meski belum sempurna, ya tapi memang tidak ada sesuatu yang sempurna. Yang penting bagi Jokowi-Ahok, kerja buat masyarakat, yang untung harus masyarakat, bukan pemerintahnya yang untung. 
Itu kata Ahok, loh.

Kemarin seharian ngobrol sama Ahok. Salut, bagaimana dia kerahkan segala upaya untuk bantu evakuasi pengungsi. Ingat, dana APBD belum turun, loh! Ahok memang nggak bawa media saat mengungsikan 2000 warga dari waduk Pluit pakai kapal Dishub dan pinjam kapal pengusaha lewat laut. 

Yang utama saat itu bagi Ahok adalah bagaimana menyelamatkan nyawa warganya, bukan pemberitaan yang ujung-ujungnya nanti dikira pencitraan.

Kata Ahok, “bawa media dikira pencitraan. Nggak ada pemberitaan dikira nggak kerja.” 

Tapi pada tahu nggak, Ahok bantu evakuasi dari pagi sampai malam? Cuma mau nanya sama yang suka nyinyir (menyindir) sama Jokowi-Ahok, kalian mau nggak kerja keras buat warga seperti itu? Cuma mau nanya aja, sih.
Jadi Ahok cerita, pas Kamis, dia sampai Balai Kota, kondisi sudah banjir. Listrik mati, jadi dia disuruh Jokowi balik ke utara, pantau banjir. 

Sampai Pluit, kondisi banjir sudah tinggi. Dia pun kerahkan segala upaya, evakuasi warga waduk Pluit yang sudah terkepung banjir. 

Dengan bantuan kapal Dishub dan kapal-kapal pengusaha, tembok komplek Pantai Mutiara, dijebol buat mengangkut sekitar 2000 warga.

Hanya sekitar dua jam, warga-warga tersebut diangkut ke tempat yang lebih aman. Lalu Ahok juga cari pasir dan batu buat tanggul Laturharhary. Dalam kerjanya, Jokowi dan Ahok, memang membagi tugas. Ahok fokus ke banjir di Jakarta Barat dan Jakarta Utara.

Sejak banjir melanda daerah Pluit dan Muara Baru, Ahok keliling memohon warga untuk mau dievakuasi, mumpung air belum terlalu tinggi. Tapi warga banyak yang menolak, takut hartanya dijarah. Itu bikin Ahok kesal. 
Makanya dia ajak Wakapolda keliling untuk meyakinkan warga, bahwa aman. Tapi dasar warga bandel. Dan juga manja. Jadi kalau ada yang ngetweet, belum dapat bantuan jangan langsung percaya. 

Mereka rata-rata menolak dievakuasi. Alasannya, takut harta bendanya dijarah. Jadi mereka maunya relawan bolak-balik distribusi makanan sehari 3 kali. Tugas relawan ‘kan buat evakuasi warga. Bukan petugas delivery makanan. 

Makanya ada tempat pengungsian, biar diatur dengan baik. Kalau setiap hari relawan harus antar makanan ke warga yang bertahan di rumahnya, 3 kali sehari, terus bagaimana proses evakuasi warga? Makanya masyarakat, harus bisa diajak kerjasamanya. Nggak cuma kalian yang butuh bantuan. Masih banyak warga lain yang butuh. Sementara, sarana terbatas. Be wise, lah.

Jadi dari Kamis sampai Minggu, Ahok konsentrasi di daerah utara dan barat. Bahkan, mengajak warga Pluit untuk mau dipindahkan ke rusun yang disiapkan. Rusunnya nggak main-main, loh. Sudah full-furnished, mulai dari perabot sampai sembako, baju, dll. Pokoknya tinggal bawa badan aja. Artinya, pemerintah nggak main-main, ingin mensejahterakan warganya. Tapi kadang niat ini, dikritik sinis, sama orang-orang yang nggak paham.

Ahok pernah cerita, sebenarnya, dia bukannya marah-marah kalau ngomong. Sebagai orang pesisir, memang begitu cara dia bicara. 
Cuma orang suka salah tafsir.

Ahok juga ramah, baik sama kuli tinta, atau dengan siapapun warga yang datang mengadu kepadanya. Buat dia, pelayanan masyarakat lebih penting. Ahok juga nggak kaku, kalau diajak foto-foto sama warga. Sama kayak Jokowi. Pokoknya orangnya menyenangkan dan pekerja keras.

Saya sering ikut pejabat, tapi saya kagum dengan Ahok dan Jokowi, yang punya komitmen besar untuk kesejahteraan masyarakat. Kata Ahok, kami kerja buat untung masyarakat, bukan untung pemerintahan. Yang penting masyarakat bisa hidup layak. Beda dengan pejabat lain, yang kadang menjaga jarak dengan kuli tinta kayak saya. Sejak mengikuti Ahok, nggak ada, tuh, jaim-jaiman.

Bahkan nggak jarang, kita diajak masuk ke ruangannya untuk lihat dia kerja. Pernah dia bongkar kulkasnya, dan ngobrol-ngobrol santai sama wartawan. Pokoknya membumi banget. Saya ngomong begini, bukan maksud apa-apa, tapi saya lihat bagaimana Ahok dan Jokowi, kerja keras benahi Ibukota.

Wartawan lantai 2, biasa kita sebut yang suka mengikuti Ahok, suka panggil Ahok “Daddy Bas” atau “Kokoh”.

Pembagian tugas Jokowi-Ahok, kalau Jokowi “blusukan”, Ahok lebih mengurus soal anggaran. Dan bagaimana caranya bisa melakukan penghematan. Dan nantinya, uang penghematan itu, bisa dialokasikan ke program-program yang lebih bermanfaat buat masyarakat. Seperti KJP, KJS, dll. 

Dan kalian tahu nggak, sih, kalau sampai sekarang RAPBD belum diketok palu? 
Artinya anggaran belum keluar. Pernah tanya nggak, bagaimana pajak online bisa jalan? Terus integrasi bus sedang bisa jalan, banjir kemarin, meski belum sempurna, tapi lumayan, lah… Ingat, loh, anggaran belum ada. Itulah hebatnya Jokowi-Ahok, yang bisa lakukan berbagai upaya, meski anggaran belum turun.

Saat ditanya, siapa yang harus disalahkan banjir di Jakarta. Dengan tegas dan besar hati, Ahok bilang, itu salah pemimpin Jakarta, yaitu Jokowi-Ahok. Kata Ahok, sejak hari pertama dilantik, bila ada kesalahan anak buah atau apapun, itu tanggung jawab pemimpin. Mana ada coba pemimpin yang mau mengakui kesalahannya, meski belum tentu itu kesalahan mereka. So gentleman.

Buat Daddy Bas dan Oom Jokowi, selamat 100 hari kepemimpinan. Setia dengan komitmen awal dan jangan terlena. Semangat!!!

Oh ya, tempo hari Ahok mengundang wartawan makan siang bersama. 
Dia meminta kritikan dan masukan dari kami tentang hasil kerja mereka. Ahok juga minta kita kasih informasi fakta di lapangan, yang mungkin luput dari perhatian mereka. Ahok sangat terbuka dengan segala kritik dan masukan. 

Bagi Ahok, menjadi Wagub bukan sekadar jabatan, tapi amanah menjadi pelayan masyarakat yang baik, agar masyarakat sejahtera dan hidup lebih layak.
Perjalanan Jokowi-Ahok masih panjang, masyarakat tetap harus kritis dan mengontrol kepemimpinan mereka. Agar tetap pada komiten awal.

Oh iya satu lagi, Ahok itu punya kakak muslim dan kyai, loh… Jadi yang suka pakai SARA buat menyerang Ahok, be wise, lah…

"One Today"

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/22/poet-hearing-stonewall-in-obamas-speech-was-simply-amazing/
Richard Blanco

One sun rose on us today, kindled over our shores,
peeking over the Smokies, greeting the faces
of the Great Lakes, spreading a simple truth
across the Great Plains, then charging across the Rockies.
One light, waking up rooftops, under each one, a story
told by our silent gestures moving behind windows.

My face, your face, millions of faces in morning's mirrors,
each one yawning to life, crescendoing into our day:
the pencil-yellow school buses, the rhythm of traffic lights,
fruit stands: apples, limes, and oranges arrayed like rainbows
begging our praise. Silver trucks heavy with oil or paper—
bricks or milk, teeming over highways alongside us,
on our way to clean tables, read ledgers, or save lives—
to teach geometry, or ring-up groceries as my mother did
for twenty years, so I could write this poem for all of us today.

All of us as vital as the one light we move through,
the same light on blackboards with lessons for the day:
equations to solve, history to question, or atoms imagined,
the "I have a dream" we all keep dreaming,
or the impossible vocabulary of sorrow that won't explain
the empty desks of twenty children marked absent
today, and forever. Many prayers, but one light
breathing color into stained glass windows,
life into the faces of bronze statues, warmth
onto the steps of our museums and park benches
as mothers watch children slide into the day.

One ground. Our ground, rooting us to every stalk
of corn, every head of wheat sown by sweat
and hands, hands gleaning coal or planting windmills
in deserts and hilltops that keep us warm, hands
digging trenches, routing pipes and cables, hands
as worn as my father's cutting sugarcane
so my brother and I could have books and shoes.

The dust of farms and deserts, cities and plains
mingled by one wind—our breath. Breathe. Hear it
through the day's gorgeous din of honking cabs,
buses launching down avenues, the symphony
of footsteps, guitars, and screeching subways,
the unexpected song bird on your clothes line.

Hear: squeaky playground swings, trains whistling,
or whispers across café tables, Hear: the doors we open
each day for each other, saying: hello, shalom,
buon giorno, howdy, namaste, or buenos días
in the language my mother taught me—in every language
spoken into one wind carrying our lives
without prejudice, as these words break from my lips.

One sky: since the Appalachians and Sierras claimed
their majesty, and the Mississippi and Colorado worked
their way to the sea. Thank the work of our hands:
weaving steel into bridges, finishing one more report
for the boss on time, stitching another wound
or uniform, the first brush stroke on a portrait,
or the last floor on the Freedom Tower
jutting into the sky that yields to our resilience.

One sky, toward which we sometimes lift our eyes
tired from work: some days guessing at the weather
of our lives, some days giving thanks for a love
that loves you back, sometimes praising a mother
who knew how to give, or forgiving a father
who couldn't give what you wanted.

We head home: through the gloss of rain or weight
of snow, or the plum blush of dusk, but always, always—home,
always under one sky, our sky. And always one moon
like a silent drum tapping on every rooftop
and every window, of one country—all of us—
facing the stars
hope—a new constellation
waiting for us to map it,
waiting for us to name it—together.

In Petraeus downfall, hubris meets high tech

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-in-petraeus-dowfall-hubris-meets-high-tech/2012/11/11/ad63214c-2c4e-11e2-a99d-5c4203af7b7a_story.html

By Ruth Marcus, Published: November 12

Think Sophocles in cyberspace.

The fall of David Petraeus is part Greek tragedy, part cautionary tale about the omnipresence of modern technology.

The tragic part is classic: the protagonist who believes himself invincible, not subject to the rules governing ordinary mortals. Hubris is part of the human condition. Each of us is captive to the capacity for self-delusion. Every hero has a fatal flaw, every Achilles his heel. If the hero is a man, it’s a safe bet that it involves susceptibility to the opposite sex.

The technological part is something that we have not yet fully internalized, although Petraeus, of all people, ought to have known: There are no true secrets in the modern world.

Privacy is an illusion that we allow ourselves to avoid the alternative of paralysis. Every communication is potentially public. Like the gift of fire, technology is a magical device that, if not used carefully, contains the seeds of our own destruction.

At the risk of arm-chair psychologizing, it is easy to imagine the inexorable path to Petraeus’ resignation. He is a gifted man who also possessed the gift of good positioning: the cadet who married the superintendent’s daughter, the young officer with a knack for attaching himself to the right mentor, the general who understood that giving reporters your e-mail address and responding with alacrity could garner good publicity.

How fitting that the consummate networker was undone by another. Paula Broadwellmet her fellow West Point graduate at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, when she was among the students invited to a dinner after a Petraeus speech.

“I introduced myself to then-Lt. Gen. Petraeus and told him about my research interests,” Broadwell wrote in her biography of Petraeus. He proffered his business card. She followed up.

In retrospect, how could Petraeus not have been taken with a female doppelganger, a woman who could keep pace with his six-minute miles and match him pushup for pushup? “Petraeus once joked I was his avatar,” Broadwell told The Charlotte Observer earlier this year.

We don’t know who seduced whom, but history suggests that the way to a man’s heart is through his ego. History further suggests that, well let’s call it ego, tends to trump intelligence when sex is involved. Beware the woman who goes on “The Daily Show” wearing a black silk halter top and flaunting her toned triceps. Men should know better, but, it seems, they rarely do.

On the matter of knowing better, let’s talk about technology. Classic tragedy, indeed classic literature, hinges on imperfect knowledge. Oedipus fulfills the oracle’s prophecy and kills his father because he does not realize he is Laius’ son. In the modern world, DNA testing would have solved the riddle.

In a fascinating interview with The Post’s Neely Tucker last year, writer Ann Patchett described how the omnipresence of technology — the constant contact enabled by cellphones and e-mail, the instant knowledge powered by Googling and tweeting — had made it difficult for her to craft convincing fiction. Plot twists fail in a world without secrets.

This may be the plight of the modern author, but for the modern individual, particularly the modern public figure, the ubiquity of technology exacts a different toll — not on plot but on privacy. E-mails and texts can be forwarded, archived, retrieved. Phone logs are easily obtainable. The veil of anonymity is fragile; as with the threatening e-mails Broadwell allegedly sent, it can be shredded with a few keystrokes of a capable cybersleuth.

Intellectually, we get it. If you don’t want to see it on the front page of The Post, don’t write it down. Yet in practice, this admonition is almost impossible to observe. So much of what passes for personal interaction has migrated to cyberspace, we cannot stop ourselves from communicating this way. In the solitude of our laptops or our iPhones, we fall prey to the delusion of confidentiality.

Former Rep. Mark Foley sent suggestive instant messages to male pages. Former Rep.Anthony Weiner tweeted sexually suggestive photos to Twitter followers. Former Rep. Chris Lee e-mailed a photo of himself, shirtless, to a woman he met on Craigslist.

We have, so far, been spared details about Petraeus’ foibles; we can hope he was not quite so self-indulgently juvenile. But it is safe to assume he won’t be the last public figure brought low by the seductive twin traps of modern technology and good old-fashioned hubris.

ruthmarcus@washpost.com

Notes on Inauguration [continued]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-speech-reveals-a-different-leader/2013/01/21/273bb698-63d4-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html

By Dan Balz, Published: January 22

Ricky Carioti/Washington Post

President Obama has never lacked for confidence, but rarely has that attribute been on display as clearly as on Monday in an inaugural address that underscored the distance he has traveled after four contentious years in office.

This was not the politician who campaigned in 2008 on themes of transcending the divisive politics of the past, though there were ritual calls for the country and its political leaders to seize this moment together. Instead, it was a president who has accepted the reality of those divisions and is determined to prevail on his terms.

Obama’s first campaign was aspirational, and he came to office believing, or at least hoping, that through force of personality he could gently guide the opposing sides to consensus on issues that had long resisted resolution. Monday’s speech conveyed the ambitions of a president looking at his next four years with a sense of frustration and impatience, and who now believes that a different style of leadership is required.

In his speech, Obama set out his priorities for a second term, goals that will cheer the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and probably alarm many on the right. He challenged Republicans to meet him partway, though not exactly in the middle. If there was an underlying message Monday, it was not “Come, let us reason together.” It was “Follow me.” The question is whether he will be any more successful in his second term than he was in his first.

Pressure on Republicans

There are reasons for the president setting a different tone in his second inaugural than in his first. Two years after he and his party took a beating in the midterm elections, he now holds the strongest hand in Washington. His approval ratings have climbed above 50 percent, while his Republican opponents in Congress remain mired in disapproval ratings almost three times as high as their approval ratings.

Obama once hoped that he could overcome the united opposition of congressional Republicans, whose militant House members set the party’s tone during the battles of the past two years, through negotiation with GOP leaders. Now he is looking to the country to pressure his opponents to compromise in ways that they would not during his first term.

Republicans have already tested the reelected president and discovered the limits of their power. Their decision not to pick a fight — for now — over the debt ceiling signaled their recognition of that reality. It was an acknowledgment that the tactic of opposing Obama at almost every turn may be self-defeating.

Obama appears ready to try to split the Republican coalition by setting pragmatists against ideologues. On Monday, he rebuked those who have been most aggressive in their opposition when he said, “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.”

Republicans will have to choose their battles more carefully, and they may prevail in some cases. Obama knows that he won’t get all he wants, but the balance of power at the start of his second term is far different from what it was 24 months ago.

The year ahead promises more debates over the size and scope of government, issues that dominated the past two years in Washington. Obama acknowledged the need to deal with spending and the deficit, but he also set out terms for the coming fight over federal entitlements.

During the campaign, Obama talked about the philosophical divide between Republicans and Democrats on these issues, as he condemned the broken politics of Washington. He said the American people could break the tie with the election.

But the election returned a majority of Republicans to the House, and on Monday the president seemed to suggest that there were grounds for compromise. “Progress,” he said, “does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time, but it does require us to act in our time.”

Addressing his coalition

Obama’s second inaugural address also reflected a changing America and the coalition that reelected him to office. The nation’s first African American president leads an ever-more diverse population and a country in which attitudes and mores continue to change, particularly among the youngest segment of society.

The policy agenda he put forth, and the values he enunciated, spoke directly to that coalition. Never before has a president used an inaugural address to speak so openly about the cause of gay rights, linking the 1969 Stonewall uprising that led to the gay rights movement with Selma and civil rights and the 1839 Seneca Falls Convention and women’s rights.

Not all Americans agree with these changes, and as president, Obama must attempt to speak for them and to them. But his remarks Monday suggest that he believes history is on his side on these issues.

The president’s second inaugural address was notable also for what he talked about only in brief. Four years ago, he stood on the Capitol’s West Front with the country facing an economic crisis. Output was falling, the stock market had plunged, many Americans were threatened with housing foreclosures, and unemployment was rising rapidly. He talked about “a sapping of confidence across our land.”

On Monday, he touched only lightly on that crisis and spoke of the economy in positive terms. “An economic recovery has begun,” he said. At a time when jobs remain a top priority for most Americans, he chose neither to highlight that problem nor to offer any new solutions — though, ultimately, he will be judged on his effectiveness in restoring the economy to its full strength.

Opponents will find much to dislike about what Obama said Monday, for this was not a speech aimed at mollifying those who lost the election. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who lost the presidential race four years ago, expressed disappointment that Obama was not more explicit about bringing the two sides together. “I would have liked to have seen more on outreach and working together,” McCain said. But the senator added, “It’s his privilege to say what he wants.”

Obama risks overreaching or over-interpreting his mandate, which can be an affliction of newly reelected presidents. His victory in November was decisive but not overwhelming. Self-confidence can slip over the line to arrogance or hubris. Second terms often disappoint. So there are dangers ahead for the president.

On Monday, he set out his ambitions for a second term in clear language. What follows will define how history judges both those priorities and his ability to turn them into action.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/first-lady-michelle-obama-serves-as-fashion-icon/2013/01/21/655215dc-6413-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html

By Robin Givhan, Published: January 22

First lady Michelle Obama stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol during President Obama’s second-term swearing-in, holding the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s black leather Bible in her magenta-gloved hands. The smaller Lincoln Bible rested atop it. Michelle Obama said nothing during the hour-long inaugural ceremony. But in the sea of black topcoats and C-SPAN stodginess, she stood out — statuesque bearing, new bangs accentuating her cheekbones, and grooming attuned to both the history books and high-definition TV.

After rallying the country to fight childhood obesity, speaking about the value of mentoring and championing the contributions of military families, she was once again in the spot where she had stood four years ago: A silent symbol of an administration’s mood and manner, a template of patriotism, a standard-bearer for femininity.

Wearing a navy Thom Browne coat cut from custom-made jacquard and a coordinating dress, she was a more subdued, more reserved presence than in 2009. She had traded in the bright, idealistic sheen of the lemongrass Isabel Toledo ensemble for one that was structured, relatively spare and unadorned except for the black, bejeweled J. Crew belt she added after the morning’s prayer service.

And for the evening’s two inaugural balls, she chose a patriotic red chiffon and velvet gown that highlighted her shoulders with its spare neckline. It was created by Jason Wu, the same young New York-based designer she catapulted from near anonymity into a household name when he crafted her first inaugural gown.

It was a stately choice, thanks to its classic first lady hue. But it had sophisticated sex appeal and was a far cry from the idealistic sweetness exuded by Wu’s first gown, the ivory, embroidered dress now in the National Museum of American History.

In four years, her style had shifted from fizzy hope to glimmering grown-up pragmatism.

During the day, her clothes echoed her husband’s. The Thom Browne coat was created from tie silk and echoed his discreet blue neckwear. As expected, the president wore a sober black overcoat, dark suit and black gloves, with a tiny American flag pin dotting his lapel. Their daughters, Sasha and Malia, finished the family portrait wearing coats in shades of lilac and violet. The elegant silhouettes underscored their new maturity.

Still, the first lady’s clothes stand apart. Observers obsess about Michelle Obama’s wardrobe because it offers clues to the personality of a public woman — a historic woman — who remains a resolutely private person. In an era of televised confessionals, she has never laid herself bare. But thankfully, her clothes, with their quirks and eccentric embellishments, do not adhere to unwritten protocol or dowdy traditions that have so often left first ladies little more than beige cyphers.

For four years, Obama’s clothes have connected with the public in contemporary terms, in the language of Hollywood’s progressive glamour, Seventh Avenue’s bold entrepreneurship and the democracy of the mass market.

In the constant tug of war between style and substance, Obama has proved they can be one and the same.

More than any other first lady in history, Obama has pushed the American fashion industry into the international spotlight. With a global reach unlike any actor or musician — and an authenticity untouched by endorsement deals or fealty to a single brand — she carried the creative skills, the technical wizardry and the earnest ambitions of Seventh Avenue stalwarts and upstarts into Buckingham Palace, the center of the Holy See, the neighborhoods of Ghana and into fashion’s very heart of darkness . . . Paris.

Obama has celebrated a distinctly contemporary version of American style — a sensibility rooted in comfort and practicality, wholly removed from the Old World formality that still percolates within French fashion and apart from the flashy sex appeal and bella figura tailoring that are the twin pillars of Italian aesthetics.

In her embrace of fashion, Obama does not ask designers to adapt their sensibilities to her own desires. Instead, she — or her emissary — encourages their best efforts and, most often, they rise to the occasion. Reed Krakoff created the custom-made, ultramarine silk day dress and cashmere cardigan she wore to the private swearing-in Sunday. Crafted in Krakoff’s New York atelier, the ensemble acknowledged the first lady’s affection for a cardigan and an easy dress, but it was also an accurate reflection of the American designer’s sportswear roots.

Browne’s aesthetic is also born of American tradition, inspired by Ivy League tailoring, button-down shirts and varsity-letter cardigans. Browne made his reputation in menswear, launching his brand in 2001 with his shrunken, schoolboy suits. He’s a designer whose small business — and multiple side projects — speaks to the struggle and tenacity required to succeed in the fashion industry. Last year, Browne received a Cooper-Hewitt Design Award for his fashion and was feted at the White House, along with other winners, by the first lady.

Obama’s ability to bring a significant financial windfall to the many mass-market labels she wears has been documented by a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business. She is the first East Wing occupant to wield such economic clout in part because she lives in an age when a single image can be tweeted around the world.

Obama is a fashion icon — for all of the attention, discomfort and power that phrase might suggest. But she has been dogged by skepticism and disappointment that her work has not been substantive, that it has not been worthy of her educational pedigree. The fascination with her clothes has only fueled that debate.

But is substance being confused with controversy? Obama did not dive into the roiling seas of health-care reform as former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton did. But is tackling a pathology that threatens the life expectancy of generations of children any less significant?

Whether Obama will add a fourth or fifth item to her list of priorities is under discussion among her staff. “The first lady is exploring ways that she can make a real difference for Americans,” said Kristina Schake, Obama’s communications director, “not just for these next four years, but for years to come.”

Make no mistake; Obama would be loath to declare her interest in fashion a “priority.” And it is hard to imagine that she would willingly become the face of a campaign promoting this country’s $350 billion fashion industry. But style is a tool African American media use for pushing back against generations of stereotypes about black women.

As Michelle Ebanks, president of Essence Communications, noted, admiring words about the glossy images of a first-lady-lawyer-mother have become a near mantra in her home — repeated not to daughters, but to sons. Style is dignity, self-respect and confidence.

While Obama did not invent the sleeveless sheath, she gave it distinctive verve by pairing it with lean, sculpted arms. Those arms, which powered her through celebrity push-up competitions and surely must have hugged a million White House visitors, set her apart from the generation of women who preceded her into the White House. Obama revels in her athleticism, her physical fitness. Style is a synonym for health and vigor.

Indeed, Obama has done more than any other contemporary figure to normalize fashion — to move it from an outlier industry of flamboyant personalities and indecipherable verbiage to one that is discussed in the public domain with the same respectful tone applied to technology, architecture or even sports.

There is still a long way to go, of course. Cheating sports stars conjure up congressional hearings and require an interrogation by Oprah, while the fashion industry struggles to get limited trademark protections for its most unique designs. Professional women still feign fashion ineptitude as a sign of their workday gravitas.

But by giving style a prominent place in her public life, even when standing silently on a cold January day, Obama remains both eloquent and significant.

Givhan is a freelance writer.