Tales from the Trail

from Raw Japan:

Obama bowing to convention

Daniel Sloan

Nov 16, 2009 02:03 EST

The depth or angle of U.S. President Barack Obama's bow -- and handshake -- with Japan's Emperor Akihito has become a heated on-line topic, with sides arching into political camps on whether the greeting went too far -- literally -- or was appropriate based on customs and culture.

I don't pretend to be an expert on bowing in Japan, but a few basic rules of thumb, or backbone, are: the more important a person you are greeting, the deeper and longer you bow, with hands generally at one's sides; and multiple purposes can be served by this act including greeting as well as displays of respect, recognition, apology or gratitude.

While no one called the president's bow an expression of apology or thanks, a number of blogs examined his and other U.S. leaders' historical bent in stooping to diplomatically conquer, with a few labelling the U.S. commander-in-chief "O-Bow-Ma".

The Fox network and the Los Angeles Times blog offered details of Obama's and other official U.S. greetings with the imperial family, including a photo of Vice President Dick Cheney shaking Akihito's hand, and one posted a comment that bowing and handshaking should not be done simultaneously.

A blog from ABC news Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper, citing an academic friend, says both sides have it wrong, as the bow was not over -- or under -- the top in precedence, although it did not display the cultural understanding intended, rather weakness in Japanese terms.

The Huffington Post, meanwhile, seeming to anticipate a "bow row" ahead, noted criticism Obama had already received for a greeting of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in April, with Republican Senators blasting him and the White House calling the president "bent over" to shake hands but not in a bow.

Republican senators call for ending era of ‘permanent politicians’

Thomas Ferraro

Nov 10, 2009 18:03 EST

Don’t expect the U.S. Congress — packed with old men and women who have been in office for decades — to embrace a proposal to term limit themselves.

Republican senators Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Sam Brownback offered such a measure on Tuesday, saying it would be good to get fresh blood on Capitol Hill.

“Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians,” DeMint said.

“Over the last 20 years, Washington politicians have been re-elected about 90 percent of the time because the system is heavily tilted in favor of incumbents.”

Coburn says the best way to ensure a  government of the people “is to replace the career politicians in Washington with citizen legislators who care more about the next generation than their next election.”

The four Republican senators proposed a constitutional amendment that would limit members of the House of Representatives to three, two-year terms — and members of the Senate to two, six-year terms. Easier said than done.

Previous efforts, dating back to the birth of the nation, have come up short and this one will likely fail as well.