Yes, it is all anyone can talk about these days. While in Tampa to take in some Yankees’ Spring Training games, the number of men wearing NCAA t-shirts is telling. Heck, even President Obama, with all the major issues going on in the world today was not too busy to pick his NCAA brackets and play some golf, or diss his Secretary of State for being hardworking while he plays around at parties and dinners. Oh, it is March Madness all right.

But, as Christine Brennan of USA Today highlights, they aren’t the only ones, Psst, Women Have Hoops Tourney, Too. Oh, huh – yeah, I guess they do.

Brennan nails it when she writes:

If you had a dollar for every time someone has referred to “the tournament” this week, you’d be a millionaire.

It’s all people can talk about in sports: the tournament. Catch the national news on radio or TV. Check out any number of sports websites. Listen to your local sportscaster. Listen to yourself. The language is the same: it’s the tournament, singular, as if there’s only one.

But there’s a rumor going around that there is in fact another college basketball tournament taking place at the same time. Perhaps you’ve heard this rumor? That women’s basketball players are competing for a national title too? When people hear about this and want to check it out, they end up having a difficult time proving it in the mainstream news media, especially radio and TV, so they often end up wondering if they just dreamed it.

This is the fate of “the other tournament,” the NCAA women’s college basketball tournament, which runs concurrently with the men’s, forever to be known as “the tournament.”

And I do mean forever. No matter how much better and more interesting the women’s game has become, its tournament will always be seen as an add-on. And it’s not just because the men started theirs in 1939 and the women in 1982. Ironically, the stronger the women’s tournament gets, the more the men’s tournament leaves it in the dust. It’s illogical, but true. While the women’s tournament is all about sports, the men’s is about so much more. It has become a way of life, a part of our culture. How can the women compete with that? [snip]

Good question. How indeed, when the men have 55 years on the women with this top basketball tournament? Brennan addresses that, too:

[snip]There is a school of thought that says the women are getting far more than they used to in terms of coverage and interest, and that they should be happy with that. We’ll call this the “table scraps” theory.

Then there’s the 21st-century concept of actually trying to give women’s sports every opportunity to shine in their own right. This school of thought says that the current system, running the two tournaments at the same time, is failing because the men’s tournament simply blocks out too much of the sun.

In less than three weeks, the NCAA could be hosting the greatest women’s Final Four in history. If top seeds Connecticut, Tennessee, Stanford and Baylor all make it to Indianapolis, it could be a terrific Sunday of college basketball: UConn would play Tennessee, renewing the high-wire rivalry between Geno Auriemma and Pat Summitt; and Stanford, the team that ended UConn’s historic NCAA winning streak in December, would play Baylor, led by towering, 6-8 center Brittney Griner.

You gotta admit, that does sound pretty exciting (though I have no love lost for Pat Summit, sorry all of my Tennessee friends!). And for those who do not know, U-Conn had a record streak going of 90 wins until Stanford broke it the end of December. You can see how there could be some major fireworks if the Final Four ends up as Brennan thinks it might. Holy moley, that would be some good basketball, wouldn’t it? Brennan thinks so, too:

This glorious prospect has to be one of the best-kept secrets in sports. To be sure, national outlets that take their responsibility to cover all sports seriously are busy telling the story of the women’s game.

But do the vast majority of people putting the finishing touches on their bracket (that would be singular) have any clue about this possibility? Of course not. They are too busy worrying about their pick in Thursday’s Cincinnati-Missouri men’s matchup.

[...]

People will come up with excuses forever, but this year shows us as well as any that it’s time for the NCAA to give the women a place of their own on the sports calendar.

Today, there is more talent, skill and athleticism in women’s college basketball than at any other time in the history of the game. To do nothing is to guarantee that these fine athletes who are so deserving of widespread national attention will never get it. (Click here to read the rest.)

Indeed, these women work just as hard as their male counterparts, play a great game of hoops, and deserve more attention than they are getting. If the Final Four shapes up as predicted, it will be one helluva end to this tournament. It isn’t just men playing basketball on a national scale any more, and it is far past time for that to sink into the public consciousness. If nothing else, watching the women play is a great way to wind up Women’s History Month, don’t you think?

* One more thing about Japan. Unfortunately for the Japanese, people take their stoicism, calm, civility, and community spirit as evidence that they do not need help on the same level as other countries hit by natural occurrences of this magnitude. Add to that the perception that Japan, as a first level industrialized nation, has it altogether so it doesn’t need as much help. That spells Japan receiving just $49 million in donations the first week after the earthquake, aftershocks, and tsunami hit. Compare that to Haiti, which received $296 million, and those affected by the Indian Ocean tsunami at $250 million. The issues they face with the nuclear reactors, as well as whole areas wiped out from the tsunami, are massive on a huge scale. Yes, they are an industrialized nation, but they are our allies, and they are people in need. If you are able, and so inclined, they can use your help. Charity Navigator lists and ranks organizations doing relief work in Japan. Or if you have a favorite, like the Red Cross, you can designate funds for Japan there as well.

**UPDATED** – Sandra Bullock has donated $1 million to Japan’s relief effort. She continues to impress with her generosity and compassion.

Remember back in April when Obama traveled to the G-20 and bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia? If not, here it is:

Actually, that doesn’t look as much like a bow as it does a genuflect. Not, true, says Obama’s Spokes Weasel, Robert Gibbs. Oh, no – it is just because Obama is tall, and “bending over.” I am not kidding you – that’s what he claimed. So, don’t believe what you actually SAW, just believe Spokes Weasel that it’s not what it looked like it was.

Well, it would seem Obama learned nothing from that experience when he traveled to Japan and met the Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko of Japan:

Sigh. I know it is customary to bow in Japan, but this is a bit over the top for anyone, much less a US president, or another world leader. You will notice that, while the Emperor or Empress bows in return, it is slight, almost imperceptible. Nice to see that SOME people understand decorum and protocol, even if Obama doesn’t. They were modeling the appropriate level for him, and he missed it. I might add, Obama doesn’t bow just once, he does it over and over and over again (though not as low) like a frikkin’ bobblehead. His hosts, however, are not recirpocating.

Wow. So much for the President of the United States bowing to no one. What an amateur. Respect is one thing. Subordination is another. This appears to be a case of the latter, IMHO.

Yep, the second bow heard around the world. Oh, and the topic of discussion? Green tea ice cream. I’m not making this up, people, that’s what Obama discussed with the Emperor and Empress.

Perhaps Obama could take a few lessons from Secretary of State Clinton on how one meets with other world leaders, particularly in Japan, as this video from February, 2000 demonstrates (pay special attention around the 5:10 mark when the Empress and Clinton greet each other):

You’ll notice Clinton did not bow to the Empress. Though I have to say, the looks exchanged between the two women were quite lovely. They seem to really like each other (and who doesn’t like our Hillary??). Other than that, not a bow in sight. Oh, sure, she nodded her head a few times in recognition when someone bowed to her, but a real bow? Uh, yeah, NO. Didn’t see a one.

Once again, our Amateur in Chief is on display for all the world to see, and believe you me, they all saw it, too. Seriously, he needs to get some real protocol officers instead of asking one of his frat boys from their video games (“No, really, dude – I’m pretty sure they bow to each other in Japan. At least that’s what my Samurai warriors just did to each other on my X Box…”).

How I wish I could say I was surprised at Obama’s breach of protocol after his “teachable moment” in April with the King of Saudi Arabia. But when you have a president who gives a “shout out” and CALLS it a “shout out” after finding out about a devastating attack on one of our military bases before even acknowledging the attack, this is just par for the course. It just leaves me shaking my head…

This is an especially IMPORTANT video, as will be more we’ll post for you from Fareed Zakaria’s Sunday CNN program, a riveting hour. Really! (I stopped working on the blog, and listened! That’s rare!) We’ve differed with Zakaria’s views, but I admire his persistence in bringing world news to Americans, who often ignore international news, despite our gathering closeness. Right? I plead guilty and wish I knew more about the rest of the world. That’s why I make myself watch Zakaria’s program and PBS’s WorldFocus. So I honor Zakaria’s success in bringing this program to CNN. I imagine it wasn’t easy to sell an essentially American news network to devote a Sunday morning hour to world news!

FAREED ZAKARIA: “… Secretary Clinton’s trip to Asia, critiqued by some of the region’s best minds.” (The full transcript is below the fold.)

I’ve also included a fascinating remark that Zakaria used to open his program this morning on CNN in praise of the statements of Secretary Clinton about the besieged people of Burma – and ALL of the countries that we are affecting with our economic sanctions:

FIRST, before what Zakaria said about Hillary’s remarks on Burma and all of the economic sanctions we impose around the world thre are these reports from the BBC News and the New York Times:

New York Times, United States – Feb 18, 2009
“Clearly, the path we have taken in imposing sanctions hasn’t influenced the Burmese junta,” Mrs. Clinton said to reporters after meeting with Indonesia’s …

TRANSCRIPT 1, Zakaria’s opening remarks that refer to Secretary Clinton’s progressive view on economic sanctions in re Burma:

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I’m Fareed Zakaria.

It’s been a week full of news — the housing bailout, more troops for Afghanistan — and we’ll get to all of it.

But I noticed something I thought was significant. On her trip through Asia, Hillary Clinton acknowledged that our policy of economic sanctions against Burma — Myanmar — has not worked.

The reason I think this is significant is that I’m hoping it is the beginning of a rethinking. There’s a standard U.S. policy toward any regime that we don’t like. There’s not much we can do about it, and we can’t change the regime’s policies. But we decide we can’t just sit there, so we slap sanctions on the country.

Now, look at the effects. In Cuba, 50 years of sanctions have allowed Fidel Castro and his brother to wrap themselves in the mantle of Cuban nationalism and stay in power.

In Iraq, sanctions destroyed the middle class, leaving a civil society composed of criminals and religious zealots.

In Pakistan, which we sanctioned for their nuclear tests in 1990, two generations of army officers were deprived of any contact with the U.S. and grew to be anti-American — and in many cases, pro-Taliban.

In Iran today, sanctions have allowed the regime to claim that they are heroically battling efforts by Washington to strangle the nation and its aspirations.

So, how much more evidence, in the form of misery for the people and power for the dictators, do we need before we conclude that economic sanctions are a feel-good policy that have had only bad effects on the ground?

[...]

Stay with us.

TRANSCRIPT 2, Zakaria’s panel on Secretary Clintons’ trip to Asia:

ZAKARIA: The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has just wrapped up her first foreign tour to East Asia. Significantly, 1961 was the last time that a secretary of state chose that region for a first visit.

Joining me now, three experts on Asia, two of them from Asia, to talk about what that trip accomplished.

From Singapore, Kishore Mahbubani, the dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School and author of “The New Asian Hemisphere.” From New Delhi, Shekhar Gupta, the editor-in-chief of “The Indian Express.” And here in New York, the China scholar Minxin Pei of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Kishore, what do you make of the fact that Hillary chose East Asia as her first region?

KISHORE MAHBUBANI, AUTHOR, “THE NEW ASIAN HEMISPHERE”: Well, I think it’s a clear indication, frankly, of how power is shifting to Asia.

And frankly, at a time when you’re facing the greatest financial crisis in several decades, to put Asia on top of the list of priorities is also a clear signal that, if you want to have a solution to this massive financial crisis, you have to work with Asia, because this is where all the reserves are.

Hillary is coming at a time when she is essentially representing — you know, in the past, secretaries of state represented symbols of power. Now, there is the sense that the United States is a wounded animal, a deeply wounded animal coming to some extent to Asia for assistance.

So I think they’re looking for a signal to see, is the United States now ready to deal in a position of equality with the Asian countries and say, can we work together to get out of this mess?

ZAKARIA: Shekhar, the one thing that Indians have worried about the Obama administration is that it is going to be a little — how shall I put it — softer on the war on terror, that it might be a little bit more willing to accommodate itself to certain forces, whether they are, you know, militant — forces of militant Islam. And one of the problems Hillary Clinton will probably face in private conversations in Japan is their concern that both Bush and, now, Obama will be too soft on the North Korean issue.

Is there a fear that the United States is kind of losing its muscle in Asia?

SHEKHAR GUPTA, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, “THE INDIAN EXPRESS”: Well, I think there is a fear that the United States may be distracted. They’ve got so many problems back home that they may become more inward-looking.

Because we believe that many of the problems we face in our region, particularly that India faces in terms of terrorism, that the U.S. can’t walk away from them, because they were largely responsible for creating them — the creation of the Taliban, before that the mujahedeen. You know, there is no need to go into the entire history.

So you can’t create all of that, and then walk away. We’ve got a nuclear weapons power sitting next door to us.

On the other hand, many of us here believe that Obama, because there was some expectation that he might be soft on terror, he will in fact go out of his way to show that he has focus in that area. And frankly, what we have seen so far from Richard Holbrooke’s visit in the region suggests that that is true, that he is focused on the terror issue.

But the other big concern in these parts about the Obama administration, which I think is a more real concern, is this whole protectionism. And I think that, to me, is a bigger concern right now.

ZAKARIA: Kishore, let’s pick up on something Shekhar Gupta talked about with regard to protectionism.

We’re all in this crisis together, and yet, all the governments of the world are busy protecting all their banks, their inefficient industries. They’re raising tariffs everywhere.

The U.S. has this “buy America” provision in the fiscal stimulus. But frankly, so do almost all countries in one way or the other.

Is this the end of the kind of world trade system that Asia grew prosperous in?

MAHBUBANI: I completely agree with Shekhar that we should be very deeply, deeply worried about the rise of protectionism and of us backtracking away from the system of the past.

But I think the big difference in Asia is that the Asians have not lost their faith in globalization.

And what’s interesting is that, you know, when you watch — I was listening to your program earlier on, the American economists talking about the American reaction to this crisis. You know, there’s an old expression: never waste a crisis.

And the sense I have is that, if you look at the Chinese, for example, the Chinese government is not wasting this crisis. It is actually using this crisis, using this stimulus plan, to focus on the long-term investment and doing the right things.

And the Chinese, by the way, have become the biggest believers in globalization, because they know that they and India are going to become the biggest beneficiaries of globalization. So there is no intellectual retreat from globalization in the Chinese and Indian elites in the way that you see in Europe or America.

ZAKARIA: Minxin, what do you think the Chinese want from America? What do you think they conveyed to Hillary Clinton privately?

MINXIN PEI, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: First of all, keep your rhetoric down, don’t raise expectations. Second, I think, on the…

ZAKARIA: On issues like?

PEI: … on protectionism, of course, they do want Obama — and, of course, Secretary Clinton — to take their stand and draw a line in the sand, because the initial noises from Congress are not very reassuring.

But I want to say something. Right now, it’s very hard actually to make protectionism work, because of globalization. Half of China’s exports are made by American companies and other multinationals. So, half of Chinese exports to the U.S.

If you want to stop Chinese exports, you are actually penalizing American companies. So, not many congressmen actually get this. Once they look deeper into this, they will find that the task is almost impossible for them.

ZAKARIA: Shekhar, what do you think the Japanese have been pressing? Because there is sometimes talk about how the rise of China means that India and Japan are kind of moving closer together, and the U.S. is encouraging this kind of anti-Chinese — or perhaps not anti- Chinese, but a hedge strategy against China.

Do you think Hillary Clinton’s trip has in some ways as a backdrop this idea?

GUPTA: Well, I don’t think there is any juice in this idea in India. I don’t think there’s any section of Indian society, Indian politics, Indian elites, which wants to join any kind of a bulwark against China.

At the same time, India understands that unless it gets its act together, unless it takes the process of reform forward, it’s going to get left so far behind China. That’s why India is going to be watching both China and America very carefully.

ZAKARIA: And we will be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: And we are back Kishore Mahbubani from Singapore, Shekhar Gupta from India, of New Delhi, and Minxin Pei of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Kishore, what is being described, in a sense, is an Asia that is, I wouldn’t say optimistic, but seems fairly comfortable, forward- looking, even though this crisis has devastated Asia economies. I mean, the news this week was that Taiwan’s economy shrunk by 8 percent. Singapore is in very bad shape.

Why is this not producing massive social turmoil, pessimism, things like that?

MAHBUBANI: Well, I’m glad that you have confirmed the thesis of my book, that Asia is the most optimistic place in the world. And I think it’s important to emphasize the difference between short-term and long-term perspectives.

This year will be very bad. Singapore will shrink minus 5 percent, Taiwan is shrinking, Japan is shrinking. But, you know, most Asians actually — you know, we had just gone through the Asian financial crisis only about 10, 12 years ago — which was massive, you know.

But we went through it, and came out of it stronger. And the one reason why the Asians are in some ways more relaxed about this crisis, they say, “Hey, we’ve been through this once before. And we’ve actually accumulated the reserves that we needed for this crisis. So we are ready for it.”

And in some ways, this crisis may create wonderful opportunities for the region.

And one of the points I completely agree with Shekhar about is that the Indians no longer see the world as a zero-sum game, that China’s rise is not necessarily bad for India, and nor is India’s rise bad for China. In fact, the region actually wants to see both China and India succeed and be the two new engines of economic growth to drive the region up.

So, frankly, when I talk to people in the region, yes, they’re worried about the next 12 months or so. But they’re absolutely confident that, when this crisis is over, Asia will bounce back faster than any other part of the world.

ZAKARIA: Minxin, a lot of people wonder whether this economic crisis has rattled the Chinese elite, rattled the Communist Party, you know, that they will not actually be that outward-looking, because they’re going to face internal protest, turmoil.

What is your sense of the impact of this economic crisis on the Chinese leadership? PEI: Well, indeed, they have been deeply, deeply rattled. Initially they were not prepared for this. They did not understand the depths and the potential risks of this crisis. And now, I think they’re caught in a downward spiral, because the deceleration of growth in China has exceeded all the worst forecasts.

And now with unemployment looming in China, and then a leadership succession coming up in three to four years, the Communist Party’s leaders are now, of course, much more focused on domestic affairs.

So, this trip may do some very nice door-opening or getting-to- know-you. There are substantive issues I’m not so sure that the Chinese leaders are ready to talk or engage on a really substantive level.

ZAKARIA: Kishore, do you think that the Chinese are in the mood to be very cooperative with the U.S.? Or are they — is there some feeling that they have been swindled by the Americans, that they have made massive investments in America from Treasury bills to private equity firms, all of these investments are doing badly, and there is a sense that maybe they need to turn away from the United States?

MAHBUBANI: I think it’s important to emphasize one thing. You know, when the Chinese look at these things, they always take a long- term perspective and not a short-term perspective. I mean, yes, they may lose some money from U.S. Treasury bills, but there are much larger long-term considerations.

And I was trying to see what I think would be going on in Chinese minds as they receive Hillary Clinton. I see the combination of two or three factors. One, of course, they are very happy that she is coming to send a signal — hey, Asia matters, China matters. And they welcome that.

And the other point that is also critical in Chinese minds is that they realize that we are all in the same boat. We have to get out of this big crisis. And the only way we get out of this is to work together.

And if that’s the attitude of the United States, China will say, yes, we will cooperate with you to fix this.

ZAKARIA: Minxin, finally, Hillary Clinton comes back from Asia. Do you think that this, you know, that her trip will have in some way laid the groundwork for some shift in policy that the Obama people will put in place?

PEI: No, no. This is a symbolic trip, no substance attached to it. Well, if anything that will come out of this trip where China is concerned, I think is climate change, because she brought with her the top person on climate change, Todd Stern.

And if Obama wants to accomplish something in his first term that will be of truly historic proportion, an agreement with China on climate change will be it.

ZAKARIA: And on that note, Minxin Pei, Shekhar Gupta from New Delhi, Kishore Mahbubani from Singapore, thank you very much.

WAIT! THERE IS MORE TO COME! STAY TUNED!!!

Later today, stay tuned for more fascinating offerings from Fareed Zakaria on Pakistan.

You will NOT want to miss it, I promise you.

How great it is when we can receive the sage wisdom of a neighbor, a retired executive, a former coach, or on the international level a true statesman. While we may find it difficult to hear and deal with a tough message, ultimately the greatest form of “tough love” is simple truth and honesty.

A good friend of mine was gracious enough to share some video clips of a recent interview with Paul Keating, former Prime Minister and Treasurer of Australia. Mr. Keating speaks from experience and does not sugar coat the current economic turmoil.

While the three video clips (listed below) run approximately 20 minutes in total length, please allow me to provide a bullet point overview of some of the highlights. When you do have some spare time, I strongly encourage you to view these clips and gain the benefits of his wisdom. I do not think you will be disappointed, although you may be a bit dismayed as to his blunt honesty. In the meantime, here’s a brief overview:

– Australia had only 1 of the top 50 global banks prior to this crisis. It now has 4 of the top 15.

– the top 200 global financial institutions have had an average loss of 74% of market value.

– the current global economic turmoil is worse than it appears…

– the United States can not reflate the world…

– inflation is coming…

– the G-7 and International Monetary Fund (IMF) are no longer viable entities as structured, and the international economic community needs to formulate new bodies. In the process, we will see a significant shift in power and influence toward surplus nations (primarily China) from debtor nations (primarily United States).

– the Obama administration’s greatest challenge is its engagement of China. It must embrace China and not attempt to dictate to the Chinese along the lines of Treasury Secretary Geithner’s comment about China manipulating its currency.

– Keating strongly castigates the U.S. rating agencies, regulatory bodies, and banks for their neglect and incompetence in risk management.

– a “Bad Bank” may be necessary and has worked previously in other global financial crises

– the global economy needs to work towards debtor nations (U.S. and Europe) saving more, and surplus nations (China and Japan) spending and consuming more

– Keating views himself as neither a fiscal liberal nor conservative, but rather a fiscal pragmatist

– the United States needs to appreciate that it is in for a long and deep recession that will likely last 6 to 7 years!!!
(While I believe Keating is unduly pessimistic in this assessment, I also believe that those who believe the economy will start to turn around in the next 12 to 18 months are unduly optimistic)

No pandering, no nonsense. Mr Keating delivered a simple direct message that I, for one, appreciated. Tough love.

Now let’s go to the videos:

– LD

No freakin’ WONDER they are doing so poorly. When this Representative says they have done everything they need to do, well, that clearly not. If they HAD, they would not be in this shape. It is insane for them to offer so many options. That is just poor, poor management on the part of GM. And WE are paying for their poor management. Even now, they are locked into discussions with the UAW again. Once again, they want OUR money to pay for their employees.

Here’s the thing. My retirement fund is CRAP now with the stock market the way it is. My partner’s retirement fund is CRAP now because of the stock market. We are having to COMPLETELY rework our retirement plans as a result, including when my partner can retire, as a result. That is the real world consequence. Yet, the auto companies want to pass those real world consequences onto US. They want to make US pay for them, so their employees DON’T have to face the consequences of making products people don’t want to buy, and offering an obscene number of “options” that increase the costs of making the cars. It is absurd!! But here they are, back at the trough, wanting more and more of OUR money. Of course, we all knew this was going to happen, despite assurances to the contrary. Big surprise – not.

As for going abroad, yesterday I saw Secretary of State Clinton arriving at the Imperial Palace in Japan to engage in a tea ceremony with Empress Michiko. When they met, you could see how much affection these two women have for each other:

And you can see part of the ceremony here, as well as a brief report of her visit to Japan.

Clinton is now in Indonesia:

The U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said here Wednesday on the second leg of her Asian trip that the United States and Indonesia would form a comprehensive partnership.

She said at a joint press conference after meeting with the Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs Hassan Wirayuda that the United States had recognized the importance of Indonesia, which shares not only common interests but also common values with it.

Specifically, she was referring to democratic values.

It gives me some hope to have Hillary Clinton speaking for us around the world. It should be HER policies she is espousing and not Obama’s, but still – her presence, her abilities, her knowledge all make her uniquely qualified to engage with other nations. She makes me proud.

And now, CLASS: Please compare, and contrast, these two examples of television journalism:

Yes, well. Actually, there was some news in there.

And, Rachel, I’d flat-out kill for Hillary’s coat BUT it is NOT your lead, Rachel. So not your lead! (North Korea, for example

Hillary, you rock. Rachel? You not so much.

And why oh god why Rachel do you over-enunciate and over-emote every single word that comes out of your mouth in a very much too-high-pitched way?

Breathe, Rachel.

Take it from an old former French horn player: Use your diaphragm.

You’re supposed to be engaging, not grating!

Oh, that second example? That’s from the new PBS world news program that I’m very fond of, WorldFocus. Besides the above video, there’s this “blog” report:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Tokyo on Monday night on her first trip as the nation’s chief diplomat.

“I have come to Asia as my first trip as secretary of state to convey that America’s relationships across the Pacific are indispensable to addressing the challenges and seizing the opportunities of the twenty-first century,” Clinton said to a crowd in Tokyo.

Sheila A. Smith, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, joins Martin Savidge to discuss how Clinton will approach North Korea, Japan and how the Japanese view China’s growing economic and military power.

Read what a Worldfocus contributing blogger had to say about Clinton’s stop in Japan and what her visit means for internal Japanese politics: Clinton plans for a rare meeting with Japan’s opposition.

Check out MORE at WorldFocus.

P.S. Last night’s program included a quite disturbing if fascinating examination of the fascination with and admiration for Joseph Stalin that today’s Russians have: “Stalin Makes a Comeback With Russia’s Youth.”

• Hillary Clinton will bypass Europe and travel to Asia on her maiden voyage overseas
• U.S. Secretary of State Clinton to visit Japan, China, South Korea and Indonesia
• Trip illustrates Obama administration’s desire for a broader partnership with Asia
• Trip also highlights commitment to resolving the North Korean nuclear issue

BELOW THE FOLD: “CNN’s Kristie Lu Stout talks with David Lampton of John Hopkins University about Hillary Clinton’s trip to Asia” … This is a great backgrounder video on all the historic and current issues and crises that Secretary Clinton will be covering in this trip that covers an array of complex matters, including her historic 1995 speech in Beijing on women’s rights … as well as snippets from the longer CNN news article …

FROM the CNN news article:

ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska (CNN) — Hillary Clinton says her first overseas trip to Asia as U.S. secretary of state is aimed at creating a “network of partners” to tackle problems that no nation can deal with alone, including the global economic crisis.

Hillary Clinton seeks improved relations with China, where she said the U.S. would renew military contacts.

En route to Asia on Sunday, Clinton told reporters that the economy would serve as the backdrop of her trip, and she intends to explain steps the United States is taking with its $787 billion stimulus bill. She said she will be “seeking cooperation on ways that we are going to work through these very difficult economic times.”

Clinton is slated to travel to Japan, China, South Korea and Indonesia to discuss a range of issues, including mutual economic recovery, trade, the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation and reversing the global warming trend.

The trip represents a departure from a diplomatic tradition under which the first overseas trip by the secretary of state in a new administration is to Europe.

Speaking at the New York-based Asia Society last week, Clinton said the Obama administration wants to “develop a broader and deeper” relationship with Asia, a region that has felt overlooked by the United States despite its growing global importance.

“It demonstrates clearly that our new administration wants to focus a lot of time and energy in working with Asian partners and all the nations in the Pacific region,” she said, “because we know that so much of our future depends upon our relationships there.” Watch David Lampton of John Hopkins University discuss Clinton’s trip »

On Sunday, she addressed North Korea’s nuclear program, which she’s called “the most acute challenge to stability in northeast Asia.” Clinton said the Obama administration is prepared to seek a permanent, stable peace with Pyongyang as long as its regime pursues disarmament and does not engage in aggression against neighboring South Korea. The United States has a “great openness and willingness to working with them,” she said. … [READ ALL.]