Our esteemed US Senate confirmed what appears to be one of President Bush's most extreme judicial nominees yesterday. Though some groups are quick to cite alleged anti-Catholic bias for Democratic opposition to Holmes (as they do for just about any conservative nominee who happens to be Catholic), his comments are pretty hard to defend, even for administration apologists.
Rather than cite the "liberal" New York Times, I'll offer the assessment of the right-wing Fox News [sic] Channel It reported that Holmes apologized for writing in 1980 that rape victims rarely get pregnant, calling them a "red herring" in the debate over abortion. But Holmes said his 1997 comparison of the Catholic Church's subservient relationship with Jesus Christ to a wife's duties to her husband was unfairly taken out of context. In an article he co-authored with his wife, he said a wife has an obligation "to subordinate herself to her husband" and "to place herself under the authority of the man."
Perahps this is true, but he's asking for a huge benefit of the doubt for a post with a life term. Conservative Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson was not convinced, as she pushed to cast her first vote against a Bush judicial nominee. "He [Holmes] doesn't have the fundamental commitment to the total equality of women in our society," explained the senior senator from Texas.
FNC also noted, Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania believes, however, that Holmes is being unfairly singled out for possessing conservative religious views shared by millions of Americans.
If this is the case, then let Holmes judge those millions of Americans and leave the rest of us alone.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Do you feel safer?
The Guardian reported that British Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted for the first time yesterday that weapons of mass destruction [WMDs] may never be found in Iraq, but he refused to apologise for the invasion and would not admit that the absence of stockpiles undermined his case for war.
"I have to accept that we have not found them and that we may not find them," the paper quoted him as saying.
"[Saddam Hussein] may have removed, hidden or even destroyed those weapons - we do not know and we have to wait for the Iraq Survey Group to complete its findings - but what I would not accept is that he was not a threat, and a threat in WMD terms".
So this means that either one of two equally unpalatable options are possible
a) That Iraq's WMD program was either dead or ineffective at the time of the invasion and the Iraqi regime was clearly no threat to anyone other than Iraqi civilians. If so, then the fundamental justification for the invasion was, at best, erroneous.
or
b) The WMDs were hidden, moved, given to someone else or destroyed. If they were destroyed, then no problem. But if they were hidden, moved or given to someone else, then it means that they are still out there.
So either
a) We launched a "pre-emptive" war and pour gasoline on anti-American flames throughout the world, all on the basis of incorrect information. Forget the fancy post-modernist names, ladies and gentlemen. This would constitute old-fashioned aggression.
or
b) The WMDs are still out there posing a threat to whomever their owners wish to threaten.
I'm hardly reassured.
"I have to accept that we have not found them and that we may not find them," the paper quoted him as saying.
"[Saddam Hussein] may have removed, hidden or even destroyed those weapons - we do not know and we have to wait for the Iraq Survey Group to complete its findings - but what I would not accept is that he was not a threat, and a threat in WMD terms".
So this means that either one of two equally unpalatable options are possible
a) That Iraq's WMD program was either dead or ineffective at the time of the invasion and the Iraqi regime was clearly no threat to anyone other than Iraqi civilians. If so, then the fundamental justification for the invasion was, at best, erroneous.
or
b) The WMDs were hidden, moved, given to someone else or destroyed. If they were destroyed, then no problem. But if they were hidden, moved or given to someone else, then it means that they are still out there.
So either
a) We launched a "pre-emptive" war and pour gasoline on anti-American flames throughout the world, all on the basis of incorrect information. Forget the fancy post-modernist names, ladies and gentlemen. This would constitute old-fashioned aggression.
or
b) The WMDs are still out there posing a threat to whomever their owners wish to threaten.
I'm hardly reassured.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Greek miracle
In one of the biggest shocks in soccer history, Greece won the European championship by defeating hosts Portugal by 1-0; that feat was given 100-1 odds before the tournament. If you'd ranked all 16 participants before the tournament, Greece would've been the greatest outsiders, save newcomers Latvia.
What made this triumph so enormous was Greece's soccer history. Or lack thereof. Not only had they never won a major tournament. They'd never won A GAME in a major tournament before this year. Their only previous major tournament participations were Euro 1980 and World Cup 1994. In those, they combined for 0 wins, 5 losses, 1 draw... scoring 1 goal and allowing 14.
The Greeks won on defense and organization. There were hard tackles and catenaccio and 10 men behind the ball. Greek games weren't pretty. But coach Otto Reihagel had them doing exactly what they needed to be doing. They didn't have the personnel to offer beautiful flowing play or Total Football. They had Zagorakis (former Leicester City man) and Trellas, not Figo and Zidane.
The triumph of Greece was the triumph of teamwork and unity over individual talent. It was a bit like the Pistons crushing the Lakers in the NBA Finals, except several magnitudes more shocking.
But as shocking as the Greece's championship was, it was not, by any stretch, lucky. In the knockout stages of the tournament, they defeated, in order, the defending champions (France), the favorites (Czech Republic) and the host nation (Portugal). According to FIFA's world ranking, Greece beat the #1, #7 and #11 teams in Europe, in consecutive matches, without conceding a goal. In the opening round, they drew against Spain (#2). Lightning doesn't strike that often in one month. In other words, Greece played the best teams in Europe and none could beat them. Pretty or not, they are deserving champions.
It's tough for me to give credit to Greece, though I obviously have to. I'm as apt to support the underdog as I am to cringe at negative, cynical football. It would be nice if the underdogs could play nice, flowing soccer, though that's not always possible. Though in World Cup 2002, I was pleased to see smaller (soccer) nations like South Korea and the USA progress deep into the tournament while maintaining an attacking mentality. It's always nice to see the self-important 'big boys' get a stick in the eye every once in a while.
Frank over at Internet Commentator speculates that the Greek win might shake up complacency among soccer's powers.
As for whether this is a triumph for football, the answer is: It depends. The danger for football is not, as one might imagine, that coaches will en masse, abandon exciting attacking football and embrace catenaccio. Many of the "big" teams who failed did so not because they were insufficiently cautious. The effect of the Greek win will surely embolden other "small" countries and encourage them to be more positive. In future, few "small" teams will display the attitude which so frustrated Roy Keane when he detected it in Ireland's 2002 squad, of being simply "happy to be there". "If Greece can win it", the new motto should be, "so can we". A more open competition should be more appealing to punters than a fixup between the powerful countries.
This Greek win presents those powerful countries with an opportunity and the danger for football lies in which course of action they choose. What they should do is get better, improve their game, live up to their reputations. If the existing manager is no good, sack him. If a player is unfit, drop him until he proves his fitness. There should be no "automatic selections", there should be no room for complacency. The "big" countries' failure was the aggregate of individual failures. It will be good for football if, in an act of "creative destruction", the Greek win has exposed the big countries' weaknesses and the teams which emerge are leaner, meaner.
What made this triumph so enormous was Greece's soccer history. Or lack thereof. Not only had they never won a major tournament. They'd never won A GAME in a major tournament before this year. Their only previous major tournament participations were Euro 1980 and World Cup 1994. In those, they combined for 0 wins, 5 losses, 1 draw... scoring 1 goal and allowing 14.
The Greeks won on defense and organization. There were hard tackles and catenaccio and 10 men behind the ball. Greek games weren't pretty. But coach Otto Reihagel had them doing exactly what they needed to be doing. They didn't have the personnel to offer beautiful flowing play or Total Football. They had Zagorakis (former Leicester City man) and Trellas, not Figo and Zidane.
The triumph of Greece was the triumph of teamwork and unity over individual talent. It was a bit like the Pistons crushing the Lakers in the NBA Finals, except several magnitudes more shocking.
But as shocking as the Greece's championship was, it was not, by any stretch, lucky. In the knockout stages of the tournament, they defeated, in order, the defending champions (France), the favorites (Czech Republic) and the host nation (Portugal). According to FIFA's world ranking, Greece beat the #1, #7 and #11 teams in Europe, in consecutive matches, without conceding a goal. In the opening round, they drew against Spain (#2). Lightning doesn't strike that often in one month. In other words, Greece played the best teams in Europe and none could beat them. Pretty or not, they are deserving champions.
It's tough for me to give credit to Greece, though I obviously have to. I'm as apt to support the underdog as I am to cringe at negative, cynical football. It would be nice if the underdogs could play nice, flowing soccer, though that's not always possible. Though in World Cup 2002, I was pleased to see smaller (soccer) nations like South Korea and the USA progress deep into the tournament while maintaining an attacking mentality. It's always nice to see the self-important 'big boys' get a stick in the eye every once in a while.
Frank over at Internet Commentator speculates that the Greek win might shake up complacency among soccer's powers.
As for whether this is a triumph for football, the answer is: It depends. The danger for football is not, as one might imagine, that coaches will en masse, abandon exciting attacking football and embrace catenaccio. Many of the "big" teams who failed did so not because they were insufficiently cautious. The effect of the Greek win will surely embolden other "small" countries and encourage them to be more positive. In future, few "small" teams will display the attitude which so frustrated Roy Keane when he detected it in Ireland's 2002 squad, of being simply "happy to be there". "If Greece can win it", the new motto should be, "so can we". A more open competition should be more appealing to punters than a fixup between the powerful countries.
This Greek win presents those powerful countries with an opportunity and the danger for football lies in which course of action they choose. What they should do is get better, improve their game, live up to their reputations. If the existing manager is no good, sack him. If a player is unfit, drop him until he proves his fitness. There should be no "automatic selections", there should be no room for complacency. The "big" countries' failure was the aggregate of individual failures. It will be good for football if, in an act of "creative destruction", the Greek win has exposed the big countries' weaknesses and the teams which emerge are leaner, meaner.
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Lessons from an Occupation
In an interesting article for The New York Review of Books, Amos Elon wrote how the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip has coarsened the Jewish state. He advances a theory that's becoming increasingly prevelant: their victory in 1967 Six Day War fundamentally changed the nature of Israeli society. It went from being a country of people fleeing oppression to a country who ruled over others against their will. This transformed the character of Israel.
In words that would be useful for Americans to remember, he writes: A great victory can be almost as harmful as a defeat. In the hubris of Israel's stunning success in defeating Egypt, Syria and Jordan in a war ominously named after the Six Days of Creation, it became a victim of its victory no less than the Palestinians.
He notes that Israelis were originally viewed as liberators by the Palestinians. Relieved to be rid of a repressive Jordanian regime, the Palestnians at first greeted the Israeli occupiers with cries of 'Welcome! Welcome!' and cups of steaming hot Turkish coffee.
Elon also pointed out that the 1967 transformed the political culture of Israel. Until then, it was led by civilians. Now, like Algeria, it's dominated by the military even when there's a nominal civilian head. In reviewing a book by Richard Ben Cramer, Elon notes No other Western democracy, Cramer says, has a former general as prime minister. [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon is the third general headnig an Israeli government in recent years, while Benjamin Netanyahu was a colonel in the special forces. Having former generals as prime ministers was a practice that began only after 1967. It was, Cramer writes, 'conicident with the occupation,' when generals began to be celebrated as supermen and no elegant dinner party was complete without a victorious general. Thus my personal discomfort with mass canonization of all soldiers in a civilian democracy. He continues, The problem with military men in high places, Crame writes, is their tendency to be narrowly tactical thinkers.
Curiously, he adds that Sharon once told an interviewer that he keeps A Savage War of Peace by Alistair Horne, a book on the Algerian war, by his bedside. I've read the excellent book myself. If Sharon has really read it, he obviously wasn't paying attention since the parallels between Israeli conduct in the Occupied Territories and French conduct in Algeria are stunning. The wars' effects on and divisions they created within the respective societies (Israeli and French) are even more similar.
In words that would be useful for Americans to remember, he writes: A great victory can be almost as harmful as a defeat. In the hubris of Israel's stunning success in defeating Egypt, Syria and Jordan in a war ominously named after the Six Days of Creation, it became a victim of its victory no less than the Palestinians.
He notes that Israelis were originally viewed as liberators by the Palestinians. Relieved to be rid of a repressive Jordanian regime, the Palestnians at first greeted the Israeli occupiers with cries of 'Welcome! Welcome!' and cups of steaming hot Turkish coffee.
Elon also pointed out that the 1967 transformed the political culture of Israel. Until then, it was led by civilians. Now, like Algeria, it's dominated by the military even when there's a nominal civilian head. In reviewing a book by Richard Ben Cramer, Elon notes No other Western democracy, Cramer says, has a former general as prime minister. [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon is the third general headnig an Israeli government in recent years, while Benjamin Netanyahu was a colonel in the special forces. Having former generals as prime ministers was a practice that began only after 1967. It was, Cramer writes, 'conicident with the occupation,' when generals began to be celebrated as supermen and no elegant dinner party was complete without a victorious general. Thus my personal discomfort with mass canonization of all soldiers in a civilian democracy. He continues, The problem with military men in high places, Crame writes, is their tendency to be narrowly tactical thinkers.
Curiously, he adds that Sharon once told an interviewer that he keeps A Savage War of Peace by Alistair Horne, a book on the Algerian war, by his bedside. I've read the excellent book myself. If Sharon has really read it, he obviously wasn't paying attention since the parallels between Israeli conduct in the Occupied Territories and French conduct in Algeria are stunning. The wars' effects on and divisions they created within the respective societies (Israeli and French) are even more similar.
Friday, July 02, 2004
What to do about genocide in Darfur, eastern Sudan?
Earlier this week, Secretary of State Colin Powell and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan visited the Darfur region of eastern Sudan. In Darfur, government backed Arab militias, called the Janjaweed, are engaging in a mass campaign of ethnic cleansing against the region's black population; a campaign which has cost an estimated 30,000 lives already and 300,000 may die by the end of the year. There are over 1 million refugees and internally displaced people. Famine looms in the region.
Though the Sudanese government denies sponsoring them. In fact, they deny that there's a serious problem at all, despite the UN and most non-governmental organizations calling it the worst humanitarian situation in the world. Sudan's Humanitarian Affairs Minister Ibrahim Mahmoud Hamid said there was no systematic violence in the region and that the problem was the rebels who attacked police stations and aid convoys.
Is there any doubt that what's going on in Darfur is ethnic cleansing/genocide (I'm still not sure what the distinction between those two words is)? One refugee, a victim of the Janjaweed, told her story. She and two other women had gone out to collect straw for their family's donkeys. They recalled thinking that the Arab militiamen who were attacking African tribes at night would still be asleep. But six men grabbed them, yelling Arabic slurs such as "zurga" and "abid," meaning "black" and "slave." Then the men raped them, beat them and left them on the ground, they said.
"They grabbed my donkey and my straw and said, 'Black girl, you are too dark. You are like a dog. We want to make a light baby,' "
Does it really matter now whether this fits the legal definition of 'genocide' or if it's "merely" mass slaughter?
To its credit, the Bush administration is not turning a totally blind eye to the situation, as evidenced by the mere fact that Secretary Powell made a very high profile visit to the region. They could very easily have buried their head in the sand like the Clinton administration did during the Rwandan genocide. A columnist for The Guardian (UK) opines that the Iraq war has blunted the west's appetite for foreign interventions, even in a humanitarian disaster that would normally have the American and European left screaming, "We do something!"
The Guardian columnists suggests Until recently, [the British] Labour [party] understood how to deal with regimes like Sudan. But instead of diplomacy backed by the credible threat of force, we now have empty promises backed by an incredible leap of faith. The reason for this change is no mystery. It can be summed up in one word - Iraq. Having cried wolf over the threat posed by Saddam, Britain and America have found themselves incapacitated in the face of a far more pressing humanitarian crisis. They are too overstretched, in military resources and in political credibility, to intervene in Sudan, so the people of Darfur will be left at the mercy of their government. But this conclusion need not be so.
He continues, But there is one important respect in which the Sudan crisis shows how [Prime Minister Tony] Blair's kaleidoscope has been irrevocably shaken by the Iraq war. It goes back to the speech he gave to the Labour conference in Brighton shortly after 9/11, when he promised that: "If Rwanda happened again... we would have a moral duty to act." Yet there is relative silence from liberal internationalists in London, while the mantle has been picked up by the much-maligned government in Washington. Or at least one man in DC.
The Bush administration has drafted a UN resolution to impose sanctions on the militias, that would authorise an arms embargo and ban on training for the Janjaweed.It would also impose a travel ban on Janjaweed members named on a list compiled by a Security Council committee set up to monitor the sanctions. The draft resolution requires the Council to decide after 30 days whether the arms embargo and travel ban against the militias should be extended to others "responsible for the commission of atrocities in Darfur".
Though no one can argue that this is a bad idea, it would be wrong to think this is enough. I doubt medieval militiamen on horseback are going to be dissuaded by being banned from travelling to Paris or Los Angeles. Sanctions should be extended to ranking members of the central government.
Secretary Powell, the only statesman and only high-ranking moderate in the Bush administration, met with the Sudanese government and delivered a strong message. "We need to see action promptly because people are dying and the death rates are going to go up significantly in the next several months. We've got to act now, not later. We can't talk. We have to see action." Most notably, he did something fairly undiplomatic, he contradicted the Sudanese officials' line that they are already doing what they can to stop the violence.
When asked if the Khartoum government has control over the militias, the secretary said "I believe they have the capacity to do that. We want to encourage them to have the will to do that and to do that right away."
Significantly, he shied away from an esoteric debate over whether Darfur constitutes genocide, something which would provoke a damaging delay in any response. Mr Powell also repeatedly described the humanitarian situation as a catastrophe, although he has tried to deflect attention away from the debate on whether the legal definition of genocide can and should be applied. He pointed out that in actually trying to address a man-made catastrophe like this, whether or not it's legally genocide is functionally irrelevant.
However, the administration may need to bear direct pressure on the regime. A senior State Department official described Khartoum as being "a state of denial, a state of avoidance. Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail in a joint press conference with Mr Powell after the initial top-level meetings, said there was no famine, no disease epidemic. There was a humanitarian problem in Darfur, he said, but his tone suggested the sense of international alarm was exaggerated.
Mr Ismail said the regime would focus on three areas:
-More police and security forces in Darfur to protect civilians and combat militias
-The lifting of restrictions on humanitarian items to speed up the process of delivering supplies before the rainy season makes routes even more hazardous
-Speeding up political negotiations, in co-operation with the African Union, to work out a solution to the crisis.
Mr Powell said the timetable agreed for action is immediate: "We're talking about days and weeks."
Powell's insistence belies the warnings of Africa Action who called his and Annan's trip "dangerously naive." The organization falls into the trap of obsessing about the 'g' word. Their director said, "The Khartoum government is clearly responsible for the genocide taking place in Darfur, and yet it continues to deny its role and to obstruct humanitarian access to the region. Rather than traveling half-way around the world to hold talks with this murderous regime, Powell could achieve much more by simply uttering one word - genocide."
Bizarrely, after her organization called the trip dangerously naive, the director said, " "Colin Powell’s trip to Sudan gives him an opportunity to witness first-hand the devastation being wrought in Darfur and the stone-walling of the Khartoum government."
What should be done? In a Washington Post op-ed, Republican Senators Mike DeWine and John McCain wrote: The U.N. Security Council should demand that the Sudanese government immediately stop all violence against civilians, disarm and disband its militias, allow full humanitarian access, and let displaced persons return home. Should the government refuse to reverse course, its leadership should face targeted multilateral sanctions and visa bans. Peacekeeping troops should be deployed to Darfur to protect civilians and expedite the delivery of humanitarian aid, and we should encourage African, European and Arab countries to contribute to these forces.
The United States must stand ready to do what it can to stop the massacres. In addition to pushing the U.N. Security Council to act, we should provide financial and logistical support to countries willing to provide peacekeeping forces. The United States should initiate its own targeted sanctions against the Janjaweed [militias] and government leaders, and consider other ways we can increase pressure on the government. We must also continue to tell the world about the murderous activities in which these leaders are engaged, and make clear to all that this behavior is totally unacceptable.
It took concerted international pressure to achieve an end to the 20-year war between the north and south in Sudan, and even greater intensity is required to save lives in Darfur.
The Sudanese government claims it is willing to accept foreign assistance to stabilize the situation in Darfur; this sounds good because they claim they aren't sponsoring the Janjaweed. The foreign minister told a press conference, "We are ready to accept help," Speaking of proposals made by Powell, the foreign minister added, "We will look at these, including the lifting of any restrictions concerning humanitarian aid, also more security arrangements to protect civilians and disarm militias.
Adding that, "We are looking seriously before the end of the visit of Secretary Powell to reach an agreed plan [on] how we can help bring the situation in Darfur to normal."
The international community should call this bluff. Immediately.
Though the Sudanese government denies sponsoring them. In fact, they deny that there's a serious problem at all, despite the UN and most non-governmental organizations calling it the worst humanitarian situation in the world. Sudan's Humanitarian Affairs Minister Ibrahim Mahmoud Hamid said there was no systematic violence in the region and that the problem was the rebels who attacked police stations and aid convoys.
Is there any doubt that what's going on in Darfur is ethnic cleansing/genocide (I'm still not sure what the distinction between those two words is)? One refugee, a victim of the Janjaweed, told her story. She and two other women had gone out to collect straw for their family's donkeys. They recalled thinking that the Arab militiamen who were attacking African tribes at night would still be asleep. But six men grabbed them, yelling Arabic slurs such as "zurga" and "abid," meaning "black" and "slave." Then the men raped them, beat them and left them on the ground, they said.
"They grabbed my donkey and my straw and said, 'Black girl, you are too dark. You are like a dog. We want to make a light baby,' "
Does it really matter now whether this fits the legal definition of 'genocide' or if it's "merely" mass slaughter?
To its credit, the Bush administration is not turning a totally blind eye to the situation, as evidenced by the mere fact that Secretary Powell made a very high profile visit to the region. They could very easily have buried their head in the sand like the Clinton administration did during the Rwandan genocide. A columnist for The Guardian (UK) opines that the Iraq war has blunted the west's appetite for foreign interventions, even in a humanitarian disaster that would normally have the American and European left screaming, "We do something!"
The Guardian columnists suggests Until recently, [the British] Labour [party] understood how to deal with regimes like Sudan. But instead of diplomacy backed by the credible threat of force, we now have empty promises backed by an incredible leap of faith. The reason for this change is no mystery. It can be summed up in one word - Iraq. Having cried wolf over the threat posed by Saddam, Britain and America have found themselves incapacitated in the face of a far more pressing humanitarian crisis. They are too overstretched, in military resources and in political credibility, to intervene in Sudan, so the people of Darfur will be left at the mercy of their government. But this conclusion need not be so.
He continues, But there is one important respect in which the Sudan crisis shows how [Prime Minister Tony] Blair's kaleidoscope has been irrevocably shaken by the Iraq war. It goes back to the speech he gave to the Labour conference in Brighton shortly after 9/11, when he promised that: "If Rwanda happened again... we would have a moral duty to act." Yet there is relative silence from liberal internationalists in London, while the mantle has been picked up by the much-maligned government in Washington. Or at least one man in DC.
The Bush administration has drafted a UN resolution to impose sanctions on the militias, that would authorise an arms embargo and ban on training for the Janjaweed.It would also impose a travel ban on Janjaweed members named on a list compiled by a Security Council committee set up to monitor the sanctions. The draft resolution requires the Council to decide after 30 days whether the arms embargo and travel ban against the militias should be extended to others "responsible for the commission of atrocities in Darfur".
Though no one can argue that this is a bad idea, it would be wrong to think this is enough. I doubt medieval militiamen on horseback are going to be dissuaded by being banned from travelling to Paris or Los Angeles. Sanctions should be extended to ranking members of the central government.
Secretary Powell, the only statesman and only high-ranking moderate in the Bush administration, met with the Sudanese government and delivered a strong message. "We need to see action promptly because people are dying and the death rates are going to go up significantly in the next several months. We've got to act now, not later. We can't talk. We have to see action." Most notably, he did something fairly undiplomatic, he contradicted the Sudanese officials' line that they are already doing what they can to stop the violence.
When asked if the Khartoum government has control over the militias, the secretary said "I believe they have the capacity to do that. We want to encourage them to have the will to do that and to do that right away."
Significantly, he shied away from an esoteric debate over whether Darfur constitutes genocide, something which would provoke a damaging delay in any response. Mr Powell also repeatedly described the humanitarian situation as a catastrophe, although he has tried to deflect attention away from the debate on whether the legal definition of genocide can and should be applied. He pointed out that in actually trying to address a man-made catastrophe like this, whether or not it's legally genocide is functionally irrelevant.
However, the administration may need to bear direct pressure on the regime. A senior State Department official described Khartoum as being "a state of denial, a state of avoidance. Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail in a joint press conference with Mr Powell after the initial top-level meetings, said there was no famine, no disease epidemic. There was a humanitarian problem in Darfur, he said, but his tone suggested the sense of international alarm was exaggerated.
Mr Ismail said the regime would focus on three areas:
-More police and security forces in Darfur to protect civilians and combat militias
-The lifting of restrictions on humanitarian items to speed up the process of delivering supplies before the rainy season makes routes even more hazardous
-Speeding up political negotiations, in co-operation with the African Union, to work out a solution to the crisis.
Mr Powell said the timetable agreed for action is immediate: "We're talking about days and weeks."
Powell's insistence belies the warnings of Africa Action who called his and Annan's trip "dangerously naive." The organization falls into the trap of obsessing about the 'g' word. Their director said, "The Khartoum government is clearly responsible for the genocide taking place in Darfur, and yet it continues to deny its role and to obstruct humanitarian access to the region. Rather than traveling half-way around the world to hold talks with this murderous regime, Powell could achieve much more by simply uttering one word - genocide."
Bizarrely, after her organization called the trip dangerously naive, the director said, " "Colin Powell’s trip to Sudan gives him an opportunity to witness first-hand the devastation being wrought in Darfur and the stone-walling of the Khartoum government."
What should be done? In a Washington Post op-ed, Republican Senators Mike DeWine and John McCain wrote: The U.N. Security Council should demand that the Sudanese government immediately stop all violence against civilians, disarm and disband its militias, allow full humanitarian access, and let displaced persons return home. Should the government refuse to reverse course, its leadership should face targeted multilateral sanctions and visa bans. Peacekeeping troops should be deployed to Darfur to protect civilians and expedite the delivery of humanitarian aid, and we should encourage African, European and Arab countries to contribute to these forces.
The United States must stand ready to do what it can to stop the massacres. In addition to pushing the U.N. Security Council to act, we should provide financial and logistical support to countries willing to provide peacekeeping forces. The United States should initiate its own targeted sanctions against the Janjaweed [militias] and government leaders, and consider other ways we can increase pressure on the government. We must also continue to tell the world about the murderous activities in which these leaders are engaged, and make clear to all that this behavior is totally unacceptable.
It took concerted international pressure to achieve an end to the 20-year war between the north and south in Sudan, and even greater intensity is required to save lives in Darfur.
The Sudanese government claims it is willing to accept foreign assistance to stabilize the situation in Darfur; this sounds good because they claim they aren't sponsoring the Janjaweed. The foreign minister told a press conference, "We are ready to accept help," Speaking of proposals made by Powell, the foreign minister added, "We will look at these, including the lifting of any restrictions concerning humanitarian aid, also more security arrangements to protect civilians and disarm militias.
Adding that, "We are looking seriously before the end of the visit of Secretary Powell to reach an agreed plan [on] how we can help bring the situation in Darfur to normal."
The international community should call this bluff. Immediately.
"Reality" TV, high-stakes tests and other observations
Liberals and conservatives alike bemoan the quality of television. Newton Minnow's 'vast wasteland' description for television is as accurate today as it was when he said it 40 years ago. Where I live now, we have over 70 channels. Fortunately, I get it for free as part of my living arrangements because there's no well in heck I'd pay $50 a month for it.
Quite frequently, I flip through all the 70+ channels and the best thing on is an ESPN Classics hockey game from 1993 or a Who's Line Is It Anyway re-run. And the cable company wants customers to spend an extra $15 for digital cable so they can get four different varities of vanilla instead of just one.
So-called reality television, which is nothing more than lame soap operas with non-professional actors, is of course the worst thing on television. Not surprisingly, it gets great ratings. Jerry Springer and professional wrestling (two different versions of the same thing) have long since proven that in TV, there is little correlation between popularity and quality. Conversely, the few times a really good dramatic series comes on, take Freaks and Geeks for example, you're lucky if it lasts two months.
Now, one group is claiming that "reality" TV is actually more harsher and crude than fiction series. The conservative media watchdog, the Parents Television Council, concluded that the amount of crude language and sexual references on unscripted TV shows has increased markedly over the past few years, surpassing the levels on traditional comedies and dramas... The two most offensive shows, according to the PTC, were CBS' "Big Brother 4" and the WB's "The Surreal Life." Both share the same premise: forcing a group of strangers to live together under a camera's eye.
I remember watching MTV's The Real World, probably the first "reality" show, when it came out about 10 years ago. It was interesting for a few months but got boring really quickly. Each successive version was redunant. It was all about gossip and backbiting and who would hook up with whom. I switched off really quickly. It baffles me that this sort of thiing continues to hook in people. I'm not a snob, I just can't conceive how anyone would find that interesting after more than a few weeks.
Of course, if not for soccer and Seinfeld re-runs, I'm not sure I'd watch TV at all.
**
Over at The Globalist, Financial Times journalist Martin Wolf concludes that the World Bank, his former employer, is a fatally flawed institution. Supported by his chief economic adviser, the late Hollis Chenery, [then World Bank President Robert McNamara] put into effect a Stalinist vision of development. Faster growth would follow a rise in investment and an increase in availability of foreign exchange. Both would require additional resources from outside — and much of these needed resources would come from the Bank.
Under his management, the World Bank and its lending grew enormously. Every division of the bank found itself under great pressure to lend money, virtually regardless of the quality of the projects on offer or of the development programs of the countries.
Wolf writes that at his own time at the World Bank in the 1970s, every developing country — however limited its intellectual resources — was expected to produce a five-year economic plan in pale imitation of the Stalinist model.
Sophisticated developing countries, such as India, produced sophisticated plans. Less sophisticated countries produced less sophisticated plans. All these plans had one thing in common, however: They were fictions.
But they were not harmless fictions. They inflicted grave damage on the economies and people of these supposedly "planned" societies.
Wolf also notes the World Bank's fundamental weakness: It had to assume that the government represented the interests of the country. And it reinforced an unjustifiably collectivist view of that national interest.
Bank lending made it easier for corrupt — and occasionally vicious — governments to ignore the interests and wishes of their peoples.
In fact, it wasn't until the 1990s, that the World Bank finally admitted the seriousness of bad government as a constraint on development.
He concludes by point out that criticizing the current structure of the world economy shouldn't be reduced into the simplistic label: 'anti-globalization.' To defend a liberal world economy is not to defend the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO or any specific institution. These must be judged — and reformed or discarded — on their merits.
***
In yet another embarassment for New York State's Education Department, The Times Union of Albany reported that Students who took the Spanish edition of [mid-June's] Math A Regents exam will have their tests rescored due to a pair of questions that contained errors. "There was a problem on a couple of the questions with the translation," said Education Department spokesman Jonathan Burman. However, one test consultant who has worked for the state said she believed some of the math questions were confusing in the way they were written, regardless of the language.
One of last year's state math exams was a lightning rod for controversy as it was deemed above the level that it should've been. The previous year's physics state test was also an embarassment after it was found to be too long, with insufficient time for students to answer all questions. The questions themselves were said to be harder than necessary. In that case, a score of 47 was re-scaled to 65... perhaps saying that 47=65 set the stage for the next year's math controversy.
All this is another blow to state Education Commissioner Richard Mills, who is a fundamentalist believer in the virtue of high-stakes tests as the main way to achieve the vaunted 'accountability' in education. Except the Board of Regents can't go a year without issuing a screwed up a test. You'd think these problems might temper the commissioner's fetish for high-stakes testing, or at least give him pause for thought.
Instead, a friend of mine told me of how one of her friend's kids had an A- average in English. But when he took the high-stakes test, he didn't poorly. Maybe he was having a bad day. Who knows why? So the school was required to provide him with a tutor. With the tutor, his average in English was... A-. Is this really the best use of limited school resources? On a kid with an A- average who was having no apparent problems except, it seems, on one particular day? But the state law did not give the school any discresion.
If the state wants some artificial 'accountability' for teachers and students, they could start with the testmakers. Or they could start with themselves.
Quite frequently, I flip through all the 70+ channels and the best thing on is an ESPN Classics hockey game from 1993 or a Who's Line Is It Anyway re-run. And the cable company wants customers to spend an extra $15 for digital cable so they can get four different varities of vanilla instead of just one.
So-called reality television, which is nothing more than lame soap operas with non-professional actors, is of course the worst thing on television. Not surprisingly, it gets great ratings. Jerry Springer and professional wrestling (two different versions of the same thing) have long since proven that in TV, there is little correlation between popularity and quality. Conversely, the few times a really good dramatic series comes on, take Freaks and Geeks for example, you're lucky if it lasts two months.
Now, one group is claiming that "reality" TV is actually more harsher and crude than fiction series. The conservative media watchdog, the Parents Television Council, concluded that the amount of crude language and sexual references on unscripted TV shows has increased markedly over the past few years, surpassing the levels on traditional comedies and dramas... The two most offensive shows, according to the PTC, were CBS' "Big Brother 4" and the WB's "The Surreal Life." Both share the same premise: forcing a group of strangers to live together under a camera's eye.
I remember watching MTV's The Real World, probably the first "reality" show, when it came out about 10 years ago. It was interesting for a few months but got boring really quickly. Each successive version was redunant. It was all about gossip and backbiting and who would hook up with whom. I switched off really quickly. It baffles me that this sort of thiing continues to hook in people. I'm not a snob, I just can't conceive how anyone would find that interesting after more than a few weeks.
Of course, if not for soccer and Seinfeld re-runs, I'm not sure I'd watch TV at all.
**
Over at The Globalist, Financial Times journalist Martin Wolf concludes that the World Bank, his former employer, is a fatally flawed institution. Supported by his chief economic adviser, the late Hollis Chenery, [then World Bank President Robert McNamara] put into effect a Stalinist vision of development. Faster growth would follow a rise in investment and an increase in availability of foreign exchange. Both would require additional resources from outside — and much of these needed resources would come from the Bank.
Under his management, the World Bank and its lending grew enormously. Every division of the bank found itself under great pressure to lend money, virtually regardless of the quality of the projects on offer or of the development programs of the countries.
Wolf writes that at his own time at the World Bank in the 1970s, every developing country — however limited its intellectual resources — was expected to produce a five-year economic plan in pale imitation of the Stalinist model.
Sophisticated developing countries, such as India, produced sophisticated plans. Less sophisticated countries produced less sophisticated plans. All these plans had one thing in common, however: They were fictions.
But they were not harmless fictions. They inflicted grave damage on the economies and people of these supposedly "planned" societies.
Wolf also notes the World Bank's fundamental weakness: It had to assume that the government represented the interests of the country. And it reinforced an unjustifiably collectivist view of that national interest.
Bank lending made it easier for corrupt — and occasionally vicious — governments to ignore the interests and wishes of their peoples.
In fact, it wasn't until the 1990s, that the World Bank finally admitted the seriousness of bad government as a constraint on development.
He concludes by point out that criticizing the current structure of the world economy shouldn't be reduced into the simplistic label: 'anti-globalization.' To defend a liberal world economy is not to defend the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO or any specific institution. These must be judged — and reformed or discarded — on their merits.
***
In yet another embarassment for New York State's Education Department, The Times Union of Albany reported that Students who took the Spanish edition of [mid-June's] Math A Regents exam will have their tests rescored due to a pair of questions that contained errors. "There was a problem on a couple of the questions with the translation," said Education Department spokesman Jonathan Burman. However, one test consultant who has worked for the state said she believed some of the math questions were confusing in the way they were written, regardless of the language.
One of last year's state math exams was a lightning rod for controversy as it was deemed above the level that it should've been. The previous year's physics state test was also an embarassment after it was found to be too long, with insufficient time for students to answer all questions. The questions themselves were said to be harder than necessary. In that case, a score of 47 was re-scaled to 65... perhaps saying that 47=65 set the stage for the next year's math controversy.
All this is another blow to state Education Commissioner Richard Mills, who is a fundamentalist believer in the virtue of high-stakes tests as the main way to achieve the vaunted 'accountability' in education. Except the Board of Regents can't go a year without issuing a screwed up a test. You'd think these problems might temper the commissioner's fetish for high-stakes testing, or at least give him pause for thought.
Instead, a friend of mine told me of how one of her friend's kids had an A- average in English. But when he took the high-stakes test, he didn't poorly. Maybe he was having a bad day. Who knows why? So the school was required to provide him with a tutor. With the tutor, his average in English was... A-. Is this really the best use of limited school resources? On a kid with an A- average who was having no apparent problems except, it seems, on one particular day? But the state law did not give the school any discresion.
If the state wants some artificial 'accountability' for teachers and students, they could start with the testmakers. Or they could start with themselves.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Capitalist European soccer vs socialist American sports
Slate's Daniel Gross comments on the fact that soccer clubs, most notably in "socialist Europe," operate on much more capitalist business model than "traditional" American sports like baseball and football.
In European soccer, there are no minimum salaries, no salary caps, no revenue sharing and no evil unions. Club ownership is not a cartel restricted by other owners purely on the basis of who can pay the centralized league a huge entry fee.
The best part about soccer in most countries in the world is its meritocratic nature. If you are in your country's top division and have a terrible season, you will be relegated to the second division. Now it does have its downside if you're a fan of a side that gets relegated. Like yours truly.
But you have to stay sharp, as complacency and recklessness is generally punished. In 2001, the English club Leeds United was in the semifinals of the European Champions League. However, they spent too much money and couldn't pay their bills so they had to sell top players. This spring, only a few years after being one of the best clubs in Europe, they were relegated to England's second-highest division.
None of this nonesense where teams like the LA Clippers and Arizona Cardinals can be crap for decades on end and still be able to call themselves "Major League."
In European soccer, there are no minimum salaries, no salary caps, no revenue sharing and no evil unions. Club ownership is not a cartel restricted by other owners purely on the basis of who can pay the centralized league a huge entry fee.
The best part about soccer in most countries in the world is its meritocratic nature. If you are in your country's top division and have a terrible season, you will be relegated to the second division. Now it does have its downside if you're a fan of a side that gets relegated. Like yours truly.
But you have to stay sharp, as complacency and recklessness is generally punished. In 2001, the English club Leeds United was in the semifinals of the European Champions League. However, they spent too much money and couldn't pay their bills so they had to sell top players. This spring, only a few years after being one of the best clubs in Europe, they were relegated to England's second-highest division.
None of this nonesense where teams like the LA Clippers and Arizona Cardinals can be crap for decades on end and still be able to call themselves "Major League."
Democratic smear machine in full gear
The Democratic smear machine is in full swing. Now, they're accusing Ralph Nader, who they are deathly afraid of, of allegedly abusing his underlings in his public interest organizations. I don't know if the allegation is true or untrue. But it might have had more credibility had it been made, say, in 1998 or 1999. To the smear machine, I guess it was okay that Nader was allegedly abusing his underlings so long as he was targeting evil corporate America, but once he started going after another corrupt organization, called the Democratic Party, then suddenly this becomes an "issue."
In 2000, 3 million Americans voted for Nader. Contrary to popular belief (or should I say, contrary to disingenuously propagated myth), most of them did not vote for Nader INSTEAD of voting for Al Gore. Most of them voted for Nader instead of NOT VOTING AT ALL. In other words, Nader's candidacy brought millions of disenfranchised voters into the political process. He engaged those who thought the two major parties and candidates were either corrupt or worthless. For this, he's been smeared ruthlessly for the last four years by whiny Democrats who attacked him rather than opposing the president's radical agenda. They accuse Nader of being egomaniacal (unlike any other presidential candidate). They accuse Nader of being power hungry. As I've suggested ad nauseum, the Dems could've made an offer to Nader to make him, say, attorney general and a few other non-Democrat progressives in the cabinet in exchange for supporting the Democratic candidate, but THEY were the power hungry ones.
I'll say it before and I'll say it again. Until people tell me why I should vote for a senator who thought the Iraq conquest and Patriot Act were jolly things (or was too gutless to vote against it) instead of a president who thought the Iraq conquest and Patriot Act were jolly things, then I won't vote for either. I may or may not vote for Nader but smears or no, I won't lower myself to vote for Kerry or Bush.
In 2000, 3 million Americans voted for Nader. Contrary to popular belief (or should I say, contrary to disingenuously propagated myth), most of them did not vote for Nader INSTEAD of voting for Al Gore. Most of them voted for Nader instead of NOT VOTING AT ALL. In other words, Nader's candidacy brought millions of disenfranchised voters into the political process. He engaged those who thought the two major parties and candidates were either corrupt or worthless. For this, he's been smeared ruthlessly for the last four years by whiny Democrats who attacked him rather than opposing the president's radical agenda. They accuse Nader of being egomaniacal (unlike any other presidential candidate). They accuse Nader of being power hungry. As I've suggested ad nauseum, the Dems could've made an offer to Nader to make him, say, attorney general and a few other non-Democrat progressives in the cabinet in exchange for supporting the Democratic candidate, but THEY were the power hungry ones.
I'll say it before and I'll say it again. Until people tell me why I should vote for a senator who thought the Iraq conquest and Patriot Act were jolly things (or was too gutless to vote against it) instead of a president who thought the Iraq conquest and Patriot Act were jolly things, then I won't vote for either. I may or may not vote for Nader but smears or no, I won't lower myself to vote for Kerry or Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)