Global Voices

I recently found a great new site called Global Voices. It's a site that basically collects entries from bloggers all around the world, particularly from countries that are not often represented in the mainstream western media.

From its website:

A growing number of bloggers around the world are emerging as “bridge bloggers:” people who are talking about their country or region to a global audience. Global Voices is your guide to the most interesting conversations, information, and ideas appearing around the world on various forms of participatory media such as blogs, podcasts, photo sharing sites, and videoblogs.
Our global team of regional blogger-editors is working to find, aggregate and track these conversations. Each day they link to 5-10 of the most interesting blog posts from their regions in the “daily roundups” section. A larger group of contributing bloggers is posting daily features in in the left-hand Weblog section, shedding light on what blogging communities in their countries have been talking about recently.

You should bookmark it.

Riots and counterriots in Australia

This essay is part of a weekly feature on my blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel and Iraq.

Much was made in the national and international media and in the blogosphere about the shameful, counterproductive riots in France's suburbs last month. Fair-minded essays and reports pointed out the poor treatment of Arabs by native Frenchmen, how many people have their job applications summarily rejected simply because of their Arab surname or family name and the failure of Arab immigrants to integrate into French society, a failure for which both Arabs and native French share blame. The violence was not helped by the reckless, inflammatory remarks by France's interior minister, the sleazy and ambitious Nicolas Sarkozy.

Banalyses blamed the rioting on various factors depending on the political biases of the writer. Alleged causes included: the inherent violence of Muslims, the inherent disregard for the law of Arabs, France's allegedly socialist economic system and France's opposition to the aggression in Iraq (ie: their 'appeasement' of extremism).

Fox News [sic] even referred to the violence as 'Muslim riots,' even Islam had nothing to do with it. It was about as disingenuous as if one had referred to the 1992 violence in Los Angeles as "Christian riots."

Given the massive media attention on the violence in France, it makes you wonder when and if the press will notice the rioting going on in the suburbs of Sydney, Australia.

There is one big difference between the violence in France and the violence in Australia: the rioting in Sydney has been directed AGAINST Arabs and Arab owned businesses... as well as people wrongly assumed to be Arab.

The premier of New South Wales, the state in which Australia's largest city is located, says violence over the weekend in Sydney's south was the ugly face of racism, with the State Government confirming that so-called "white supremacists" were involved in the riots, reports the Australian Broadcast Corporation.

The initial anti-Arab violence not surprisingly provoked counter-rioting by Middle Eastern mobs.

Much like in France, some Australians will surely deny that social conditions and attitudes are unfavorable toward those of Arab descent, but such a willfully blind approach will not help address underlying social tensions.



Update: I have this extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalist acquaintance who rationalizes the Australian riots in such breathtaking terms.

The loss of the Christian faith is the center of the downfall of culture in Europe and Australia. No longer are children brought up with Christian morality, no longer are they taught right and wrong from a scriptural perspective. Instead they are taught that right and wrong changes over time and really it's all up to you and your "heart" anyway. This post-Christian thinking makes it ok to attack Muslims just for the fun of it. The people involved in these riots have no idea that what they're doing is wrong, rather they think it is quite right. Why, they believe in their hearts that attacking innocent people without justification is ok. Thus is life in a post-Christian society. In a Christian society, those wrongdoers would in the very least understand that what they are doing is evil and there will and should be punishment for it.

It's hard to know where to begin with such self-delusional insanity..

We all know how stable and peaceful Europe was from the Middle Ages until the mid-1940s back when Christianity was the undisputed power of the continent. The continent is much worse off now with its peaceful democracies and well-fed people. Oh the horror!

In the past, it was INCONCEIVABLE that people attack Muslims in, I don't know, a Crusade-like manner. It didn't used to be ok to attack innocent people without justification: back then, you needed the decency to invent a justification like them being Jewish or Protestant or witches. In a Christian society, like America, wrongdoers at the very least understand that what they are doing is evil and that there will and should be punishment. Maybe this is why so many Americans have changed their minds about the Iraq aggression.

Bush admin to UN: our torture is none of your business

Louise Arbour, a former Canadian Supreme Court justice and highly respected former head of the UN war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, is now the UN human rights' chief. Arbour recently criticized the US government for its ambiguous (at best) position on torture.

Well, its position on torture by its own representatives is ambiguous; it often condemns torture by other countries, such as the former Saddam dictatorship in Iraq.

Arbour noted that the "absolute ban on torture, a cornerstone of the international human rights edifice, is under attack." This confusion has been amplified by the Newspeak that's passed for the administration's position of the day on torture.

The administration's designated UN loudmouth John Bolton got his panties into a twist following Arbour's reasonable comments.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton criticized the statements, the [Washington] Post reported, saying Arbour had no proof of the allegations other "than what she reads in the newspapers."

I agree. Commenting on newspaper reports is not the best way to handle the situation. Instead, surely Bolton would concur that a proper UN Security Council or International Criminal Court investigation would be a better option, eh?

"I think it is inappropriate and illegitimate for an international civil servant to second-guess the conduct that we're engaged in in the war on terror," Bolton sniffed.

And this exemplifies better than anything else why the Bush administration's moral credibility has completely vanished.

Questioning dubious human rights practices is EXACTLY what the UN human rights' chief should be doing.

Early this year, the Bush administration launched a full scale attack on the UN Human Rights Commission for not being forceful enough. Yet when it IS forceful, the administration tells it to shut up, in much the same way as Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe.

Why would Arbour criticize the US when there are a million other bad things going on that deserve her attention."The UN only picks on America," bellow the uninformed and the willfully ignorant. But as usual, it's usually the uninformed and the willfully ignorant who bellow the loudest. They're wrong... but you probably already knew that.

When critics called the UN Human Rights Commission toothless, Arbour (and myself, for that matter) agreed. She, like Secretary General Kofi Annan, want a smaller Human Rights Council with more strength and authority to replace the bloated Human Rights Commission that's held hostage by repressive regimes like Libya and Zimbabwe. As a former judge and prosecutor, she realizes the Human Rights Commission is too dysfunctional, too sclerotic and has no authority and ought to be restructured..

It's obvious that the Bush administration doesn't want a restructured human rights body, especially one that might be independent enough to criticize... the Bush administration. A serious watchdog must criticize all human rights abuses, not just those committed by regimes hostile to the US government. But the far right doesn't want a watchdog; it wants a scapegoat.

Bravo to Ms. Arbour. Her intrevention was very important in upholding the principles of international human rights' standards and values. Standards that the United States has not only voluntarily accepted, but were crucial in formulating. If the United States can't invoke 'terrorism' in order to justify human rights' abuses, then dictators won't be able to either.

'Happy holidays' and other capitulations 'to the worst elements in our society'

Whether it's so-called adults trampling each other to get the latest toy or electronic fad or people spending ridiculous amounts of money on gaudy Christmas decorations, December in America is silly season.

The White House recently sent out greeting cards to whoever's on their list. The card said, "Happy holidays."

This seems inocuous enough.

Unless you have way too much time on your hands. William A. Donahue, the apparent cartoon-like figure who serves as president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. is just such a person.

Donahue was livid that the card didn't mention the word Christmas, even though it contained a passage from the Biblical Old Testament. So much so that he threw the card in the trash.

"This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture," he fumed.

Just ponder those words for a moment...


... then ask yourself how he expects anyone to take him seriously in the future when he makes bufoonish statements like this.

Personally, I won't spend a single second figuring out whether I say 'Happy holidays' to someone or 'Merry Christmas,' nor will a spend a second worrying about what others say to me. The worst elements in our culture are professional victims like Mr. Donahue who waste our time with angry rantings about nothing.

The self-described bleeding heart liberal Adirondack Musing blog has had a series of entries devoted to the so-called war on Christmas. There was the essay about how 42% of Americans surveyed think there is a War on Christmas, according to a Fox poll. As well as one about the history of the holiday.

One can reasonably argue that the purpose of Christmas has been lost in the avalanche of consumerism, gluttony and avoidable stress. Though even that's a stretch considering we celebrate it in much the same way we celebrate other birthdays (presents, dinner, etc), just on a much grander scale. That great opponent of secularism, Bill O'Reilly, argues that every businessman in America should scream 'Merry Christmas' because the holiday is so central to the American economy. He's right, but venerating Christmas as a business bonanza seems far more secular than saying 'Happy holidays.'

So what IS the purpose of Christmas then? For me, it's the idea of spending time together with my family in a more or less relaxing manner. Is this expression of family values a secular one? Yes. Is it a capitulation 'to the worst elements in our culture'? I think not.

Does private property exist?

Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court approved New London, Connecticut's attempts to forcibly seize several private homes so the city could sell the land to a developer who wanted to build a huge commercial complex. This was a result of the Court's refusal to be 'activist' and of its reflexive deference to legislatures at the expense of individual Constitutional rights. Do rights really exist if they can be erased by a few politicians? I objected to this on several levels.

The most straightforward objection is that the ruling was based on a misinterpretation of a fairly straightforward constitutional clause. New London used eminent domain to seize the houses. The 5th Amendment to the document concludes: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Eminent domain is authorized in the Constitution, but not in the way New London used it. Typically, eminent domain is used for infrastructure projects like roads and bridges, stuff that is open to and used by the public.

The developers New London wanted to give the forcibly seized land to wanted to build a hotel, health club and offices. The idea is that the public will derive a benefit because these commercial enterprises will generate more tax revenue than would simple houses. That tax revenue could be used to improve services or lower the property tax rate.

There's one problem: the Constitution authorizes land be taken for public USE, not simply for some alleged public BENEFIT. Unless New London residents can stay for free in the hotel or use the health club for free, then the complex is not intended for public USE. If the complex's owners can ban protesters or other expressions of free speech (something that can't be done on public land), then the complex is not intended for public use.

I also opposed this because I was afraid eminent domain would be used for social engineering, to kick out poor or middle income residents and replace them with rich people or with businesses that cater to rich people.

"Far-fetched, Chicken Little rantings!" you say.

It's already happening in Riviera Beach, Florida, according to this article in The Los Angeles Times,

In what has been called the largest eminent-domain case in the nation, the mayor and other elected leaders want to move about 6,000 residents, tear down their homes and use the emptied 400-acre site to build a waterfront yachting and residential complex for the well-to-do.

According to the city, the project create a city respected for its community pride and purpose and reshape it into a most desirable urban [place] to live, work, shop, and relax for its residents, business and visitors.


Almost 20 percent of the city's population would be forcibly evicted (with compensation, because apparently that makes it ok) as a result of this social engineering monstrosity.

Economic conventional wisdom tells us that respect for private property is the anchor of our entire capitalist system, a main reason why the US is more prosperous than African and Latin American countries. But does private property really exist if the government can just seize it to you and give to big developers on a whim?

Thanks for nothing FIFA!

Could someone explain to me this?

The US has won two of their last three competitive matches against Mexico, including a famous 2-0 win in the last World Cup in Korea. The US won the most recent CONCACAF (North/Central America and Carribbean) championship with Mexico crashing out at the quarterfinal stage. The US also won the CONCACAF World Cup qualifying group, ahead of Mexico. Yet somehow Mexico got a top seed for the 2006 World Cup qualifying draw and the US didn't. (In reality, neither deserved it, but certainly Mexico was less deserving)

As a result, the US got paired with European powerhouses Italy and the Czech Republic as well as four-time African champions Ghana.

Mexico will have to face perpetual underachiever Portugal and minnows Iran and Angola.

Thanks for nothing FIFA!

(Incidentally, several non-seeded countries, like the Czech Republic, Holland and the US, were ranked above seeded countries like England and Italy, in FIFA's computer rankings. I realize that the rankings generated by soccer's world governing body are completely worthless from a sporting perspective. But if FIFA is not even going to use them to figure out seeds, then why bother having them at all? What's point of saying the Czechs are #2 in the world if six lower ranked teams are going to get preferential treatment come seeding time?)

Clear as mud

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice insisted that rules against torture apply to American personnel, whether they are inside or outside the United States.

It's very charitable of her, but I don't know if how much it really clarifies

After all, high-ranking administration officials can't even agree amongst themselves about what those rules are!

Paper to pedestrians: Drop Dead!

The outgoing mayor and council in Glens Falls approved a multi-million dollar roundabout for the five-corner intersection in the city's downtown. Mayor-elect Roy Akins said he would revisit the boondoggle. He was taken to task for it in a snide little editorial (do they write any other kind?) in The Post-Star.

The paper writes:

Read this out loud.

One Mississippi. Two Mississippi. Three Mississippi. Four Mississippi ...

... five Mississippi. Six Mississippi. Seven Mississippi. Eight Mississippi. Nine Mississippi. Mississippi. 11 Mississippi. 12 Mississippi. 13 Mississippi. 14 Mississippi. 15 Mississippi. 16 Mississippi. 17 Mississippi. 18 Mississippi. 19 Mississippi. 20 Mississippi. 21 Mississippi. 22 Mississippi. 23 Mississippi. 24 Mississippi. 25 Mississippi. 26 Mississippi. 27 Mississippi. 28 Mississippi. 29 Mississippi. 30 Mississippi. 31 Mississippi. 32 Mississippi. 33 Mississippi. 34 Mississippi. 35 Mississippi. 36 Mississippi. 37 Mississippi. 38 Mississippi. 39 Mississippi. 40 Mississippi. 41 Mississippi. 42 Mississippi. 43 Mississippi. 44 Mississippi. 45 Mississippi. 46 Mississippi. 47 Mississippi. 48 Mississippi. 49 Mississippi. 50 Mississippi. 51 Mississippi. 52 Mississippi. 53 Mississippi. 54 Mississippi. 55 Mississippi. 56 Mississippi. 57 Mississippi. 58 Mississippi. 59 Mississippi. 60 Mississippi. 61 Mississippi. 62 Mississippi. 63 Mississippi. 64 Mississippi. 65 Mississippi. 66 Mississippi. Mississippi. 67 Mississippi. 68 Mississippi. 69 Mississippi. 70 Mississippi. 71 Mississippi. 72 Mississippi. 73 Mississippi. 74 Mississippi. 75 Mississippi. 76 Mississippi. 77 Mississippi. 78 Mississippi. 79 Mississippi. 80 Mississippi. 81 Mississippi. 82 Mississippi. 83 Mississippi. 84 Mississippi. 85 Mississippi. 86 Mississippi. 87 Mississippi. 88 Mississippi. 89 Mississippi. 90 Mississippi. 91 Mississippi. 92 Mississippi. 93 Mississippi. 94 Mississippi. 95 Mississippi. 96 Mississippi. 97 Mississippi. 98 Mississippi. 99 Mississippi. 100 Mississippi. 101 Mississippi. 102 Mississippi. 103 Mississippi. 104 Mississippi. 105 Mississippi. 106 Mississippi. 107 Mississippi. 108 Mississippi. 109 Mississippi. 110 Mississippi. 111 Mississippi. 112 Mississippi. 113 Mississippi. 114 Mississippi. 115 Mississippi. 116 Mississippi. 117 Mississippi. 118 Mississippi. 119 Mississippi. 120 Mississippi.

One hundred-twenty seconds. Two minutes. That's how long it can take for just one turn of the traffic light at the five-way intersection in downtown Glens Falls. That's how much time you waste sitting in your car waiting to get to your destination. And that's assuming you get through the intersection the first time. If you don't make it, you have to start the count over. One Mississippi. Two Mississippi ...

In a roundabout, traffic is moving constantly. That's the roundabout's appeal.

It's also its downfall.

While non-stop traffic is great for drivers, it's hell for pedestrians. How can you cross the street if there's never a break in traffic?

If the roundabout is constructed, pedestrians may have to wait through SEVERAL '120 Mississippi' in order to simply cross the street, especially during rush hours.

And before dismissing such analysis as the ideological rantings of a leftie/Green/utopian as some might, it's worth noting one simple, indisputable fact: in order to be a customer at any downtown business, except Burger King's drive-thru, you must leave your car and WALK into a building. (Unless you're one of those countercultural freaks who doesn't drive everywhere in the first place)

But this fact wasn't considered when the roundabout was being discussed.

And this really gets to the heart of the debate over downtown's future: pedestrians (and bicyclists and users of public transportation) are never taken into consideration when such discussions occur.

(Actually, the editorial did make a token reference to pedestrians. The essence was "It's already hard for pedestrians to cross the street and they're used to the hassle, so who cares if it gets a little harder?")

The outgoing administration and The Post-Star aren't overtly hostile to pedestrians; they're not advocating walkers be run over. Pedestrians simply don't enter into their mindset. They just don't factor pedestrians in to any equation. And it really doesn't make sense.

As I mentioned before, in order to be frequent a downtown business, you MUST become a pedestrian. Yet the roundabout's purpose is to make it easier to drive through the business district without stopping or slowing down?

The roundabout will make it harder for people to be pedestrians and thus frequent downtown shops and restraurants while making it easier to drive past those places without giving them a second look. The Northway (Interstate 87 from Albany north to the Canadian border) offered the same 'convenience' and we see how it ruined the business districts of countless Adirondack towns.

So why does The Post-Star think this is such a brilliant idea?

The incoming mayor shouldn't revisit the counterproductive boondoggle roundabout; he should summarily rubbish the idea altogether.


Update: The very same issue of the paper notes that the city's debt is approaching $17 million. The roundabout boondoggle would add at least another $3 million to that total.