Of all the people to wish dead...
Osama bin Laden? Sure.
Charles Taylor? Ok.
Joseph Kony? Why not.
'Crocodile Hunter' Steve Irwin? What!!
From Right Wing Nation:
and proves that there is, indeed, a God, and He is just.
You know that idiot who can't speak English and hollers, "Crickey!" (as if that were some kind of word in any language) and runs around sticking his thumb up crocodile butts — and gets TV shows for it? (That is the amazing thing. TV shows. Wow.) What's that idiot's name?
Oh yeah. Steve Irwin.
Oops, looks like he got killed by a stingray. Too bad it wasn't a croc, and while filming, but you can't have everything.
Talk about sick.
Here's a guy who dedicated his life to raising awareness about endangered animals and ecological consciousness. Is that really such a horrendous thing?
Or is it the fact that he speaks Australian English?
Or is it the fact that he's famous?
Are any of those reasons to rejoice over his death and bemoan that his demise wasn't more violent?
Sure, he engaged in a very dangerous profession and he knew the risks. I don't think his death is the worst tragedy in the history of the world but I'm sorry it happened.
Our troops also participate in a a very dangerous profession and they too know the risks. So do policemen and firemen and prison guards. Would this nut rejoice over one of their deaths?
If Irwin's death is proof of a just God, then I'm not sure I want to believe in Him.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Shame on CAF, (half) props to UEFA
UEFA, the European soccer confederation, has apparently passed a controversial new rule. Now, players who brandish imaginary yellow cards toward to referee trying to get him to book an opponent would be subject to a caution themselves. A Leicester Mercury editorial rubbishes this idea.
The card gesture to the referee is no more than an appeal and in many cases is far from a breach of the laws of the game, it is an insistence on them being applied, the English paper sniffs.
Yet, most English supporters and those who follow the English soccer tradition were appalled at the unsporting behavior displayed at the recent World Cup. Most clearly exemplified by the tactics of dirtycheatingportual (TM). It was a common sight to see players collapse as if shot whenever a fan in the upper deck sneezed and then demand the ref show a card for some imaginary offense.
The new UEFA rule aims to get rid of this garbage. It says, "The players' job is to play and the officials' job is to officiate."
I understand the English revulsion against increasingly pedantic soccer rules, but how does the paper aim to get rid of such obnoxious, unsporting tactics if not via the yellow card?
***
European soccer fans like to look their noses down at North America (and to the rest of the world, for that matter, but particularly North America and Asia it seems). It's true that the top quarter of European teams are on the whole, far superior to the top quarter of North American teams. But I've always said I'd love to see England have to play a World Cup qualifier in San Salvador where they have to dodge bags of urine tossed their way or a hideous pitch in the interior of the Guatemalan jungle. Then they could talk about how 'easy' things are in North America. In Europe, the tough matches are much tougher but the easier matches are a joke.
I'm not sure North America has ever had a continent-wide final round qualifying match for any tournament that finished 13-0 like the recent San Marino-Germany farce.
There were 30 matches in the final round North American World Cup qualifying for the most recent World Cup. The most lopsided was a single match that finished 5-0.
Euro 2008 qualifying has already had 5 matches (out of 43) which were decided by 5 goals or more.
Germany was ahead 6-0 at halftime.
San Marino's next match is against the Czech Republic so you can expect another annihilation.
Simply put, Europe needs to have a prelimary qualifying round before major tournaments. Clubs in big countries already complain about too many international matches. And let's face it, do the Germanys and Englands of this world really improve or even test themselves pounding on the minnows of Europe? Sure, it helps inflate their FIFA computer ranking but I sure wouldn't pay 40 Euros to watch them trash a bunch of amateurs.
***
African soccer outlets made a big deal this week about Angola being awarded hosting privileges for the 2010 African Nations Cup (CAN) by the African soccer confederation. What was overlooked is much more distubring news: international pariahs will host the two succeeding Nations Cups.
Gabon and Equatorial Guinea will co-host the 2012 tournament. Equatorial Guinea is run by one of the two or three most despotic regimes in the entire world; it's in the same league as Burma and North Korea. It's also one of the poorest countries in Africa with virtually non-existent infrastructure, despite the recent discovery of huge oil reservoirs. Shame on CAF! Equatorial Guinea's dictatorship should spend its oil revenues not on soccer stadiums but on alleviating the desperate poverty of its people.
Libya, whose reputation for respecting human rights benefits only in comparison to Equatorial Guinea's, was awarded the 2014 edition.
The card gesture to the referee is no more than an appeal and in many cases is far from a breach of the laws of the game, it is an insistence on them being applied, the English paper sniffs.
Yet, most English supporters and those who follow the English soccer tradition were appalled at the unsporting behavior displayed at the recent World Cup. Most clearly exemplified by the tactics of dirtycheatingportual (TM). It was a common sight to see players collapse as if shot whenever a fan in the upper deck sneezed and then demand the ref show a card for some imaginary offense.
The new UEFA rule aims to get rid of this garbage. It says, "The players' job is to play and the officials' job is to officiate."
I understand the English revulsion against increasingly pedantic soccer rules, but how does the paper aim to get rid of such obnoxious, unsporting tactics if not via the yellow card?
***
European soccer fans like to look their noses down at North America (and to the rest of the world, for that matter, but particularly North America and Asia it seems). It's true that the top quarter of European teams are on the whole, far superior to the top quarter of North American teams. But I've always said I'd love to see England have to play a World Cup qualifier in San Salvador where they have to dodge bags of urine tossed their way or a hideous pitch in the interior of the Guatemalan jungle. Then they could talk about how 'easy' things are in North America. In Europe, the tough matches are much tougher but the easier matches are a joke.
I'm not sure North America has ever had a continent-wide final round qualifying match for any tournament that finished 13-0 like the recent San Marino-Germany farce.
There were 30 matches in the final round North American World Cup qualifying for the most recent World Cup. The most lopsided was a single match that finished 5-0.
Euro 2008 qualifying has already had 5 matches (out of 43) which were decided by 5 goals or more.
Germany was ahead 6-0 at halftime.
San Marino's next match is against the Czech Republic so you can expect another annihilation.
Simply put, Europe needs to have a prelimary qualifying round before major tournaments. Clubs in big countries already complain about too many international matches. And let's face it, do the Germanys and Englands of this world really improve or even test themselves pounding on the minnows of Europe? Sure, it helps inflate their FIFA computer ranking but I sure wouldn't pay 40 Euros to watch them trash a bunch of amateurs.
***
African soccer outlets made a big deal this week about Angola being awarded hosting privileges for the 2010 African Nations Cup (CAN) by the African soccer confederation. What was overlooked is much more distubring news: international pariahs will host the two succeeding Nations Cups.
Gabon and Equatorial Guinea will co-host the 2012 tournament. Equatorial Guinea is run by one of the two or three most despotic regimes in the entire world; it's in the same league as Burma and North Korea. It's also one of the poorest countries in Africa with virtually non-existent infrastructure, despite the recent discovery of huge oil reservoirs. Shame on CAF! Equatorial Guinea's dictatorship should spend its oil revenues not on soccer stadiums but on alleviating the desperate poverty of its people.
Libya, whose reputation for respecting human rights benefits only in comparison to Equatorial Guinea's, was awarded the 2014 edition.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Notes from Upstate NY: wind power, voting machines, refugee soccer
Wind power is a hot topic in upstate New York. There are divisions even within environmental community. Some have concerns about the potential impact of wind turbines on birds or on scenic views. Others contend that such concerns are minor and that wind power is a step toward weaning the country from its unhealthy addiction to oil by producing a clean energy alternative.
Northern NY folies blog lambastes the conduct of elected officials regarding a wind power project in Cape Vincent, on the St. Lawrence River. Adirondack Almanack blog seems to approve of a wind project in Ellenberg in the state's northeastern Clinton County.
***
New York will be the last state in the nation to comply with the federal Help America Vote Act. Supposedly, New York is supposed to be scrapping the long used lever-based voting machines in favor of electronic touch screen machnines. But the League of Women Voters accused the State Board of Elections of withholding technical data that they say could show whether new voting machines are accurate or not.
***
The Global Game, a fascinating blog about the intersection of sociopolitics and soccer, has a good piece about soccer and foreigners living and working in the United States.
One of the places featured in the entry was the central New York city (misidentified as a hamlet) of Utica.
Ten thousand refugees from Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe resettled in [Utica] have struggled to assimilate, but the pickup football matches at a local high school have proven popular with the large numbers of youth. Refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burma, Somalia (Bantu), Haiti, El Salvador and Jamaica mingle and create an ad hoc community, while a local refugee center assists with language and job training.
Utica is a rust belt town that decayed badly for several decades but appears to have been rejuvenated by the influx of foreigners.
As WorldPress.org noted:
In Utica, there is no clan warfare, but soccer does bring together groups that generally do not interact, and [Kenyan Adde] Ibrahim believes forging this kind of connection with the community can provide a safety net.
Northern NY folies blog lambastes the conduct of elected officials regarding a wind power project in Cape Vincent, on the St. Lawrence River. Adirondack Almanack blog seems to approve of a wind project in Ellenberg in the state's northeastern Clinton County.
***
New York will be the last state in the nation to comply with the federal Help America Vote Act. Supposedly, New York is supposed to be scrapping the long used lever-based voting machines in favor of electronic touch screen machnines. But the League of Women Voters accused the State Board of Elections of withholding technical data that they say could show whether new voting machines are accurate or not.
***
The Global Game, a fascinating blog about the intersection of sociopolitics and soccer, has a good piece about soccer and foreigners living and working in the United States.
One of the places featured in the entry was the central New York city (misidentified as a hamlet) of Utica.
Ten thousand refugees from Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe resettled in [Utica] have struggled to assimilate, but the pickup football matches at a local high school have proven popular with the large numbers of youth. Refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burma, Somalia (Bantu), Haiti, El Salvador and Jamaica mingle and create an ad hoc community, while a local refugee center assists with language and job training.
Utica is a rust belt town that decayed badly for several decades but appears to have been rejuvenated by the influx of foreigners.
As WorldPress.org noted:
In Utica, there is no clan warfare, but soccer does bring together groups that generally do not interact, and [Kenyan Adde] Ibrahim believes forging this kind of connection with the community can provide a safety net.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
This and that
America's Theocracy Brigade aren't the only politicoreligious types who object to 'liberal' academia. Apparently the 'Hitler of the Middle East' (this year's version) feels the same way.
***
One of the great myths circulated is that the United Nations is a leech stealing money from the US taxpayer and funnelling toward the 'ratholes' of third world dictatorships. In reality, the US economy ends up BENEFITING from membership in the UN, a study has shown.
The US' annual dues represents 22 percent of the UN's regular annual budget. However, on average, 22.5 percent of purchases made by the UN are from US companies.
The US pays $396 million in annual UN dues but received $315.8 million in UN contracts in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available.
Add to that the fact that the UN and its agencies contributed over $3 billion ($3,000 million) a year to the New York City economy in the late 90s, according to the city's former Republican mayor Rudy Giuliani. The annual figure is surely higher now.
***
On a related note, The Washington Post offers a reasonable editorial defending the UN. This has credibility because the paper's goal is to improve the UN's operations not smear the organization for cheap political points.
It also has credibility because unlike the UN-bashers on the far right, the paper demonstrates a clear understanding of the UN's role, limitations and expectations of it.
The editorial points out that while American UN bashing is at an all-time high, the US and international community are relying on the UN at an unprecedented rate. Everyone wants the UN to go into Lebanon. Everyone (except the genocidal Sudanese government) wants the UN to go into Darfur. The UN already has huge missions in places like Côte d'Ivoire, the DR Congo and Bosnia.
Unfortunately, the editorial is short on specific reforms that ought to be undertaken. Some want to expand the Security Council and give permanent seats to different regions of the world with the accompanying veto power. Some critics claim that this is a recipe for further gridlock while others fear this would weaken US control of the body.
***
California's legislature recently passed a bill designed to undermine the antiquated electoral college system. Under the legislation, California would grant its electoral votes to the nominee who gets the most votes nationwide - not the most votes in California.
Why?
Get enough other states to do the same, backers of the bill say, and soon presidential candidates will have to campaign across the nation, not just in a few key "battleground" states such as Ohio and Michigan that can sway the Electoral College vote.
The electoral college system may have been innovative and made sense in 1787 but it's counterproductive in 2006. And it doesn't even accomplish any longer the objectives for which it was created.
Let's hope California's governator signs the bill.
***
It amuses me that self-described meritocrats get into a tizzy about race-based affirmative action in university admissions but don't say a word about wealth-based special preferences.
The anger against affirmative action in college admissions is nothing more than fury in search of a problem. College officials take into account a host of non-academic, non-statistical considerations in deciding who to admit. They want geographical diversity. They want diversity in student specilizations (Yale wouldn't want 95 percent of their students to be mechnical engineer majors). They want well-rounded students, not automatons. They sure as heck want students with rich parents. So why is it the worst thing in the world for a little racial diversity to be one of many, many subjective factors considered by college admissions officers?
***
Almost two dozen former generals and high ranking have called on President Bush to negotiate with Iran and North Korea. In a letter, , the group told reporters Bush's 'hard line' policies have undermined national security and made America less safe.
"That seems strange since Ronald Reagan was willing to negotiate with the Soviets even though they were the 'Evil Empire," noted one general. "One wonders why George Bush can't negotiate with the Axis of Evil."
The generals further argued that the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq is at least partially responsible for Iran's drive to develop a nuclear program.
"When you announce an axis of evil of three countries and invade one and then say that Iran should take that as a lesson, it does seem that it may give them an incentive to do precisely what they don't want them to do," [Lt. Gen Robert] Guard said, "develop a nuclear weapon."
In fairness, it's not really clear what sort of negotiations can be undertaken with the two countries. The Clinton administration tried negotiations with North Korea in the 90s and their nuclear weapons program is still going. Forget their antipathy toward the US, Iran's regime has refused to cooperate even with the UN. One thing that's clear is that yet another half-cocked military intervention will only lead to disaster. Reasonable suggestions are desperately needed.
***
AlterNet has a good look at how health care is really run in Canada and its effects on the well-being of Canadian citizens. Vermont Public Radio notes a study which argues that universal health coverage is possible in the progressive state without increasing overall costs.
***
Another piece in AlterNet rubbishes the notion of the clash of civlizations at the moment but warns that such hysteria could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The neocons who are pushing a Clash of Civilizations are mirror-images of the terrorists that inspire their hyperbolic fear -- they are just as irrational and just as great a threat to our security.
***
Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman isn't the only senator who's under serious heat for rankling his party colleague. Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel is also bucking his party's line and taking heat for it with comments like:
-"There were no terrorists in Iraq until we got there."
-"War should never be held hostage to a political agenda. It shouldn't be used as a partisan issue, a wedge issue, especially by those in my party who say Democrats don't care about the secu rity of our country"... which goes against the GOP's electoral strategy since 2002 (and from 1948-1988).
-"I think the Patriot Act had gone too far (and needed to be amended) to balance constitutional liberties and security."
-On the future war with Iran: I hope this administration thinks through this very carefully. Who's going to do the dying?"
Though I haven't always agreed with them, I've always had a fair amount of respect for Republicans like Hagel and Indiana's Dick Lugar who take a moderate internationalist approach to foreign policy. I wish they were in the ascendancy in the GOP rather than the Norm Colemans of the party.
***
This editorial from the Salem, OR Statesman-Journal points out something I've been saying for years.
Americans don't understand why organizations they see as being terrorists, like Hamas and Hezbollah, have a fair degree of support in the countries in which they operate. The reason is simple. Hamas and Hezbollah certainly have armed wings which execute liberation (if you support them) or terrorist (if you oppose them) missions. But they also have social wings. They run hospitals and community centers and sports clubs.
These groups have traditionally operated in regions where the central government authority were virtually non-existent. They fill a critical vacuum. So ordinary people see Hamas and Hezbollah not necessarily as a paramilitary organization but as the guys who provide social services. After the Israeli destruction of southern Lebanon, Hezbollah was much quicker to come to the aid of displaced peoiple than the Lebanese government. Ordinary people in Hamas- and Hezbollah-controlled regions don't necessarily want the destruction of the Jewish state; they just want health care when they're sick. Is that entirely unreasonable?
In many ways, Hamas and Hezbollah are just like the Mafia. Outsiders see them as violent thugs. But they provide a social stability and safety net that would otherwise be lacking. Yes, that stability comes at the cost of silence and de facto complicity with a criminal organization. However, if only other alternative is to let your relative die of illness due to lack of government-provided health care, most people would choose the same unpleasant option.
***
Another great example of this is in Somalia. Given the recent Islamist takeover of the pseudo-country, Foreign Policy has a good analysis of why such fundamentalist regimes are often popular when they take over (think Iran's Ayatollahs, the Taliban, etc). It's not because the people necessarily desire theocracy. It's because they yearn for law and order and stability and, after years of chaos, will naturally gravitate toward anyone who can provide it.
***
One of the great myths circulated is that the United Nations is a leech stealing money from the US taxpayer and funnelling toward the 'ratholes' of third world dictatorships. In reality, the US economy ends up BENEFITING from membership in the UN, a study has shown.
The US' annual dues represents 22 percent of the UN's regular annual budget. However, on average, 22.5 percent of purchases made by the UN are from US companies.
The US pays $396 million in annual UN dues but received $315.8 million in UN contracts in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available.
Add to that the fact that the UN and its agencies contributed over $3 billion ($3,000 million) a year to the New York City economy in the late 90s, according to the city's former Republican mayor Rudy Giuliani. The annual figure is surely higher now.
***
On a related note, The Washington Post offers a reasonable editorial defending the UN. This has credibility because the paper's goal is to improve the UN's operations not smear the organization for cheap political points.
It also has credibility because unlike the UN-bashers on the far right, the paper demonstrates a clear understanding of the UN's role, limitations and expectations of it.
The editorial points out that while American UN bashing is at an all-time high, the US and international community are relying on the UN at an unprecedented rate. Everyone wants the UN to go into Lebanon. Everyone (except the genocidal Sudanese government) wants the UN to go into Darfur. The UN already has huge missions in places like Côte d'Ivoire, the DR Congo and Bosnia.
Unfortunately, the editorial is short on specific reforms that ought to be undertaken. Some want to expand the Security Council and give permanent seats to different regions of the world with the accompanying veto power. Some critics claim that this is a recipe for further gridlock while others fear this would weaken US control of the body.
***
California's legislature recently passed a bill designed to undermine the antiquated electoral college system. Under the legislation, California would grant its electoral votes to the nominee who gets the most votes nationwide - not the most votes in California.
Why?
Get enough other states to do the same, backers of the bill say, and soon presidential candidates will have to campaign across the nation, not just in a few key "battleground" states such as Ohio and Michigan that can sway the Electoral College vote.
The electoral college system may have been innovative and made sense in 1787 but it's counterproductive in 2006. And it doesn't even accomplish any longer the objectives for which it was created.
Let's hope California's governator signs the bill.
***
It amuses me that self-described meritocrats get into a tizzy about race-based affirmative action in university admissions but don't say a word about wealth-based special preferences.
The anger against affirmative action in college admissions is nothing more than fury in search of a problem. College officials take into account a host of non-academic, non-statistical considerations in deciding who to admit. They want geographical diversity. They want diversity in student specilizations (Yale wouldn't want 95 percent of their students to be mechnical engineer majors). They want well-rounded students, not automatons. They sure as heck want students with rich parents. So why is it the worst thing in the world for a little racial diversity to be one of many, many subjective factors considered by college admissions officers?
***
Almost two dozen former generals and high ranking have called on President Bush to negotiate with Iran and North Korea. In a letter, , the group told reporters Bush's 'hard line' policies have undermined national security and made America less safe.
"That seems strange since Ronald Reagan was willing to negotiate with the Soviets even though they were the 'Evil Empire," noted one general. "One wonders why George Bush can't negotiate with the Axis of Evil."
The generals further argued that the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq is at least partially responsible for Iran's drive to develop a nuclear program.
"When you announce an axis of evil of three countries and invade one and then say that Iran should take that as a lesson, it does seem that it may give them an incentive to do precisely what they don't want them to do," [Lt. Gen Robert] Guard said, "develop a nuclear weapon."
In fairness, it's not really clear what sort of negotiations can be undertaken with the two countries. The Clinton administration tried negotiations with North Korea in the 90s and their nuclear weapons program is still going. Forget their antipathy toward the US, Iran's regime has refused to cooperate even with the UN. One thing that's clear is that yet another half-cocked military intervention will only lead to disaster. Reasonable suggestions are desperately needed.
***
AlterNet has a good look at how health care is really run in Canada and its effects on the well-being of Canadian citizens. Vermont Public Radio notes a study which argues that universal health coverage is possible in the progressive state without increasing overall costs.
***
Another piece in AlterNet rubbishes the notion of the clash of civlizations at the moment but warns that such hysteria could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The neocons who are pushing a Clash of Civilizations are mirror-images of the terrorists that inspire their hyperbolic fear -- they are just as irrational and just as great a threat to our security.
***
Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman isn't the only senator who's under serious heat for rankling his party colleague. Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel is also bucking his party's line and taking heat for it with comments like:
-"There were no terrorists in Iraq until we got there."
-"War should never be held hostage to a political agenda. It shouldn't be used as a partisan issue, a wedge issue, especially by those in my party who say Democrats don't care about the secu rity of our country"... which goes against the GOP's electoral strategy since 2002 (and from 1948-1988).
-"I think the Patriot Act had gone too far (and needed to be amended) to balance constitutional liberties and security."
-On the future war with Iran: I hope this administration thinks through this very carefully. Who's going to do the dying?"
Though I haven't always agreed with them, I've always had a fair amount of respect for Republicans like Hagel and Indiana's Dick Lugar who take a moderate internationalist approach to foreign policy. I wish they were in the ascendancy in the GOP rather than the Norm Colemans of the party.
***
This editorial from the Salem, OR Statesman-Journal points out something I've been saying for years.
Americans don't understand why organizations they see as being terrorists, like Hamas and Hezbollah, have a fair degree of support in the countries in which they operate. The reason is simple. Hamas and Hezbollah certainly have armed wings which execute liberation (if you support them) or terrorist (if you oppose them) missions. But they also have social wings. They run hospitals and community centers and sports clubs.
These groups have traditionally operated in regions where the central government authority were virtually non-existent. They fill a critical vacuum. So ordinary people see Hamas and Hezbollah not necessarily as a paramilitary organization but as the guys who provide social services. After the Israeli destruction of southern Lebanon, Hezbollah was much quicker to come to the aid of displaced peoiple than the Lebanese government. Ordinary people in Hamas- and Hezbollah-controlled regions don't necessarily want the destruction of the Jewish state; they just want health care when they're sick. Is that entirely unreasonable?
In many ways, Hamas and Hezbollah are just like the Mafia. Outsiders see them as violent thugs. But they provide a social stability and safety net that would otherwise be lacking. Yes, that stability comes at the cost of silence and de facto complicity with a criminal organization. However, if only other alternative is to let your relative die of illness due to lack of government-provided health care, most people would choose the same unpleasant option.
***
Another great example of this is in Somalia. Given the recent Islamist takeover of the pseudo-country, Foreign Policy has a good analysis of why such fundamentalist regimes are often popular when they take over (think Iran's Ayatollahs, the Taliban, etc). It's not because the people necessarily desire theocracy. It's because they yearn for law and order and stability and, after years of chaos, will naturally gravitate toward anyone who can provide it.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Labor Day
Since today is Labor Day in North America, I wanted to take this opportunity to mark the holiday. Labor Day was created not as a symbolic last day of summer but to honor the contributions of working men and women. The holiday was created by the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity and well-being of our country.
We can thank labor unions for many things most (admittedly not all) North American workers of today take for granted, whether they are unionized or not. Such as worker safety regulations, workmen's compensation laws, overtime pay, company-provided benefits and the weekend.
We can thank labor unions for many things most (admittedly not all) North American workers of today take for granted, whether they are unionized or not. Such as worker safety regulations, workmen's compensation laws, overtime pay, company-provided benefits and the weekend.
Vanishing moderates, vanishing hope
Mohammad Khatami was a moderate who served eight years as Iran's head of state. His reformist efforts were consistently undermined by the conservative theocratic clergy and judiciary which really controls the country. He eschewed the anti-American vitriol favored by some of his predecessors and his successor. In short, he's exactly the kind of leader we should want more of in the Middle East (since in most other countries, the president has power).
Khatami recently stated the obvious: the policies of the Bush administration have only served to create a greater terrorist threat. It has only fanned the flames of Islamic extremism, something that benefits neither Khatami and other moderates in the Middle East nor Americans and other westerners.
"The policies of the neo-conservatives have created a war that creates more extremists and radicals," he told the UK Independent in Chicago. "The events of 9/11 gave them this ability to create fear and anxiety ... and to create new policies of their own and now events are creating an expansion of extremists on both sides. A struggle is under way to dominate this world multilaterally ... We are a witness to war - with suppression from one side and extremist reaction in the form of terror from the other."
Khatami recently stated the obvious: the policies of the Bush administration have only served to create a greater terrorist threat. It has only fanned the flames of Islamic extremism, something that benefits neither Khatami and other moderates in the Middle East nor Americans and other westerners.
"The policies of the neo-conservatives have created a war that creates more extremists and radicals," he told the UK Independent in Chicago. "The events of 9/11 gave them this ability to create fear and anxiety ... and to create new policies of their own and now events are creating an expansion of extremists on both sides. A struggle is under way to dominate this world multilaterally ... We are a witness to war - with suppression from one side and extremist reaction in the form of terror from the other."
Saturday, September 02, 2006
The junior senator from New York
It's very rare that my hometown makes it into a big national newspaper, especially a west coast one. So I was surprised to see the byline Glens Falls, NY on a Los Angeles Times article.
The LAT did a piece on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the prospects for her presumed run for the White House in 2008.
The article points out that while she's seen nationally as a staunch liberal, in the state she represents, many see her as a bipartisan problem-solver who has never seen an issue too parochial for her concern.
Contrary to her image as a paragon of all liberal causes, Clinton the senator has been a typical corporate Democrat. This is hardly surprising. Her career was that of a corporate lawyer and she was on the board of directors for Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation.
Nevertheless, the Hillary case is quite complex. There is probably no politician in America, with the possible exception of the president, who has a smaller 'undecided' rating in the polls. Everyone either loves her or hates her.
The right will always hate her because of her role in her husband's administration. She tried to revamp health care (which pissed off the right) with a proposal that didn't really change much (which pissed off the left) and tried to do it all in secret (which pissed off everybody).
Some of the left opposes her for her enabling of and continued support for the Iraq aggression. Many suspect that in her brain, she knew it was a terrible idea but didn't have the guts to do what was right because she feared her presidential chances. Now that her support for Iraq is weakening because the aggression is increasingly unpopular among the public, that only appears to confirm such suspicions.
Many feminists will blindly support her for various reasons. They rationalize that
anyone who dislikes her must do so because she's a successful woman. Others feel that she was the real victim of the Republican sexual witchhunt that impeached her husband.
Such ardent feminist support for Mrs. Clinton baffles me. After all, her rise to prominence was based almost entirely on who her husband was. This seems the antithesis of feminist ideals.
While she is certainly very intelligent and driven and politically skilled, would she have gone from a corporate law firm in Little Rock to the US Senate from Westchester County, NY if her husband had been a schoolteacher or bus driver? Possibly, but it would've taken a lot longer.
Of course, having powerful relatives is often a vehicle for political careers. Just ask the current president. But at least the current president doesn't profess any belief in meritocracy. Mrs. Clinton is a feminist icon.
It baffles me that Democrats think she is their best chance of recapturing the White House in 2008. No matter how much of a corporatist senator she is, a good chunk of the nation will always see her as an evil feminist.
Her support is just as fanatical as her opposition and a Republican like McCain will be happy to present himself as a unifying alternative to the divisive Clinton.
Then, being divisive got Bush eight years in the White House so maybe that's the strategy she'll follow instead.
First, she has to win re-election to the Senate. It seems like a pretty good bet. The corporate media is ignoring Jonathan Tasini, her anti-war primary challenger as well as her Green opponent Howie Hawkins. The Republicans in the race have run two of the most farcical campaigns ever waged for statewide office on a major party line.
There was hope that Tasini might be able to pull off an upset like Ned Lamont did in neighboring Connecticut. After all, Lamont and Tasini were both anti-war challengers to pro-war corporate incumbents. Both New York and Connecticut are resolutely blue states where the war is highly unpopular.
But there have been some major differences. One, Lamont has money. He is a cable executive; Tasini is a consultant. As a result, Lamont was able to buy a lot of publicity which in turn leads to free publiclity in the lemming news media. Tasini has been able to do neither. The other is that blind support of Hillary by a good chunk of liberals. Lieberman was always to insufferably self-righteous to engender such loyalty.
Sen. Clinton has refused to debate Tasini. This is a typical strategy from an incumbent. But more disgustingly, it was enabled by the Time Warner channel NY1. NY1 refused to host a debate between the two Democrats because Tasini had not raised enough money.
According to them, a candidate must raise $500,000 AND be at least 5 percent in the polls. Tasini was at 13 percent, but hadn't raised enough money.
By contrast, NY1 did allow Tom Suozzi to participate in a gubenatorial debate against front running Democrat Attorney General Elliot Spitzer. Suozzi was at only 9 percent in the polls, well below Tasini's 13 percent. But since Suozzi had raised a lot of money, the Time Warner channel allowed him to debate.
This is a great example of how the corporate media ignore not only smaller party candidates, but even candidates within the biggest parties.
Why was NY1 afraid to allow Tasini to debate? Why are the rules rigged against candidates without huge campaign war chests? Do they want to disqualify anyone who doesn't have a ton of money to spend on commercials on NY1?
Presumably, the Time Warner channel would say they have such rules to prevent debates which are so large and unwieldy as to be useless. They may say that they want to keep out 'fringe' candidates; but they may not say, even though it might be their goal, because they want to pretend to objectivity, they want pretend they 'don't make news, just report it.'
This is a bogus argument.
There are only two Democratic candidates for US Senate. Surely, NY1 knows how to handle a two person debate. A guy at 13 percent is a heavy underdog but if his ideas actually get press exposure, who knows if he'd win or not.
Furthermore, state election law requires candidates to receive a large number of petition signatures just to get on the ballot in the first place. These regulations alone would prevent huge, unwieldy debates.
I wonder if Time Warner being a big campaign contributor to Clinton's campaign has anything to do with it.
The LAT did a piece on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the prospects for her presumed run for the White House in 2008.
The article points out that while she's seen nationally as a staunch liberal, in the state she represents, many see her as a bipartisan problem-solver who has never seen an issue too parochial for her concern.
Contrary to her image as a paragon of all liberal causes, Clinton the senator has been a typical corporate Democrat. This is hardly surprising. Her career was that of a corporate lawyer and she was on the board of directors for Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation.
Nevertheless, the Hillary case is quite complex. There is probably no politician in America, with the possible exception of the president, who has a smaller 'undecided' rating in the polls. Everyone either loves her or hates her.
The right will always hate her because of her role in her husband's administration. She tried to revamp health care (which pissed off the right) with a proposal that didn't really change much (which pissed off the left) and tried to do it all in secret (which pissed off everybody).
Some of the left opposes her for her enabling of and continued support for the Iraq aggression. Many suspect that in her brain, she knew it was a terrible idea but didn't have the guts to do what was right because she feared her presidential chances. Now that her support for Iraq is weakening because the aggression is increasingly unpopular among the public, that only appears to confirm such suspicions.
Many feminists will blindly support her for various reasons. They rationalize that
anyone who dislikes her must do so because she's a successful woman. Others feel that she was the real victim of the Republican sexual witchhunt that impeached her husband.
Such ardent feminist support for Mrs. Clinton baffles me. After all, her rise to prominence was based almost entirely on who her husband was. This seems the antithesis of feminist ideals.
While she is certainly very intelligent and driven and politically skilled, would she have gone from a corporate law firm in Little Rock to the US Senate from Westchester County, NY if her husband had been a schoolteacher or bus driver? Possibly, but it would've taken a lot longer.
Of course, having powerful relatives is often a vehicle for political careers. Just ask the current president. But at least the current president doesn't profess any belief in meritocracy. Mrs. Clinton is a feminist icon.
It baffles me that Democrats think she is their best chance of recapturing the White House in 2008. No matter how much of a corporatist senator she is, a good chunk of the nation will always see her as an evil feminist.
Her support is just as fanatical as her opposition and a Republican like McCain will be happy to present himself as a unifying alternative to the divisive Clinton.
Then, being divisive got Bush eight years in the White House so maybe that's the strategy she'll follow instead.
First, she has to win re-election to the Senate. It seems like a pretty good bet. The corporate media is ignoring Jonathan Tasini, her anti-war primary challenger as well as her Green opponent Howie Hawkins. The Republicans in the race have run two of the most farcical campaigns ever waged for statewide office on a major party line.
There was hope that Tasini might be able to pull off an upset like Ned Lamont did in neighboring Connecticut. After all, Lamont and Tasini were both anti-war challengers to pro-war corporate incumbents. Both New York and Connecticut are resolutely blue states where the war is highly unpopular.
But there have been some major differences. One, Lamont has money. He is a cable executive; Tasini is a consultant. As a result, Lamont was able to buy a lot of publicity which in turn leads to free publiclity in the lemming news media. Tasini has been able to do neither. The other is that blind support of Hillary by a good chunk of liberals. Lieberman was always to insufferably self-righteous to engender such loyalty.
Sen. Clinton has refused to debate Tasini. This is a typical strategy from an incumbent. But more disgustingly, it was enabled by the Time Warner channel NY1. NY1 refused to host a debate between the two Democrats because Tasini had not raised enough money.
According to them, a candidate must raise $500,000 AND be at least 5 percent in the polls. Tasini was at 13 percent, but hadn't raised enough money.
By contrast, NY1 did allow Tom Suozzi to participate in a gubenatorial debate against front running Democrat Attorney General Elliot Spitzer. Suozzi was at only 9 percent in the polls, well below Tasini's 13 percent. But since Suozzi had raised a lot of money, the Time Warner channel allowed him to debate.
This is a great example of how the corporate media ignore not only smaller party candidates, but even candidates within the biggest parties.
Why was NY1 afraid to allow Tasini to debate? Why are the rules rigged against candidates without huge campaign war chests? Do they want to disqualify anyone who doesn't have a ton of money to spend on commercials on NY1?
Presumably, the Time Warner channel would say they have such rules to prevent debates which are so large and unwieldy as to be useless. They may say that they want to keep out 'fringe' candidates; but they may not say, even though it might be their goal, because they want to pretend to objectivity, they want pretend they 'don't make news, just report it.'
This is a bogus argument.
There are only two Democratic candidates for US Senate. Surely, NY1 knows how to handle a two person debate. A guy at 13 percent is a heavy underdog but if his ideas actually get press exposure, who knows if he'd win or not.
Furthermore, state election law requires candidates to receive a large number of petition signatures just to get on the ballot in the first place. These regulations alone would prevent huge, unwieldy debates.
I wonder if Time Warner being a big campaign contributor to Clinton's campaign has anything to do with it.
Friday, September 01, 2006
I Spy
Some might think that there are frosty relations between the US and Zimbabawe's strongman Robert Mugabe. Don't forget that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice referred to Mugabe's regime as an 'outpost of tyranny.'
But maybe when all is said and done, maybe the Bush administration has more influence on Harare than anyone realizes. After all, where do you think Mugabe got this inspiration for this?
But maybe when all is said and done, maybe the Bush administration has more influence on Harare than anyone realizes. After all, where do you think Mugabe got this inspiration for this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)