I was amused to read the match report of yesterday's English Premier League (EPL) soccer match between Sheffield United and Blackburn Rovers. The match finished goalless but three penalties were awarded (two to Sheffield Utd), all of which were saved by the goalkeepers. It's not surprising that there was controversy in this match. Blackburn is the dirtiest team in the EPL and United's Neil Warnock is one of the two most obnoxious managers in the league.
The reactions of the two bosses:
Warnock: "Obviously I thought ours were penalties and theirs wasn't."
(Obviously. We can't expect managers to be intellectually honest.)
Blackburn manager Mark Hughes: "We are pleased that the two penalties have not cost us because I think the decisions were poor."
Both managers thought the ref got it wrong on every key decision (except the ones that went in their favor).
Referee bashing has been endemic in all sports since forever. But it seems to be getting worse.
It's ironic because the culture of English soccer PLAY is one of rough, rugged, macho tough guys. But the EPL's managers are some of the most obnoxious snivelling whiners in all of sport. It baffles me why English fans turning on players who are crying babies but say little about EPL managers (well British ones anyways; they readily go after a certain Portugese one) who pull the very same crap.
This is disturbing because English soccer is unfortunately the biggest influence on the American soccer culture. Fortunately, this garbage hasn't plagued Major League Soccer too much. Let's hope it stays that way.
The EPL, like most big soccer leagues, requires managers or coaches to talk to the media after games. But since more and more bosses have nothing to say except the ref cheated them, maybe rather than mandating such press conferences, the league should ban them instead.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Network follies
I was visiting my parents earlier this week. They watched both ABC and CBS evening news. I don't have much regard for TV news but I watched it with them just because I was there.
ABC had a segment on the controversial 9/11 'docudrama' they are airing. Apparently, they got some central facts wrong. What's worse is that they appear to have done so intentionally and are rightly taking heat for it.
For example, they aired a scene where a CIA agent had Osama bin Laden in his crosshairs but Pres.Clinton's national security advisor pulled the plug at the last second.
One problem: that never happened.
ABC claims that the film is based on the 9/11 Commission Report. But the 9/11 Commission Report said it didn't happen, that Osama was never in anyone's crosshairs.
ABC Entertainment responded to these accusations with a shrug. It's not a documentary, it's a docudrama. They didn't even pretend to say the scenes in question were anything close to accurate.
A docudrama is not a documentary but a one that claims to be based on a factual document should remain reasonably faithful to that document. They don't have to get everything exactly correct but they have to get the main parts correct.
If then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright were wearing a blue suit and drinking a cup of coffee in a particular meeting and the film showed her wearing a red suit and drinking a can of Coke, this wouldn't be a big deal. But getting facts central to the story incorrect and then hiding behind some notion of artistic license (after claiming that the film is based on a document)? Ethically, this is dubious.
What if the film had shown a scene where Pres. Bush ordered the CIA to commit the terrorist attacks? What if the film had car bombs blowing up the Space Needle and Dodger Stadium as the central events of 9/11? Wouldn't people have been outraged? Would that have been within fair artistic license?
Some will say that the film is fictionalized, just like the West Wing, so anything's fair game. But there are some big differences. West Wing was often inspired by real events, but storylines were fictionalized, other countries were usually fictionalized and people's names were fictionalized. The main character wasn't Pres. Clinton or Pres. Bush, it was Pres. Bartlet.
By using real people's names and having them do things they didn't really do (especially while claiming that the film is based on a document), ABC is veering uncomfortably close to criminal defamation.
I don't have any problem with the film showing mistakes made by the Clinton administration in not sufficiently dealing with Islamic extremism. But if the Clintonites really did make so many mistakes, then ABC surely could've designed the film in such a way that central facts were respected while still getting their point across. Especially since they claim the film was based on a document.
Given that key scenes in the film are now known to be demonstrably false, I don't know how anyone can take the rest seriously. Any purported educational value pretended by ABC is now nul and void.
***
Then, I watched the new CBS News with Katie Couric. I was hardly inspired but I didn't expect to be. They had a segment called Free Speech, which is a random person making a brief opinion discourse on a topic of their choice. The segment I saw had Rush Limbaugh. This segment has potential but only if done differently.
First, the segment is only 60-90 seconds long. In order for the segment to have any value, it needs to be at least a few minutes long in order for the speaker to venture away from predictable soundbites and into, gasp, nuance. I know that's an eternity on the network news but if they're not going to do it right, why bother.
I was also disappointed with the choice of Limbaugh for two reasons. I have no problem with putting an avowed conservative on, but why put on someone so partisan and shrill? If 'Free Speech' is going to be any different from the plethora of yap shows, then it must eschew speakers with that mentality. Spare us the Limbaughs. Spare us the Jim Carvilles and Michael Moores and Ann Coulters and their lame, predictable soundbites. When I listen to these people, not only do I not learn anything, but I feel myself actually getting stupider.
The other problem I have with the choice of Limbaugh is that he already has a long daily radio show that's aired on tons of radio stations across the country. People like him and Al Franken and others already have a medium to reach a huge audience with their opinions. Give us someone new and fresh. You want someone to argue that the 'war on terror' must be supported unconditionally? Isn't there some college professor, think tank person or retired ambassador without their own broadcast show who could make that case?
If this is going to be yet another vehicle for establishment people to express their establishment opinions, then it will be a waste of time. But it can also be a chance for intelligent, well-spoken people without a national profile to get exposure for their ideas.
It all depends on what CBS does with it.
Update: This guy has a great piece pointing out how even many conservatives have criticized the shortcomings of ABC's 9/11 'docudrama.' Even Bill O'Reilly, a person more normally associated with deceit and the other worst traits of modern 'punditry,' is critical. Given the hyperideological times and the hyperpoliticized event in question, it's nice to know that even some of the most partisan warriors can put aside their ideology for a moment and retain a shred of intellectual honesty. Too bad this can't be the rule in public discourse rather than the exception.
ABC had a segment on the controversial 9/11 'docudrama' they are airing. Apparently, they got some central facts wrong. What's worse is that they appear to have done so intentionally and are rightly taking heat for it.
For example, they aired a scene where a CIA agent had Osama bin Laden in his crosshairs but Pres.Clinton's national security advisor pulled the plug at the last second.
One problem: that never happened.
ABC claims that the film is based on the 9/11 Commission Report. But the 9/11 Commission Report said it didn't happen, that Osama was never in anyone's crosshairs.
ABC Entertainment responded to these accusations with a shrug. It's not a documentary, it's a docudrama. They didn't even pretend to say the scenes in question were anything close to accurate.
A docudrama is not a documentary but a one that claims to be based on a factual document should remain reasonably faithful to that document. They don't have to get everything exactly correct but they have to get the main parts correct.
If then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright were wearing a blue suit and drinking a cup of coffee in a particular meeting and the film showed her wearing a red suit and drinking a can of Coke, this wouldn't be a big deal. But getting facts central to the story incorrect and then hiding behind some notion of artistic license (after claiming that the film is based on a document)? Ethically, this is dubious.
What if the film had shown a scene where Pres. Bush ordered the CIA to commit the terrorist attacks? What if the film had car bombs blowing up the Space Needle and Dodger Stadium as the central events of 9/11? Wouldn't people have been outraged? Would that have been within fair artistic license?
Some will say that the film is fictionalized, just like the West Wing, so anything's fair game. But there are some big differences. West Wing was often inspired by real events, but storylines were fictionalized, other countries were usually fictionalized and people's names were fictionalized. The main character wasn't Pres. Clinton or Pres. Bush, it was Pres. Bartlet.
By using real people's names and having them do things they didn't really do (especially while claiming that the film is based on a document), ABC is veering uncomfortably close to criminal defamation.
I don't have any problem with the film showing mistakes made by the Clinton administration in not sufficiently dealing with Islamic extremism. But if the Clintonites really did make so many mistakes, then ABC surely could've designed the film in such a way that central facts were respected while still getting their point across. Especially since they claim the film was based on a document.
Given that key scenes in the film are now known to be demonstrably false, I don't know how anyone can take the rest seriously. Any purported educational value pretended by ABC is now nul and void.
***
Then, I watched the new CBS News with Katie Couric. I was hardly inspired but I didn't expect to be. They had a segment called Free Speech, which is a random person making a brief opinion discourse on a topic of their choice. The segment I saw had Rush Limbaugh. This segment has potential but only if done differently.
First, the segment is only 60-90 seconds long. In order for the segment to have any value, it needs to be at least a few minutes long in order for the speaker to venture away from predictable soundbites and into, gasp, nuance. I know that's an eternity on the network news but if they're not going to do it right, why bother.
I was also disappointed with the choice of Limbaugh for two reasons. I have no problem with putting an avowed conservative on, but why put on someone so partisan and shrill? If 'Free Speech' is going to be any different from the plethora of yap shows, then it must eschew speakers with that mentality. Spare us the Limbaughs. Spare us the Jim Carvilles and Michael Moores and Ann Coulters and their lame, predictable soundbites. When I listen to these people, not only do I not learn anything, but I feel myself actually getting stupider.
The other problem I have with the choice of Limbaugh is that he already has a long daily radio show that's aired on tons of radio stations across the country. People like him and Al Franken and others already have a medium to reach a huge audience with their opinions. Give us someone new and fresh. You want someone to argue that the 'war on terror' must be supported unconditionally? Isn't there some college professor, think tank person or retired ambassador without their own broadcast show who could make that case?
If this is going to be yet another vehicle for establishment people to express their establishment opinions, then it will be a waste of time. But it can also be a chance for intelligent, well-spoken people without a national profile to get exposure for their ideas.
It all depends on what CBS does with it.
Update: This guy has a great piece pointing out how even many conservatives have criticized the shortcomings of ABC's 9/11 'docudrama.' Even Bill O'Reilly, a person more normally associated with deceit and the other worst traits of modern 'punditry,' is critical. Given the hyperideological times and the hyperpoliticized event in question, it's nice to know that even some of the most partisan warriors can put aside their ideology for a moment and retain a shred of intellectual honesty. Too bad this can't be the rule in public discourse rather than the exception.
Are you now, or have you ever been, a homosexual? (pt. 2)
This essay is part of a (more or less) weekly feature on this 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, Iraq and Iran*. (*-added on the suggestion of a reader)
Sexual McCarthyism is alive and well in many parts of Africa. Sure, homosexual acts are banned in most African countries but it's more than that. After all, private sexual acts between consenting, unrelated adults of the same gender were illegal in some parts of the US until only a few years ago. In some African countries, things are much worse for gays and lesbians.
Nigeria's government, supposedly led by one of Africa's statesmen, is actually trying to ban free speech for gay rights activists. Zimbabwe's dictator Robert Mugabe and former Namibian president Sam Nujoma have angrily compared gays to pigs and dogs; both are former leaders of 'liberation' movements.
Earlier this year, Cameroon launched a gay witchhunt by publishing the names of alleged homosexuals.
A few days ago, a Ugandan paper has done the same thing. This is a troubling devlopment in a country run by a strongman who's also used vitriolic language to regularly denounce homosexual men and women.
"For years, President Yoweri Museveni's government routinely threatens and vilifies lesbians and gays, and subjects sexual rights activists to harassment," said [Human Rights' Watch's] Jessica Stern.
When not confronted by official government harassment and state sponsored homophobia, many gays and lesbians in Africa are subject to violence and even death at the hands of 'vigilantes'.
Sexual McCarthyism is alive and well in many parts of Africa. Sure, homosexual acts are banned in most African countries but it's more than that. After all, private sexual acts between consenting, unrelated adults of the same gender were illegal in some parts of the US until only a few years ago. In some African countries, things are much worse for gays and lesbians.
Nigeria's government, supposedly led by one of Africa's statesmen, is actually trying to ban free speech for gay rights activists. Zimbabwe's dictator Robert Mugabe and former Namibian president Sam Nujoma have angrily compared gays to pigs and dogs; both are former leaders of 'liberation' movements.
Earlier this year, Cameroon launched a gay witchhunt by publishing the names of alleged homosexuals.
A few days ago, a Ugandan paper has done the same thing. This is a troubling devlopment in a country run by a strongman who's also used vitriolic language to regularly denounce homosexual men and women.
"For years, President Yoweri Museveni's government routinely threatens and vilifies lesbians and gays, and subjects sexual rights activists to harassment," said [Human Rights' Watch's] Jessica Stern.
When not confronted by official government harassment and state sponsored homophobia, many gays and lesbians in Africa are subject to violence and even death at the hands of 'vigilantes'.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Green candidate for NY governor to visit Glens Falls
Matt reports:
Contact: Matt Funiciello (518) 361 - 6278 or mattfuniciello@earthlink.net
September 6, 2006 - Local progressive and Green Party activist Matt Funiciello announced today that Green Party candidate for New York State Governor Malachy McCourt will be in Glens Falls to perform his one man show “You Don’t Have to Be Irish to Vote For Me” at the Wood Theater at 8pm on Saturday, September 23, 2006. A mystery guest will introduce McCourt.
On August 22, 2006 the Green Party of NY State filed about 30,000 signatures - twice the number required - to place Malachy McCourt and the GPNYS Peace Slate on the ballot for November 7th.
McCourt’s Patriots for Peace campaign offers an alternative to the bankrupt campaign of negativity and fear mongering by his opponents. Among his proposals are plans to bring the New York National Guard home from Iraq.
“There is no such thing as a just war because in all wars, the majority of people who are killed are innocent. We need to resolve our differences and difficulties by peaceful methods,” McCourt said.
McCourt also seeks to abolish the Death Penalty in New York once and for all, will pursue the elimination of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. He believes in healthcare for all New Yorkers, ridding New York State of its old and dangerous nuclear power plants, curbing global warming, and legalizing same-sex marriage.
McCourt is a longtime activist, author of the NY Times bestseller A Monk Swimming, and brother of Angela's Ashes author Frank McCourt. He is a well-known radio host on WBAI 99.5 FM/Pacifica Radio in New York City. He is highly regarded by progressives for the stand he took for justice by marching in the alternative Queens St. Pat’s for All Parade, the response to the traditional NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade which excludes the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender community.
Tickets for the event will be available for $20 each in advance at either Rock Hill Cafe or at High Peaks Java. If the show is not sold out, tickets will also be available at the door. All proceeds will be used to support the McCourt campaign.
Adirondack Progressives is a group of local Independents, and members of the Green, Democratic and Republican parties interested in fostering a local dialogue on today’s most important issues. For more information on the McCourt campaign see: www.malachyforgovernor.com
Contact: Matt Funiciello (518) 361 - 6278 or mattfuniciello@earthlink.net
September 6, 2006 - Local progressive and Green Party activist Matt Funiciello announced today that Green Party candidate for New York State Governor Malachy McCourt will be in Glens Falls to perform his one man show “You Don’t Have to Be Irish to Vote For Me” at the Wood Theater at 8pm on Saturday, September 23, 2006. A mystery guest will introduce McCourt.
On August 22, 2006 the Green Party of NY State filed about 30,000 signatures - twice the number required - to place Malachy McCourt and the GPNYS Peace Slate on the ballot for November 7th.
McCourt’s Patriots for Peace campaign offers an alternative to the bankrupt campaign of negativity and fear mongering by his opponents. Among his proposals are plans to bring the New York National Guard home from Iraq.
“There is no such thing as a just war because in all wars, the majority of people who are killed are innocent. We need to resolve our differences and difficulties by peaceful methods,” McCourt said.
McCourt also seeks to abolish the Death Penalty in New York once and for all, will pursue the elimination of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. He believes in healthcare for all New Yorkers, ridding New York State of its old and dangerous nuclear power plants, curbing global warming, and legalizing same-sex marriage.
McCourt is a longtime activist, author of the NY Times bestseller A Monk Swimming, and brother of Angela's Ashes author Frank McCourt. He is a well-known radio host on WBAI 99.5 FM/Pacifica Radio in New York City. He is highly regarded by progressives for the stand he took for justice by marching in the alternative Queens St. Pat’s for All Parade, the response to the traditional NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade which excludes the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender community.
Tickets for the event will be available for $20 each in advance at either Rock Hill Cafe or at High Peaks Java. If the show is not sold out, tickets will also be available at the door. All proceeds will be used to support the McCourt campaign.
Adirondack Progressives is a group of local Independents, and members of the Green, Democratic and Republican parties interested in fostering a local dialogue on today’s most important issues. For more information on the McCourt campaign see: www.malachyforgovernor.com
Huzzah for the 'culture of life' (pt. 239)
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)