There were three main reasons offered in 2003 by President Bush and his apologists for why the US should invade Iraq.
1) Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that might harm America
2) Saddam's regime was buddy-buddy with al-Qaeda
3) Saddam was an evil dictator who murdered and tortured his own people.
There were other minor reasons offered, but no one could seriously argue that Americans would've backed an invasion based solely on the premise that Saddam did not adhere to the letter of the Gulf War ceasefire.
So these were the three reasons offered and repeated ad nauseum by the president and his cronies for the unprovoked aggression against Iraq.
The first two were discredited long ago, as I explained earlier.
But at least Saddam's regime is gone and people are no longer subject to widespread torture.
Oops, wrong again.
Maybe these guys are just putting into practice 'alternative interrogation practices'.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Mandela named 'Ambassador of Conscience'
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)
I was pleased to read that Nelson Mandela is going to receive an Ambassador of Conscience award, Amnesty International's highest honor. Mandela is probably one of the two or three greatest leaders of the 20th century. Not in Africa, but in the world.
South Africa is now the most important country in Africa, politically and economically. It has a stable government which respects the rule of law. But it's important to remember that this was not inevitable.
South Africa in the early and mid-90s was a very violent place. Brutality sponsored by the apartheid state was rampant before the country's first multiracial elections in 1994. Cynical, exploitative local politicians made things worse. The country could very easily have exploded into a full-fledged civil war among the black population. There could have been a genocide or massacres against South Africa's white Afrikaans' population. Or by them. After Mandela's ANC won the elections, the party could've purged the civil service of whites or stripped whites of citizenship or instituted apartheid in reverse.
Mandela wasn't the only African liberation leader to take power with great promise. When he became the country's prime minister in 1980, fellow liberation struggler Robert Mugabe was praised for his moderate, visionary leadership of Zimbabwe. But in Mugabe's case, this was a ruse. Three years later, after international attention had moved away from Zimbabawe, Mugabe launched a genocide against the southern Ndebele people, who largely opposed his regime. His more recent atrocities are well-documented.
Ghana's Kwame N'Krumah and particularly Guinea's Sékou Touré were other independence leaders originally hailed as visionaries, who quickly became drunk with power after the international media focus shifted elsewhere.
This could've happened in South Africa. But it didn't. And that was due largely to the moral leadership of Nelson Mandela and the respect shown by his party members and by South Africans in general.
Twelve years after independence, N'Krumah had been overthrown by a military coup.
Twelve years after independence, Touré launched the first of several major purges against the Peul people.
Twelve years after liberation, South Africa's judiciary threw out corruption charges against a former ally turned rival of the president.
Sékou Touré would've just thrown him in Camp Boiro and let him starve to death. More prominent men suffered the same fate.
Why has South Africa turned out differently? Partly it was because the anti-apartheid struggle was internationalized in a way that the the 1950s anti-colonial struggles (Algeria excepted) were not. So its moral component was more heavily emphasized and thus harder to ignore once liberation was achieved. Additionally, we live in a much different era than in the 1960s when coups, wars and genocides in distant lands might pass without notice.
But partly it was because of the moral leadership of Nelson Mandela. In an era where it's easy to be cynical about politicians, it's reassuring to know that the rare statesman still exists. I can think of no one more deserving of this award.
I was pleased to read that Nelson Mandela is going to receive an Ambassador of Conscience award, Amnesty International's highest honor. Mandela is probably one of the two or three greatest leaders of the 20th century. Not in Africa, but in the world.
South Africa is now the most important country in Africa, politically and economically. It has a stable government which respects the rule of law. But it's important to remember that this was not inevitable.
South Africa in the early and mid-90s was a very violent place. Brutality sponsored by the apartheid state was rampant before the country's first multiracial elections in 1994. Cynical, exploitative local politicians made things worse. The country could very easily have exploded into a full-fledged civil war among the black population. There could have been a genocide or massacres against South Africa's white Afrikaans' population. Or by them. After Mandela's ANC won the elections, the party could've purged the civil service of whites or stripped whites of citizenship or instituted apartheid in reverse.
Mandela wasn't the only African liberation leader to take power with great promise. When he became the country's prime minister in 1980, fellow liberation struggler Robert Mugabe was praised for his moderate, visionary leadership of Zimbabwe. But in Mugabe's case, this was a ruse. Three years later, after international attention had moved away from Zimbabawe, Mugabe launched a genocide against the southern Ndebele people, who largely opposed his regime. His more recent atrocities are well-documented.
Ghana's Kwame N'Krumah and particularly Guinea's Sékou Touré were other independence leaders originally hailed as visionaries, who quickly became drunk with power after the international media focus shifted elsewhere.
This could've happened in South Africa. But it didn't. And that was due largely to the moral leadership of Nelson Mandela and the respect shown by his party members and by South Africans in general.
Twelve years after independence, N'Krumah had been overthrown by a military coup.
Twelve years after independence, Touré launched the first of several major purges against the Peul people.
Twelve years after liberation, South Africa's judiciary threw out corruption charges against a former ally turned rival of the president.
Sékou Touré would've just thrown him in Camp Boiro and let him starve to death. More prominent men suffered the same fate.
Why has South Africa turned out differently? Partly it was because the anti-apartheid struggle was internationalized in a way that the the 1950s anti-colonial struggles (Algeria excepted) were not. So its moral component was more heavily emphasized and thus harder to ignore once liberation was achieved. Additionally, we live in a much different era than in the 1960s when coups, wars and genocides in distant lands might pass without notice.
But partly it was because of the moral leadership of Nelson Mandela. In an era where it's easy to be cynical about politicians, it's reassuring to know that the rare statesman still exists. I can think of no one more deserving of this award.
Friday, September 22, 2006
A 'more hopeful' world ruled by peaceful militarists
Another feature of President Bush's address to the UN was him pretending to be a benevolent peacemaker, a beacon of light to rival Mandela and Gandhi.
He used the phrases "a more hopeful alternative," "a more hopeful future" (twice), "a bright future," "a more tolerant and hopeful society" and "a more hopeful world" to describe what he claims to advance and support.
"Our goal is to help you build a more tolerant and hopeful society that honors people of all faiths and promote the peace," he said, adding that every country should want, "A free society where people live at peace with each other and at peace with the world."
In the last five years, this man who wants 'peace with the world':
-Has invaded Afghanistan (the only action that might remotely be close to justifiable)
-Has launched an unprovoked invasion of Iraq and ignited a civil war (even the Marine intelligence chief has said that there is almost nothing the military can do to slow the chaos in western Iraq.
-Incessantly used belligerent rhetoric against Iran and refused to exclude military action against the country (thus further encouraging them to develop nuclear weapons if they weren't doing so already or to accelerate their development if they were)
-Blindly supported Israeli destruction of southern Lebanon
-Said he'd be willing to send troops to Pakistan, even though his buddy Gen. Musharaff has said his government would vehemently oppose such a violation of his country's sovereignty. In fact, one of the administration's highest ranking officials allegedly* threatened to bomb Pakistan 'back to the Stone Age.'
All of these are Muslim countries. While the president claims he's not at war with Islam, and that might not even be his intent, it's pretty easy to see how Muslims might think otherwise. Some non-Muslim countries suffer under brutal dictatorships. I'm sure Zimbabweans, Equatorian Guineans and Burmese would love "a more hopeful future." But Bush has never talked about western military intervention against any of them.
If all of this belligerence and unprovoked militarism fits his definition of 'hopeful,' then no wonder the president has screwed up the world so badly.
*-Update: For the record, I saw Armitage on CNN and he denied ever making such a comment.
He used the phrases "a more hopeful alternative," "a more hopeful future" (twice), "a bright future," "a more tolerant and hopeful society" and "a more hopeful world" to describe what he claims to advance and support.
"Our goal is to help you build a more tolerant and hopeful society that honors people of all faiths and promote the peace," he said, adding that every country should want, "A free society where people live at peace with each other and at peace with the world."
In the last five years, this man who wants 'peace with the world':
-Has invaded Afghanistan (the only action that might remotely be close to justifiable)
-Has launched an unprovoked invasion of Iraq and ignited a civil war (even the Marine intelligence chief has said that there is almost nothing the military can do to slow the chaos in western Iraq.
-Incessantly used belligerent rhetoric against Iran and refused to exclude military action against the country (thus further encouraging them to develop nuclear weapons if they weren't doing so already or to accelerate their development if they were)
-Blindly supported Israeli destruction of southern Lebanon
-Said he'd be willing to send troops to Pakistan, even though his buddy Gen. Musharaff has said his government would vehemently oppose such a violation of his country's sovereignty. In fact, one of the administration's highest ranking officials allegedly* threatened to bomb Pakistan 'back to the Stone Age.'
All of these are Muslim countries. While the president claims he's not at war with Islam, and that might not even be his intent, it's pretty easy to see how Muslims might think otherwise. Some non-Muslim countries suffer under brutal dictatorships. I'm sure Zimbabweans, Equatorian Guineans and Burmese would love "a more hopeful future." But Bush has never talked about western military intervention against any of them.
If all of this belligerence and unprovoked militarism fits his definition of 'hopeful,' then no wonder the president has screwed up the world so badly.
*-Update: For the record, I saw Armitage on CNN and he denied ever making such a comment.
Beyond the first sentence
It's well known that President Bush is one of the most anti-UN leaders in the world, though his administration is not the only ones taking cheap shots at the organization: Bush buddy Hugo Chavez got in some jabs of his own.
Despite this emnity, Bush spoke to the international body earlier this week. It was a typical Bush speech. Everything was divided neatly into good and evil, black and white. Like most Bush addresses, it was compelling, provided you didn't actually think too hard about it or analyze the details.
In the speech, he talked mentioned the usual themes. He talked about the 'hopeful world' in which 'the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority.' Odd comments from someone whose policies achieve the exact opposite.
He pegged Afghanistan as part of the Middle East. But as we know, details are not his strong suit.
He said: Imagine what it's like to be a young person living in a country that is not moving toward reform. You're 21 years old, and while your peers in other parts of the world are casting their ballots for the first time, you are powerless to change the course of your government. While your peers in other parts of the world have received educations that prepare them for the opportunities of a global economy, you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings. And everywhere you turn, you hear extremists who tell you that you can escape your misery and regain your dignity through violence and terror and martyrdom. For many across the broader Middle East, this is the dismal choice presented every day.
He's absolutely right. Yet in the same speech, he praised dictatorial Egypt, where there's been a state of emergency for the last 25 years, and medieval Saudi Arabia as an agents of change. These two American allies, perhaps more than any other countries in the Middle East, exemplify the 'dismal choice' described by the president.
Like most Bush foreign policy speeches, this one was riddled with far more contradictions than I have time to detail. "Freedom, by its nature, cannot be imposed -- it must be chosen," was the most laughable. When have his actions ever demonstrated belief in that principle?
But one comment was particularly audacious.
The principles of this world beyond terror can be found in the very first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document declares that the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom and justice and peace in the world."
For Bush to invoke the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is galling, even by his standards.
But since he's not a details guy, perhaps the president didn't read much beyond the first sentence of the Universal Declaration, but you think he might've noticed the second: Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.
Or the fourth: Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations.
Because if he had read beyond the preamble, he might've noted:
Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 8: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11: (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Or perhaps, like the Geneva Convention, Bush thinks the Universal Declaration only applies to everyone else.
Despite this emnity, Bush spoke to the international body earlier this week. It was a typical Bush speech. Everything was divided neatly into good and evil, black and white. Like most Bush addresses, it was compelling, provided you didn't actually think too hard about it or analyze the details.
In the speech, he talked mentioned the usual themes. He talked about the 'hopeful world' in which 'the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority.' Odd comments from someone whose policies achieve the exact opposite.
He pegged Afghanistan as part of the Middle East. But as we know, details are not his strong suit.
He said: Imagine what it's like to be a young person living in a country that is not moving toward reform. You're 21 years old, and while your peers in other parts of the world are casting their ballots for the first time, you are powerless to change the course of your government. While your peers in other parts of the world have received educations that prepare them for the opportunities of a global economy, you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings. And everywhere you turn, you hear extremists who tell you that you can escape your misery and regain your dignity through violence and terror and martyrdom. For many across the broader Middle East, this is the dismal choice presented every day.
He's absolutely right. Yet in the same speech, he praised dictatorial Egypt, where there's been a state of emergency for the last 25 years, and medieval Saudi Arabia as an agents of change. These two American allies, perhaps more than any other countries in the Middle East, exemplify the 'dismal choice' described by the president.
Like most Bush foreign policy speeches, this one was riddled with far more contradictions than I have time to detail. "Freedom, by its nature, cannot be imposed -- it must be chosen," was the most laughable. When have his actions ever demonstrated belief in that principle?
But one comment was particularly audacious.
The principles of this world beyond terror can be found in the very first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document declares that the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom and justice and peace in the world."
For Bush to invoke the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is galling, even by his standards.
But since he's not a details guy, perhaps the president didn't read much beyond the first sentence of the Universal Declaration, but you think he might've noticed the second: Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.
Or the fourth: Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations.
Because if he had read beyond the preamble, he might've noted:
Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 8: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11: (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Or perhaps, like the Geneva Convention, Bush thinks the Universal Declaration only applies to everyone else.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
50 ways to clean up Albany
New York will elect a new governor this year. The new chief executive will almost certainly face a divided legislature, with Democrats virtually guaranteed to keep control of the Assembly and Republicans likely to retain a narrow majority in the Senate. Incumbent legislators almost never lose thanks to legalized (bipartisan) gerrymandering.
Earlier this year, the legislature passed a one-time token rebate (rather than structural reform) to the school portion of New York's onerously high property taxes. Legislators made sure the sending of the checks were held off until election season. Very recently, the state Department of Taxation and Finance wasted a bunch of money by destroying some 200,000 of these rebate checks. Their flaw? The checks didn't give enough credit to the legislature and outgoing Gov. George Pataki.
Such blatant political opportunism might be excused if New York didn't have the most dysfunctional legislature in the nation.
With such a sclerotic legislature, good government groups are focused on lobbying the gubenatorial candidates for reform. With virtually no transparency, secret slush funds and legalized gerrymandering corrupting both parties in the legislature, these good government groups are the de facto opposition and agents of change in Albany.
One of these groups, the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), has issued a report detailing 50 ways the new governor can clean up the mess in Albany. The recommendations include making the governor's budget more transparent, a very critical independent redistricting commission, restrictions on executive branch employees' political party activities and the creation of an independent ethics commission.
Because the legislature is so dysfunction, NYPIRG focused on changes that could be implemented via executive order, explained the group's director Blair Horner.
Good government groups insist that these changes can happen in 100 days if the new governor's political will is there.
Earlier this year, the legislature passed a one-time token rebate (rather than structural reform) to the school portion of New York's onerously high property taxes. Legislators made sure the sending of the checks were held off until election season. Very recently, the state Department of Taxation and Finance wasted a bunch of money by destroying some 200,000 of these rebate checks. Their flaw? The checks didn't give enough credit to the legislature and outgoing Gov. George Pataki.
Such blatant political opportunism might be excused if New York didn't have the most dysfunctional legislature in the nation.
With such a sclerotic legislature, good government groups are focused on lobbying the gubenatorial candidates for reform. With virtually no transparency, secret slush funds and legalized gerrymandering corrupting both parties in the legislature, these good government groups are the de facto opposition and agents of change in Albany.
One of these groups, the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), has issued a report detailing 50 ways the new governor can clean up the mess in Albany. The recommendations include making the governor's budget more transparent, a very critical independent redistricting commission, restrictions on executive branch employees' political party activities and the creation of an independent ethics commission.
Because the legislature is so dysfunction, NYPIRG focused on changes that could be implemented via executive order, explained the group's director Blair Horner.
Good government groups insist that these changes can happen in 100 days if the new governor's political will is there.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Commercial terrestrial radio's decline into irrelevance
The New York Times had a good piece on the decline of the commercial terrestrial radio industry.
The industry has changed dramatically since 1996. In that year, the Republican Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which almost completely deregulated the broadcast industry. President Clinton essentially completed the Reagan Revolution by signing this bill (along with the massive deregulation of the financial sector too.
After ownership restrictions were lifted, most commercial radio stations in the country were bought by a handful of huge media conglomerates, most notably Clear Channel. In my market, like many others, Clear Channel owns most of the radio stations you can find on the dial.
Increasing consolidation led to increasing homogeneity. Many stations ceased to be local and their programming was centrally or regionally controlled. There was an notorious case of a flood in one of the Midwest states, I believe, where municipal officials tried to call the local radio station only to find that there was no human being there to answer the phone. And do you think there's much chance of a Des Moines band getting play on a Des Moines station if the programming originates in Chicago?
In recent years, commercial radio has also been ruined by more and more ads. It's been even more contaminated by an avalanche of yap by inane hosts who think that listeners are actually more interested in their vapid banter than Lennon's lyrics. If you scan the radio dial in PM drive time, music is the exception not the rule; in the morning, it's virtually non-existent.
The increased sameness of programming and deteriorating quality may not have hurt the industry's bottom line in an earlier age but this has coincided with a dramatic increase in consumer choice of music delivery options.
There has always some private forms of music, from vinyl to CDs via cassettes. But digital music has dramatically increased consumer flexibility. Accessories can transform an iPod to a boombox. The Internet has led to tons online only radio stations. With podcasts, you're more likely to get a host who actually talks about the, gasp, music. Or not at all. Why would anyone suffer through commercial radio yammering when these options are available?
In the last few years, satellite radio has exploded: the two main services being Sirius (which I get) and XM. They each offer dozens of channels of music, also commercial free. Host banter is minimal. In the past, terrestrial radio might've competed with satellite on the basis that it was local, that it was homegrown. In most cases, that's no longer true.
It's telling that commercial terrestrial radio's quality has diminished so rapidly that people would rather spend a few hundred dollars for an MP3 player instead of forty bucks for an ordinary Walkman. Commercial terrestrial radio has so turned people off that they are now flocking to pay $12.95 a month for what they used to get for free.
The industry has changed dramatically since 1996. In that year, the Republican Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which almost completely deregulated the broadcast industry. President Clinton essentially completed the Reagan Revolution by signing this bill (along with the massive deregulation of the financial sector too.
After ownership restrictions were lifted, most commercial radio stations in the country were bought by a handful of huge media conglomerates, most notably Clear Channel. In my market, like many others, Clear Channel owns most of the radio stations you can find on the dial.
Increasing consolidation led to increasing homogeneity. Many stations ceased to be local and their programming was centrally or regionally controlled. There was an notorious case of a flood in one of the Midwest states, I believe, where municipal officials tried to call the local radio station only to find that there was no human being there to answer the phone. And do you think there's much chance of a Des Moines band getting play on a Des Moines station if the programming originates in Chicago?
In recent years, commercial radio has also been ruined by more and more ads. It's been even more contaminated by an avalanche of yap by inane hosts who think that listeners are actually more interested in their vapid banter than Lennon's lyrics. If you scan the radio dial in PM drive time, music is the exception not the rule; in the morning, it's virtually non-existent.
The increased sameness of programming and deteriorating quality may not have hurt the industry's bottom line in an earlier age but this has coincided with a dramatic increase in consumer choice of music delivery options.
There has always some private forms of music, from vinyl to CDs via cassettes. But digital music has dramatically increased consumer flexibility. Accessories can transform an iPod to a boombox. The Internet has led to tons online only radio stations. With podcasts, you're more likely to get a host who actually talks about the, gasp, music. Or not at all. Why would anyone suffer through commercial radio yammering when these options are available?
In the last few years, satellite radio has exploded: the two main services being Sirius (which I get) and XM. They each offer dozens of channels of music, also commercial free. Host banter is minimal. In the past, terrestrial radio might've competed with satellite on the basis that it was local, that it was homegrown. In most cases, that's no longer true.
It's telling that commercial terrestrial radio's quality has diminished so rapidly that people would rather spend a few hundred dollars for an MP3 player instead of forty bucks for an ordinary Walkman. Commercial terrestrial radio has so turned people off that they are now flocking to pay $12.95 a month for what they used to get for free.
Reminder
The Green Party candidate for governor of New York will be in Glens Falls this Saturday night. The event is open to the public.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Christianists
I've coined a new word: Christianist.
Much as an Islamist means someone who's hijacked the religion of Islam to advance their politco-ideological fanaticism, a Christianist is someone who's done the same thing to Christianity.
It's pithier than Theocracy Brigade.
Much as an Islamist means someone who's hijacked the religion of Islam to advance their politco-ideological fanaticism, a Christianist is someone who's done the same thing to Christianity.
It's pithier than Theocracy Brigade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)