You gotta love European soccer.
Their Champions League final has Manchester United and another English club (London's Chelsea) playing each other in Russia.
While the UEFA Cup final has a Russian club (Zenit St. Petersburg) playing in... Manchester, England.
European officials obviously received geography assistance from the folks who placed American Throwball teams Indianapolis Colts in the South Division, Dallas Cowboys in the East and St Louis Rams in the West.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Friday, May 02, 2008
The role of women in Rwandan politics
This essay is part of an occasional feature on this blog that presents compelling 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 besides fake debates over fake patriotism.
The Rwanda Project of the Hunt Alternatives Fund has some interesting literature on its work in that country. The project particularly focuses on enabling females to more fully participate in society. It notes that since the 1994 genocide, Rwandan women have made remarkable contributions to rebuild their society. They also made unprecedented political gains, achieving near parity in the legislature's lower chamber.
It notes that female parliamentarians in the country have drafted the only substantive bill to emerge from the legislative rather than the executive branch, a far-reaching law to combat gender-based violence; spearheaded efforts to eliminate discrimination and enhance human rights protections; and fostered cross-party and male-female collaboration through the Forum of Rwandan Women Parliamentarians and by involving men in efforts to craft legislation.
The website includes reports on women's involvement in defending the rights of children, promoting anti-domestic violence legislation and supporting female participation in local politics.
The Rwanda Project of the Hunt Alternatives Fund has some interesting literature on its work in that country. The project particularly focuses on enabling females to more fully participate in society. It notes that since the 1994 genocide, Rwandan women have made remarkable contributions to rebuild their society. They also made unprecedented political gains, achieving near parity in the legislature's lower chamber.
It notes that female parliamentarians in the country have drafted the only substantive bill to emerge from the legislative rather than the executive branch, a far-reaching law to combat gender-based violence; spearheaded efforts to eliminate discrimination and enhance human rights protections; and fostered cross-party and male-female collaboration through the Forum of Rwandan Women Parliamentarians and by involving men in efforts to craft legislation.
The website includes reports on women's involvement in defending the rights of children, promoting anti-domestic violence legislation and supporting female participation in local politics.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Maybe The Post-Star's afraid to let their reporting speak for itself
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
The corporate media is hypersensitive to criticism, isn't it.
Not all criticism, mind you.
It loves the simplistic 'the media is too liberal/conservative' dichotomy. If both extremes hate you, goes the logic, you must be doing Pulitzer-esque work. It allows them to abdicate any responsibility for substantive analysis.
The kinds of criticism the corporate media doesn't like is accusations that it's shutting out diverse voices. This criticism is stone cold true. Just look at the amount of free corporate media coverage given to the Annointed candidates (McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Obama, Clinton) in comparison to the media's Untouchables (Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel... and that's not even including smaller party candidates). They choose who's message 'deserves' to be heard and then when the rest complain, the corporate media holds its hands up and sniffs, "The public just isn't interested in them."
If you're an ordinary TV watcher and you see tons of reporting and yapping head analysis on the Annointed Ones and next to nothing (except maybe the occasional hack job on 'the quirky campaign of...' and rare yapping head edict that 'So and so can't win') about the Untouchables, then what do you expect? How can a candidate resonate with the public if the public is virtually never exposed to that candidate's message?
The recent visit of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader to Glens Falls exposed this hypersensitivity yet again.
A gentleman named John Thomas of Hartford, NY wrote a letter to the editor complaining about the quantity and quality of coverage given by The Post-Star to Nader's visit. Mr. Thomas felt that both were inadequate.
He complained that the visit of TV personality Rachel Ray got more coverage than the visit of a presidential candidate and one of the most influential Americans of the 20th century. This is factually correct. Ray got more coverage.
Now, it's no secret that I'm a Nader supporter, although I don't know John Thomas. But what bothered me most was how The Post-Star could not resist adding a snotty little Editor's Note to Thomas' letter.
The Editor's Note sniffed that Nader's visit got 'ample play' in the paper. That 'ample play' was a brief preview story and a small recap at the bottom of the local section.
Translation: Naderites should get on their hands and knees and genuflect to the brick red building that they deigned to give Nader any coverage at all.
Well, that's the paper's opinion.
Thomas' letter expressed a different opinion.
Isn't this the very purpose of the letters to the editor and editorial sections?
The letters express the opinions of readers. The editorial expresses the opinions of the newspaper.
Editor's Notes to letters to the edtior are very uncommon in this paper. Usually, the daily only includes them if the writer makes a factually false statement or to clarify something in the letter that may have been murky. Sometimes, it's used to note that the letter writer has some personal connection with the issue discussed.
The general rule of the paper seems to be to let the letter writers have their 15 minutes, so to speak.
None of these applied to Thomas' letter. He didn't say the paper offered no coverage. He said Nader should've gotten more than Rachel Ray.
Yet the paper felt the need to rebuke Thomas for expressing (and very mildly at that) his not demonstrably false personal opinion... which is the whole purpose of the letters to the editor section.
Makes you wonder why the paper is so hyperdefensive.
The corporate media is hypersensitive to criticism, isn't it.
Not all criticism, mind you.
It loves the simplistic 'the media is too liberal/conservative' dichotomy. If both extremes hate you, goes the logic, you must be doing Pulitzer-esque work. It allows them to abdicate any responsibility for substantive analysis.
The kinds of criticism the corporate media doesn't like is accusations that it's shutting out diverse voices. This criticism is stone cold true. Just look at the amount of free corporate media coverage given to the Annointed candidates (McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Obama, Clinton) in comparison to the media's Untouchables (Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel... and that's not even including smaller party candidates). They choose who's message 'deserves' to be heard and then when the rest complain, the corporate media holds its hands up and sniffs, "The public just isn't interested in them."
If you're an ordinary TV watcher and you see tons of reporting and yapping head analysis on the Annointed Ones and next to nothing (except maybe the occasional hack job on 'the quirky campaign of...' and rare yapping head edict that 'So and so can't win') about the Untouchables, then what do you expect? How can a candidate resonate with the public if the public is virtually never exposed to that candidate's message?
The recent visit of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader to Glens Falls exposed this hypersensitivity yet again.
A gentleman named John Thomas of Hartford, NY wrote a letter to the editor complaining about the quantity and quality of coverage given by The Post-Star to Nader's visit. Mr. Thomas felt that both were inadequate.
He complained that the visit of TV personality Rachel Ray got more coverage than the visit of a presidential candidate and one of the most influential Americans of the 20th century. This is factually correct. Ray got more coverage.
Now, it's no secret that I'm a Nader supporter, although I don't know John Thomas. But what bothered me most was how The Post-Star could not resist adding a snotty little Editor's Note to Thomas' letter.
The Editor's Note sniffed that Nader's visit got 'ample play' in the paper. That 'ample play' was a brief preview story and a small recap at the bottom of the local section.
Translation: Naderites should get on their hands and knees and genuflect to the brick red building that they deigned to give Nader any coverage at all.
Well, that's the paper's opinion.
Thomas' letter expressed a different opinion.
Isn't this the very purpose of the letters to the editor and editorial sections?
The letters express the opinions of readers. The editorial expresses the opinions of the newspaper.
Editor's Notes to letters to the edtior are very uncommon in this paper. Usually, the daily only includes them if the writer makes a factually false statement or to clarify something in the letter that may have been murky. Sometimes, it's used to note that the letter writer has some personal connection with the issue discussed.
The general rule of the paper seems to be to let the letter writers have their 15 minutes, so to speak.
None of these applied to Thomas' letter. He didn't say the paper offered no coverage. He said Nader should've gotten more than Rachel Ray.
Yet the paper felt the need to rebuke Thomas for expressing (and very mildly at that) his not demonstrably false personal opinion... which is the whole purpose of the letters to the editor section.
Makes you wonder why the paper is so hyperdefensive.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Threats to Adirondack water
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
Adirondack Almanack has a piece on the Adirondack Council's report on The Biggest Threats to Adirondack Water Resources.
Some of them have been at least moderately covered by local media, such as: acid rain, mercury, aquatic invasive species and of course, global climate change.
Others haven't really been covered by the local media at all or in a case-by-case, rather than systematic, way. These include: inadequate sewage treatment, suburban sprawl and the increased water pollution it causes, the diversion Adirondack waters abroad by for-profit companies and the water pollution caused by road salt.
Almanack's piece is particularly important as organizations around the world have been warning for several years that access to water will increasingly be a source of international tension.
Adirondack Almanack has a piece on the Adirondack Council's report on The Biggest Threats to Adirondack Water Resources.
Some of them have been at least moderately covered by local media, such as: acid rain, mercury, aquatic invasive species and of course, global climate change.
Others haven't really been covered by the local media at all or in a case-by-case, rather than systematic, way. These include: inadequate sewage treatment, suburban sprawl and the increased water pollution it causes, the diversion Adirondack waters abroad by for-profit companies and the water pollution caused by road salt.
Almanack's piece is particularly important as organizations around the world have been warning for several years that access to water will increasingly be a source of international tension.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
A kinder, gentler Empire
This year's version of the empty 'vote for the lesser of two evils' blackmail is that a McCain administration would be Bush lite and soooooo much worse than a Clinton or Obama adminstration, especially in international affairs, that we have to vote for Democrat no matter what.
Turns out foreign policy experts disagree with this 'conventional wisdom'.
They echo the Naderite contention that while both Democrats might tweak foreign policy around the largely inconsequential edges, neither would change it in any fundamental fashion.
Sweeping oratory aside, a President Barack Obama or a President Hillary Rodham Clinton -- let alone a President John McCain -- might chart a course in the world that's surprisingly similar to that of George W. Bush in his second term, summarizes Washington Post writer Michael Michael Abramowitz.
As I've mentioned in this blog before, neither Democrat offers any substantive challenge to the American empire's core tenet. They merely offer the same old militarism but with a more charismastic face. They'll meddle in other countries' internal affairs for the benefit of the multinationals that own them, but at least they'll do it with a smile!
Philip Zelikow, a University of Virginia professor who served for two years as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, echoed that thought. Obama and Clinton's "critique in general of the administration, aside from Iraq, is we are going to be more competent and collegial," he said. "They don't really debate many of the underlying premises of the administration's current policies."
This shouldn't come as any surprise. Both John Kerry in '04 and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in '06 made the basis of their campaigns the premise "Bush's foreign policy is fundamentally right. It's just the execution that needs work."
Sadly, many desperate, self-described progressives bit on this hook, line and sinker.
A kinder, gentler empire is still an empire.
Reminder: if you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
Turns out foreign policy experts disagree with this 'conventional wisdom'.
They echo the Naderite contention that while both Democrats might tweak foreign policy around the largely inconsequential edges, neither would change it in any fundamental fashion.
Sweeping oratory aside, a President Barack Obama or a President Hillary Rodham Clinton -- let alone a President John McCain -- might chart a course in the world that's surprisingly similar to that of George W. Bush in his second term, summarizes Washington Post writer Michael Michael Abramowitz.
As I've mentioned in this blog before, neither Democrat offers any substantive challenge to the American empire's core tenet. They merely offer the same old militarism but with a more charismastic face. They'll meddle in other countries' internal affairs for the benefit of the multinationals that own them, but at least they'll do it with a smile!
Philip Zelikow, a University of Virginia professor who served for two years as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, echoed that thought. Obama and Clinton's "critique in general of the administration, aside from Iraq, is we are going to be more competent and collegial," he said. "They don't really debate many of the underlying premises of the administration's current policies."
This shouldn't come as any surprise. Both John Kerry in '04 and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in '06 made the basis of their campaigns the premise "Bush's foreign policy is fundamentally right. It's just the execution that needs work."
Sadly, many desperate, self-described progressives bit on this hook, line and sinker.
A kinder, gentler empire is still an empire.
Reminder: if you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Patriotism: something you say or something you do?
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
When I posted my previous essay in another forum, a friend of mine left a note that read: one of the residents at her work, a Holocaust survivor, believes in the pledge of allegiance and I disagree with it.
I used to say the Pledge of Allegiance. I would omit the words 'to the flag' because I believe it's morally offensive to be asked to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. I don't believe in cloth. I believe in values.
Americans, from the Founding Fathers to the GIs of World War II, did not sacrifice their lives for a piece of cloth. They did so for the values Americans claimed to hold dear.
But lately, I've stopped saying it. The main reason is that it's become something of no meaning to most Americans. Too many Americans intone it and claim to revere it but don't take its words seriously.
If one says one believes in one nation, then why do so many Americans treat other Americans like traitors because they disagree with them politically?
If one believes in a republic, then why do so many Americans support decisions that make us an empire?
If one believes in liberty and justice for all, then why do so many Americans support policies that deny their fellow Americans (and folks abroad) liberty and justice because they happen to have the 'wrong' skin color, political views, religion, ethnic background or socioeconomic status?
This is yet another example of how 'patriotism' has been twisted into empty gestures of cheap symbolism completely devoid of substance. Patriotism has become nothing more than closed-minded, insular nationalism. Patriotism has become something you say, not something you actually do.
Patriotism has become completely separated from civics. Saying you pledge allegiance to one nation, to America the republic and to liberty and justice for all means NOTHING unless you actually DO something to preserve and advance those values.
Talk is cheap. If you claim allegiance to these things, prove it. Put up or shut up.
Write letters to the newspaper. Organize or volunteer for a civic group. Attend a local government meeting. Run for office or help someone who is. Speak out. Expect things of your elected officials, because when you expect nothing, that's what you'll always get.
Is the Pledge of Allegiance something you truly believe in and want to put into action? Or is it just another ideological wedge in the petty culture wars? Is it something you just intone just because it's politically correct, because that's what everyone else does? Or does it express a set of values you're actually willing to put into action?
I think it's about time the silent majority takes back patriotism from those who've perverted it to ends contrary to commonly held American values. If you claim to be patriotic, then act like it.
When I posted my previous essay in another forum, a friend of mine left a note that read: one of the residents at her work, a Holocaust survivor, believes in the pledge of allegiance and I disagree with it.
I used to say the Pledge of Allegiance. I would omit the words 'to the flag' because I believe it's morally offensive to be asked to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. I don't believe in cloth. I believe in values.
Americans, from the Founding Fathers to the GIs of World War II, did not sacrifice their lives for a piece of cloth. They did so for the values Americans claimed to hold dear.
But lately, I've stopped saying it. The main reason is that it's become something of no meaning to most Americans. Too many Americans intone it and claim to revere it but don't take its words seriously.
If one says one believes in one nation, then why do so many Americans treat other Americans like traitors because they disagree with them politically?
If one believes in a republic, then why do so many Americans support decisions that make us an empire?
If one believes in liberty and justice for all, then why do so many Americans support policies that deny their fellow Americans (and folks abroad) liberty and justice because they happen to have the 'wrong' skin color, political views, religion, ethnic background or socioeconomic status?
This is yet another example of how 'patriotism' has been twisted into empty gestures of cheap symbolism completely devoid of substance. Patriotism has become nothing more than closed-minded, insular nationalism. Patriotism has become something you say, not something you actually do.
Patriotism has become completely separated from civics. Saying you pledge allegiance to one nation, to America the republic and to liberty and justice for all means NOTHING unless you actually DO something to preserve and advance those values.
Talk is cheap. If you claim allegiance to these things, prove it. Put up or shut up.
Write letters to the newspaper. Organize or volunteer for a civic group. Attend a local government meeting. Run for office or help someone who is. Speak out. Expect things of your elected officials, because when you expect nothing, that's what you'll always get.
Is the Pledge of Allegiance something you truly believe in and want to put into action? Or is it just another ideological wedge in the petty culture wars? Is it something you just intone just because it's politically correct, because that's what everyone else does? Or does it express a set of values you're actually willing to put into action?
I think it's about time the silent majority takes back patriotism from those who've perverted it to ends contrary to commonly held American values. If you claim to be patriotic, then act like it.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
When did decency become un-American?
Adirondack Musing had an interesting essay entitled America: the greatest country in the world. Here's my rant about it...
Around here, I've seen more than a few bumper stickers on pickup trucks that read 'The Power of Pride.' And it's spot on. Pride is a very powerful thing. Pride is necessary for healthy development. You can't do much good without a little self-belief. But pride also goeth before the fall. Excessive pride leads to downfall.
For the most part, the people most likely to brag loudly about the US being the best country in the world are the people least likely to have actually been to other parts of the world... and thus actually informed enough to make the comparison.
I have been to other parts of the world. And whether the US is the #1 or #2 or #7, it's certainly near the top. There are a few other countries I could see myself living in but not very many.
And one of the reasons it's near the top is because patriotic citizens are constantly trying to make it better, to fix its flaws. The real patriots, not the fakes who think that wearing a lapel pin or putting a flag on their porch absolves them from actually DOING SOMETHING to make their country better. Not the egomaniacs who think the country is perfect or that being great means standing pat. Not those who confuse empty symbolism with real patriotism.
Patriotism means love of country. In any love affair, symoblism is useful in small doses. People give their significant others flowers from time to time. But the key here is time to time. Any gesture is rendered meaningless if it's overdone. If it's too common, how can it be special? Don't you think something like the national anthem is demeaned by being played before things as ultimately trivial as boxing matches and rodeos? Isn't it a bit insulting to ask something as holy as 'God Bless America' in between loud, drunken tirades about how the Red Sox suck?
A love affair can not be solely based on these symbolic gestures. A fundamentally broken relationship will not be solved with a romantic dinner. Love affairs take hard work, not just fancy words and nice symbolism. Love of country is no different.
The Founding Fathers of this country knew that the US wasn't perfect and never would be. But they also knew that making and keeping it great required the constant commitment of people trying to make it better, of never being complacent. That's why the Constitution's preamble doesn't begin "in order to form a perfect union" but rather "...a MORE perfect union."
I love my country. I don't say it that often because to me, it seems implied. I am engaged in my community via socially useful (hopefully) volunteerism. I am engaged with it via politics.
But most tellingly, I think it's implied because I choose to live here. Although I think I could get an EU passport via my grandparents and could probably get a work visa for Canada, I choose to live in the United States. I choose to live here because it's my home. I choose to live here not by default, but because I want to live here.
I don't say I love my country that often because it seems braggart. It seems unnecessary. I prefer to let my actions speak for themselves.
Some people are so insecure that they need everyone else in the world to shout how great America is. I don't. My belief in this country's potential is not going to be shattered because someone in Paris or Damascus says meanie things about the US of A.
The biggest reason for anti-Americanism is not because the US is a great country. They don't 'hate us because we're free,' as the self-delusional myth goes, no matter who 'they' is. They hate our government's policies... as do many Americans, of course. They hate our arrogance. They hate our meddling in other countries' affairs.
And that's not even getting into the massive hypocrisies involved in US foreign policy and the so-called war on terror. The anger at these hypocrisies illustrate that far from rejecting American values, many people around the world EMBRACE our values so much that they get angry when Americans and our government turn our backs on what we claim are our core values.
For far too many Americans, it's not good enough to think that we're the best country in the world. We're not content with that belief. We have to be universally canonized for that greatness. We have to rub people's noses in it. We have to break our arms patting ourselves on the back. Thanks is never good enough. We demand other people get on their knees and lavish regal praise on our benificence. And if they dare question a single policy decision made by our government, they are thrown in the trash bin with the other cheese eaters.
I don't know what it's like in sainted 'Middle America' but people here in upstate New York are not crude, brash, in your face, chest thumpers. I was taught to have pride in myself and my actions, but in a quiet, decent way. I was taught that I should let actions speak louder than words. I was taught that a good deed is its own reward. I was taught to be humble, not arrogant. I was taught that you treat people decently not because of some expectation of future, perpetual subservience but because it was the right thing to do. I was taught that you treat people decently because the whole functioning of society is dependent on civility.
When did these become un-American values?
Around here, I've seen more than a few bumper stickers on pickup trucks that read 'The Power of Pride.' And it's spot on. Pride is a very powerful thing. Pride is necessary for healthy development. You can't do much good without a little self-belief. But pride also goeth before the fall. Excessive pride leads to downfall.
For the most part, the people most likely to brag loudly about the US being the best country in the world are the people least likely to have actually been to other parts of the world... and thus actually informed enough to make the comparison.
I have been to other parts of the world. And whether the US is the #1 or #2 or #7, it's certainly near the top. There are a few other countries I could see myself living in but not very many.
And one of the reasons it's near the top is because patriotic citizens are constantly trying to make it better, to fix its flaws. The real patriots, not the fakes who think that wearing a lapel pin or putting a flag on their porch absolves them from actually DOING SOMETHING to make their country better. Not the egomaniacs who think the country is perfect or that being great means standing pat. Not those who confuse empty symbolism with real patriotism.
Patriotism means love of country. In any love affair, symoblism is useful in small doses. People give their significant others flowers from time to time. But the key here is time to time. Any gesture is rendered meaningless if it's overdone. If it's too common, how can it be special? Don't you think something like the national anthem is demeaned by being played before things as ultimately trivial as boxing matches and rodeos? Isn't it a bit insulting to ask something as holy as 'God Bless America' in between loud, drunken tirades about how the Red Sox suck?
A love affair can not be solely based on these symbolic gestures. A fundamentally broken relationship will not be solved with a romantic dinner. Love affairs take hard work, not just fancy words and nice symbolism. Love of country is no different.
The Founding Fathers of this country knew that the US wasn't perfect and never would be. But they also knew that making and keeping it great required the constant commitment of people trying to make it better, of never being complacent. That's why the Constitution's preamble doesn't begin "in order to form a perfect union" but rather "...a MORE perfect union."
I love my country. I don't say it that often because to me, it seems implied. I am engaged in my community via socially useful (hopefully) volunteerism. I am engaged with it via politics.
But most tellingly, I think it's implied because I choose to live here. Although I think I could get an EU passport via my grandparents and could probably get a work visa for Canada, I choose to live in the United States. I choose to live here because it's my home. I choose to live here not by default, but because I want to live here.
I don't say I love my country that often because it seems braggart. It seems unnecessary. I prefer to let my actions speak for themselves.
Some people are so insecure that they need everyone else in the world to shout how great America is. I don't. My belief in this country's potential is not going to be shattered because someone in Paris or Damascus says meanie things about the US of A.
The biggest reason for anti-Americanism is not because the US is a great country. They don't 'hate us because we're free,' as the self-delusional myth goes, no matter who 'they' is. They hate our government's policies... as do many Americans, of course. They hate our arrogance. They hate our meddling in other countries' affairs.
And that's not even getting into the massive hypocrisies involved in US foreign policy and the so-called war on terror. The anger at these hypocrisies illustrate that far from rejecting American values, many people around the world EMBRACE our values so much that they get angry when Americans and our government turn our backs on what we claim are our core values.
For far too many Americans, it's not good enough to think that we're the best country in the world. We're not content with that belief. We have to be universally canonized for that greatness. We have to rub people's noses in it. We have to break our arms patting ourselves on the back. Thanks is never good enough. We demand other people get on their knees and lavish regal praise on our benificence. And if they dare question a single policy decision made by our government, they are thrown in the trash bin with the other cheese eaters.
I don't know what it's like in sainted 'Middle America' but people here in upstate New York are not crude, brash, in your face, chest thumpers. I was taught to have pride in myself and my actions, but in a quiet, decent way. I was taught that I should let actions speak louder than words. I was taught that a good deed is its own reward. I was taught to be humble, not arrogant. I was taught that you treat people decently not because of some expectation of future, perpetual subservience but because it was the right thing to do. I was taught that you treat people decently because the whole functioning of society is dependent on civility.
When did these become un-American values?
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Humor of the week
You know, I'm really not interested in policies that are long on rhetoric and short on results. I think the taxpayers, as well as the people we're trying to help, need to know our strategy is well-defined, with clear goals, and we hold people accountable. -President Bush
No need to shoot fish in a barrel on this one.
No need to shoot fish in a barrel on this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)