In one of the less shocking stories to people with a bit of common sense, a new study reveals that the presence of openly gay members of the armed forces do not undermine unit cohesion.
One of the most common arguments against allowing gays in the military is that heterosexual soldiers who brave roadside bombs and snipers would be afraid to share a common shower with gay GIs.
However, the study, conducted by four high-ranking military officers, concluded that, "Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion."
It pointed to the presence of gays in the Israeli and British militaries, which have no effect on unit cohesion in those armed forces.
An officer interviewed for a 60 Minutes piece on the topic summed it up nicely.
Referring to a sergeant who told his entire chain of command of his sexual orientation, to the general disinterest of the brass, one officer explained: "[The sergeant] is in a critical field. He's a medic….his commander needs him. He's a known quantity….He goes above and beyond. Why do I want to lose [him]?"
The officers were pragmatic. They realized that in life and death sitautions, the most important thing about this soldier was his competence at his job, not the objects of his secret fantasies.
Eventually, the sergeant was fired for his sexual orientation. Hopefully this study will pave the way for common sense to prevail.
If American civilization is truly under threat by the supposed 'Evil doers,' then shouldn't we want to involve everyone possible in protecting it?
Friday, July 11, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Bush’s new climate change policy
“Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter” –Pres. Bush (source)
I suppose the only saving grace is that the rest of the world takes him about as seriously as most Americans don’t.
I suppose the only saving grace is that the rest of the world takes him about as seriously as most Americans don’t.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Climate change threatens melt the chocolate industry
The impact of global climate change as accelerated by human activity was the topic of recent scientific conference in the small northern New York village of Tupper Lake.
While scientists discussed how to address this serious problem, lame duck President Bush travelled abroad to pooh-pooh the issue yet again.
Bush re-stated his obstructionism that he believes fighting climate change is a great idea, but nobody should do anything until every nation agrees on every last detail. The US won't cut its emissions until Vanautu and Lesotho do the same.
He also framed the argument in a typical false dichotomy between environmental sanity and economic growth.
Non-ideologues around the world, people who actually have to make a living on their own, know that there is no contradiction between the two. They know that if the environment is degraded, making a living is much more difficult. Living itself is more difficult.
The current climate change crisis has rapidly increased desertification in Africa in the last few decades. The decrease in rainfall and resulting desertification has significantly reduced the amount of farmland available in the West African Sahel region. Not surprisingly, nearly the food emergencies in Africa caused by 'natural' phenomena are in the Sahel.
The unnaturally rapid climate change has also caused a major increase in deforestation on the continent. This causes erosion and other physical damage which makes growing crops more difficult. It also eliminates food sources like fruit-bearing trees and meat from the animals that live in the forest.
But if you think climate change's impact comes no closer than the African jungle, you're mistaken.
Warmer winters are already starting to hinder maple production in upstate New York and Vermont. It also risks hurting winter tourism. These are two of the most important motors in the economic of those rural regions.
And if none of this convinces you, then consider this.
According to the corporations themselves (whose only rigid ideology is that of self-interest), one of the greatest threats to global cocoa corps and to the chocolate industry itself is none other than the unnaturally rapid rate of climate change.
While scientists discussed how to address this serious problem, lame duck President Bush travelled abroad to pooh-pooh the issue yet again.
Bush re-stated his obstructionism that he believes fighting climate change is a great idea, but nobody should do anything until every nation agrees on every last detail. The US won't cut its emissions until Vanautu and Lesotho do the same.
He also framed the argument in a typical false dichotomy between environmental sanity and economic growth.
Non-ideologues around the world, people who actually have to make a living on their own, know that there is no contradiction between the two. They know that if the environment is degraded, making a living is much more difficult. Living itself is more difficult.
The current climate change crisis has rapidly increased desertification in Africa in the last few decades. The decrease in rainfall and resulting desertification has significantly reduced the amount of farmland available in the West African Sahel region. Not surprisingly, nearly the food emergencies in Africa caused by 'natural' phenomena are in the Sahel.
The unnaturally rapid climate change has also caused a major increase in deforestation on the continent. This causes erosion and other physical damage which makes growing crops more difficult. It also eliminates food sources like fruit-bearing trees and meat from the animals that live in the forest.
But if you think climate change's impact comes no closer than the African jungle, you're mistaken.
Warmer winters are already starting to hinder maple production in upstate New York and Vermont. It also risks hurting winter tourism. These are two of the most important motors in the economic of those rural regions.
And if none of this convinces you, then consider this.
According to the corporations themselves (whose only rigid ideology is that of self-interest), one of the greatest threats to global cocoa corps and to the chocolate industry itself is none other than the unnaturally rapid rate of climate change.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Abusing the generosity of Americans
The next time you consider answering some telemarketer's tear-inducing sales pitch on behalf of missing children or three-legged puppies, consider this.
The Los Angeles Times ran a revealing exposé on the professional fundraising industry.
In more than 5,800 campaigns on behalf of charities that were registered with the [California] state attorney general from 1997 to 2006, the fundraisers reported taking in $2.6 billion. They kept nearly $1.4 billion -- about 54 cents of every dollar raised.
Take Citizens Against Government Waste, which bills itself as '#1 taxpayer watchdog.' The Times reported that fundraisers kept 94 cents of every dollar it raised 'on behalf' of the organization.
Most gallingly to many donors is likely the revelation that Groups with strong emotional or patriotic appeal -- those supporting animals, children, veterans and public safety workers, for instance -- often fared worst. Missing-children charities received less than 15% of more than $28 million raised on their behalf.
But many non-profits are not enitrely blameless. The paper noted that many charities apparently entered into contracts that limited their share of donations to 20% or less, no matter how successful the campaign.
If the telemarketer's pitch truly compels you, it's probably better to go directly to the charity's website and make an online donation or send them a check directly.
The Los Angeles Times ran a revealing exposé on the professional fundraising industry.
In more than 5,800 campaigns on behalf of charities that were registered with the [California] state attorney general from 1997 to 2006, the fundraisers reported taking in $2.6 billion. They kept nearly $1.4 billion -- about 54 cents of every dollar raised.
Take Citizens Against Government Waste, which bills itself as '#1 taxpayer watchdog.' The Times reported that fundraisers kept 94 cents of every dollar it raised 'on behalf' of the organization.
Most gallingly to many donors is likely the revelation that Groups with strong emotional or patriotic appeal -- those supporting animals, children, veterans and public safety workers, for instance -- often fared worst. Missing-children charities received less than 15% of more than $28 million raised on their behalf.
But many non-profits are not enitrely blameless. The paper noted that many charities apparently entered into contracts that limited their share of donations to 20% or less, no matter how successful the campaign.
If the telemarketer's pitch truly compels you, it's probably better to go directly to the charity's website and make an online donation or send them a check directly.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Quote of the week
Not a new quote but one I just discovered.
"The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights." -Hubert Humphrey at the 1948 Democratic National Convention.
"The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights." -Hubert Humphrey at the 1948 Democratic National Convention.
Friday, July 04, 2008
"Our country, wrong or right. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."
"Every generation needs a new revolution." -Thomas Jefferson
Today is the 232nd anniversary of the signing of the US Declaration of Independence.
Naturally, the day lends itself to musings on the nature of patriotism. My idea of patriotism is based on the quote by 19th century Missouri Sen. Carl Schurz.
Schurz's comment is often misattributed as, "Our country, wrong or right."
This truncated version is not only deceptive, but censorious. This version is designed to shut people up, to intimidate people into passively acquiescing to the Leader's commands.
This is the polar opposite of the spirit of the the people who founded this country.
Schurz's actual comment is much more in line with traditional American values.
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."
My idea of patriotism isn't based on the empty symbolism of wearing a flag pin or the mindless mouthing a pledge.
My idea of patriotism is based on always trying to make my country better. To work to fix its flaws, rather than passively accept them under the guise that 'this is the greatest country in the world.'
If the US is indeed the greatest country in the world, it's because of the tireless work of real patriots who've spent their lives trying to make it better, never resting on their or our laurels.
Greatness is not pre-ordained. It's achieved through hard work. And it's maintained through hard work.
This is why our Constitution expressed goal is 'to create a more perfect Union.' The Founders acknowledged that we will never achieve a perfect Union, but required that we constantly strive toward that goal.
Today, Americans celebrate a document issued by a band of dissenters revolting against the arbitrary exercise of imperial absolute power by a head of state who felt he answered to no authority lower than God.
Dissent and disobedience not unpatriotic. Quite the opposite. Without it, Americans would still be singing God Save the Queen.
In that spirit, I publish the document text in its entirety. Read carefully and see if any of these complaints are still valid today.
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;
For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;
For imposing taxes on us without our consent;
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;
For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
Today is the 232nd anniversary of the signing of the US Declaration of Independence.
Naturally, the day lends itself to musings on the nature of patriotism. My idea of patriotism is based on the quote by 19th century Missouri Sen. Carl Schurz.
Schurz's comment is often misattributed as, "Our country, wrong or right."
This truncated version is not only deceptive, but censorious. This version is designed to shut people up, to intimidate people into passively acquiescing to the Leader's commands.
This is the polar opposite of the spirit of the the people who founded this country.
Schurz's actual comment is much more in line with traditional American values.
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."
My idea of patriotism isn't based on the empty symbolism of wearing a flag pin or the mindless mouthing a pledge.
My idea of patriotism is based on always trying to make my country better. To work to fix its flaws, rather than passively accept them under the guise that 'this is the greatest country in the world.'
If the US is indeed the greatest country in the world, it's because of the tireless work of real patriots who've spent their lives trying to make it better, never resting on their or our laurels.
Greatness is not pre-ordained. It's achieved through hard work. And it's maintained through hard work.
This is why our Constitution expressed goal is 'to create a more perfect Union.' The Founders acknowledged that we will never achieve a perfect Union, but required that we constantly strive toward that goal.
Today, Americans celebrate a document issued by a band of dissenters revolting against the arbitrary exercise of imperial absolute power by a head of state who felt he answered to no authority lower than God.
Dissent and disobedience not unpatriotic. Quite the opposite. Without it, Americans would still be singing God Save the Queen.
In that spirit, I publish the document text in its entirety. Read carefully and see if any of these complaints are still valid today.
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;
For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;
For imposing taxes on us without our consent;
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;
For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
More bits and pieces
Occasional series of essays linking to stories interesting in their own right but for which I don’t have time to devote individual essays…
-WESTERN CANADIAN GANGSTERS. In a couple of different places recently, I’ve heard/read about how organized crime has taken a chokehold on life in a most unlikely place: the western Canadian province of British Columbia. In fact, the marijuana trade already represents 5 percent of the province’s entire economy. The Canadian weekly Maclean’s has a long exposé on the influence of organized crime in BC.
-WELCOME TO THE 20TH CENTURY. NPR reports on a high school in Mississippi that held its first interracial prom… just a few months ago.
-SORRY SEEMS TO BE THE HAREST WORD. After Australia’s example, Canada became the latest western country to apologize to its native people for that whole genocide thing. Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently stood on the floor of the House of Commons and apologized for the past policies of ethnic cleansing against aboriginal people which "has caused great harm, and has no place in [his] country." Five aboriginal leaders also addressed Parliament. Will President Obama be next?
-THE OBSTRUCTIONIST. Albany is a very different place than it was only a year ago. Combative governor Eliot Spitzer resigned in disgrace. The equally feisty Joe Bruno resigned after 12 years in charge of the Senate’s rapidly shrinking Republican majority. The only person left from the infamous three men in a room is Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver. A recent piece in New York magazine wonders if Silver is ‘the master of passive-aggressive politics, or the guy who keeps bad things from happening to good people.’ The title of the piece is ‘The Obstructionist,’ so you can probably figure out the conclusion.
-THE WORLD’S MOST LIVABLE CITIES. The International Herald Tribune ran a list of the world’s most livable cities. Given America’s obsession with sprawl and the automobile, it’s not surprising that no city in the continental US made the top 20. Montreal, Vancouver and Honolulu were the only North American cities in the top 20. It also ran a useful piece on examples of good urban design, for the benefit of people that actually care about such things. Though apparently things are going in the right direction in San Diego.
-MASS TRANSIT ON THE UP? One of the things the livable cities have is good public transportation, which is why few North American cities rate highly. But as The New York Times reports, the relatively high price of gas in the US is pushing mayors to invest more in mass transit.
-OBAMA AND THE SCAM. Ethanol is now largely discredited. Especially since it takes more energy to produce than burning it releases. So it’s not a good harbinger of strong future energy policy based on renewable resources to learn that Sen. Barack Obama is closely linked with the scam that is ethanol.
-OUR LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE. In case you’re not depressed enough, Alternet has a reminder of the ten worst moments of the Bush reign.
-WILL UNITED SPAIN REIGN? Fans of the Beautiful Game were overjoyed to see stylish Spain win the 2008 European Championship over more pedestrian and/or negative outfits like Italy, Germany and France. Quite often, success is soccer leads observers to wax eloquent about the sport’s power to bring people together. Multiethnic France’s win in the 1998 World Cup and Euro 2000 and divided Côte d’Ivoire’s run to the 2006 African Nations Cup final and World Cup are examples. However, Victor de la Serna of The Guardian warns not to expect the Spanish national team’s victory to have too dramatic an effect on the regional separatism that’s long plagued the country.
-WESTERN CANADIAN GANGSTERS. In a couple of different places recently, I’ve heard/read about how organized crime has taken a chokehold on life in a most unlikely place: the western Canadian province of British Columbia. In fact, the marijuana trade already represents 5 percent of the province’s entire economy. The Canadian weekly Maclean’s has a long exposé on the influence of organized crime in BC.
-WELCOME TO THE 20TH CENTURY. NPR reports on a high school in Mississippi that held its first interracial prom… just a few months ago.
-SORRY SEEMS TO BE THE HAREST WORD. After Australia’s example, Canada became the latest western country to apologize to its native people for that whole genocide thing. Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently stood on the floor of the House of Commons and apologized for the past policies of ethnic cleansing against aboriginal people which "has caused great harm, and has no place in [his] country." Five aboriginal leaders also addressed Parliament. Will President Obama be next?
-THE OBSTRUCTIONIST. Albany is a very different place than it was only a year ago. Combative governor Eliot Spitzer resigned in disgrace. The equally feisty Joe Bruno resigned after 12 years in charge of the Senate’s rapidly shrinking Republican majority. The only person left from the infamous three men in a room is Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver. A recent piece in New York magazine wonders if Silver is ‘the master of passive-aggressive politics, or the guy who keeps bad things from happening to good people.’ The title of the piece is ‘The Obstructionist,’ so you can probably figure out the conclusion.
-THE WORLD’S MOST LIVABLE CITIES. The International Herald Tribune ran a list of the world’s most livable cities. Given America’s obsession with sprawl and the automobile, it’s not surprising that no city in the continental US made the top 20. Montreal, Vancouver and Honolulu were the only North American cities in the top 20. It also ran a useful piece on examples of good urban design, for the benefit of people that actually care about such things. Though apparently things are going in the right direction in San Diego.
-MASS TRANSIT ON THE UP? One of the things the livable cities have is good public transportation, which is why few North American cities rate highly. But as The New York Times reports, the relatively high price of gas in the US is pushing mayors to invest more in mass transit.
-OBAMA AND THE SCAM. Ethanol is now largely discredited. Especially since it takes more energy to produce than burning it releases. So it’s not a good harbinger of strong future energy policy based on renewable resources to learn that Sen. Barack Obama is closely linked with the scam that is ethanol.
-OUR LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE. In case you’re not depressed enough, Alternet has a reminder of the ten worst moments of the Bush reign.
-WILL UNITED SPAIN REIGN? Fans of the Beautiful Game were overjoyed to see stylish Spain win the 2008 European Championship over more pedestrian and/or negative outfits like Italy, Germany and France. Quite often, success is soccer leads observers to wax eloquent about the sport’s power to bring people together. Multiethnic France’s win in the 1998 World Cup and Euro 2000 and divided Côte d’Ivoire’s run to the 2006 African Nations Cup final and World Cup are examples. However, Victor de la Serna of The Guardian warns not to expect the Spanish national team’s victory to have too dramatic an effect on the regional separatism that’s long plagued the country.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Coup attempt in Turkey?
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.
With most of the global media attention on the crisis in Zimbabwe, here’s a big story that seems to be flying under the international media radar.
Foreign Policy’s blog reports an apparent attempted coup in Turkey. Police have arrested two dozen people in an alleged coup plot, including two retired generals and the head of the capital’s chamber of commerce.
More sensationally, prosecutors are trying to shut down the ruling AKP party on the grounds that the prime minister is trying to establish an Islamic state, a no-no for a country founded by the staunchly secular Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
Although this bears resemblance to a similar, stealthy military intervention in politics in 1997, FP observes a big difference: the AKP has been a smashing success -- it has modernized the economy, enacted dozens of political reforms, and is hugely popular at the ballot box.
With most of the global media attention on the crisis in Zimbabwe, here’s a big story that seems to be flying under the international media radar.
Foreign Policy’s blog reports an apparent attempted coup in Turkey. Police have arrested two dozen people in an alleged coup plot, including two retired generals and the head of the capital’s chamber of commerce.
More sensationally, prosecutors are trying to shut down the ruling AKP party on the grounds that the prime minister is trying to establish an Islamic state, a no-no for a country founded by the staunchly secular Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
Although this bears resemblance to a similar, stealthy military intervention in politics in 1997, FP observes a big difference: the AKP has been a smashing success -- it has modernized the economy, enacted dozens of political reforms, and is hugely popular at the ballot box.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)