WILL THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PUSH FOR ENFORCEMENT OF UN RESOLUTION IN IVORY COAST?
The UN wants to send an international peacekeeping force to Ivory Coast. This is in response to a peace agreement signed in France last year signed by the government and main rebel groups. The agreement called for disarmament of the rebels and their integration into the national army. A UN Security Council already authorized a French-led mission (which was invited by all the main parties to the war), now France wants a Security Council resolution to broaden the mission. The French-sponsored resolution is being delayed by the US ambassador ostensibly because he wants verification on numbers. Let's hope it's only that.
The situation in Ivory Coast constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security and stability of the West African region [to use the same phrasing as Resolution 688 concerning Iraq]. This is indisputable. The war in Ivory Coast has had grave repercussions in neighboring countries like Guinea, Ghana, Burkina Faso and Liberia. In fact, the Ivorian government is widely suspected of aiding the Liberian rebels who helped engineer the downfall of that country's dictator Charles Taylor. Given President Bush's stated intent to "work with the UN Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq, one should expect similiar cooperation regarding the Ivory Coast situation.
After all, since Congress gave the president the authority to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to... enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq," surely the president would wish to apply the same standard to a similiarly non-threatening country like Ivory Coast whose lack of stability jeopardizes the entire region, most of whom are US allies. Particularly since the Ivory Coast mission could be achieved (and almost certainly would be done) without the involvement of any US soldiers.
"Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world," President Bush declared in this year's State of the Union speech. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan noted that the present international mission in Ivory Coast, authorized by the West African regional group ECOWAS, is beset by lack of financial resources. Given his professed concern for the reputation of the United Nations, President Bush should help the international mission enforce Security Council resolutions by assisting it financially. This can be likely be done for an infintesimal fraction of that which is being spent in Iraq.
"America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace -- a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman," the president also said during the State of the Union. Surely the dignity and rights of every man and woman also apply to Ivorians, Mr President? Or will they suffer, sacrificed on the altar of petty anti-French snivelling, as some might have it? Only time will tell if the president does the right thing by the Ivorian peoples and by his own expressed principles.
Sources: State of the Union quote and Congressional resolution excerpts
Thursday, January 29, 2004
Monday, January 26, 2004
THE MIS-USE'S OF APOSTROPHES'
If society insist on standardized tests, can't they at least test stuff that's actually going to matter? In middle school, I was taught parts of speech diagrams (in English) and how to manually calculate the square root of a number (in math). To me, these are classic examples of how to waste time and brain cells.
Parts of speech diagrams were foolish because they didn't help you learn parts of speech any better. You were more concerned about trying to remember what goes on diaganol lines and what goes on straight lines or something like that. I don't remember exactly. Which is exactly the point. I'm a writer and I still think it was useless.
Manually calculating the square root of a number was even more pointless. Anyone who ever uses the square root in their profession will determine it via a calculator or computer. I actually obtained a bachelor's degree in math and I never manually calculated a square root in university. If I had, I'd never have finished any of the exams. No engineer or mathematician is ever going to do this by hand!
This is what's called make work. If you taught you how to think or deduce or gave you brain flexibility or anything other than simply memorizing something you'll never need after the test, it might be worth something. But state administrators need to fill up a syllabus so stuff like this gets thrown in.
Instead of wasting brain cells and energy on nonesense like manual square roots, why not hammer home stuff kids will actually use? For example, mathematical skills related to balancing a checkbook.
A big one is that people should know rules concerning apostrophes. This is a pet peeve of mine. Perhaps because my mom was an English teacher so stuff like this got hammered into me when I was young. The use of apostrophes is careless. But it's also an example of pretensiousness.
Being wrong because you're trying to be pretentious is more annoying more than simply being wrong. The latter is merely an error of omission; the former, one of commission.
Many people say "I feel well" when they almost always mean "I feel good." Or they'll say "Between you and I..." when they really mean "Between you and me." And they do so because it SOUNDS more educated. "I feel good" sounds uncultured to the ear. But it's gramatically correct unless referring to your sense of touch.
Mis-use of apostrophes is one of the most common causes of grammatical errors, but one of the simplest to avoid.
I was at the YMCA yesterday and there was a flyer advertising a basketball league. The text read something like "League fee's are due by Jan. 28." Worse, I was at my local high school. The new addition had bathrooms but they hadn't yet put up permanent signs identifying them. So one of the doors had a hand-written sign that read "Boy's room." It's bad enough that someone (presumably someone in authority) made this mistake. But after four months, no one has bothered to fix it. It's pretty embarassing.
So here is a simple primer to the use of apostrophes.
Apostrophes are used for two primary reasons.
a) To indicate a contraction
b) To indicate possession
Contractions
These are used to indicate a shortened form of (usually) something else. For example, "isn't" is a contraction of "is not". "I'll" instead of "I will." These are fairly straight forward except sometimes when the conjugation "is" is involved. "John's going to the library" really means "John is going to the library." It does not indicate...
Possession
Possession is usually indicated by the apostrophe s combination. "John's book" means "the book that belongs to John." Most people simply put an apostrophe if the noun in question is plural. "The Cubs' game." [Some people insist on adding an 's even to nouns ending in an s, such as "James's shoes." This is generally considered less preferable but not flat out incorrect]
The position of the apostrophe is very important and this is what often leads to confusion. "My brother's room" means something very different than "my brothers' room." The key is to note what comes before the apostrophe. "My brother's room" means "the room of my [one] brother." Whereas "my brothers' room" means "the room of my [multiple] brothers." One little space can make a big difference. That's why "boy's room" was wrong, unless it was specifically reserved for one guy in particular.
It
"It" is the most often butchered word when it comes to apostrophes. So here's the simple explanation
"It's" means "it is." ex-It's a shame what Bush is doing.
"Its" indicates possession. ex-The dog wags its tail.
The word its' does not exist. If you want to show possession, use its.
If society insist on standardized tests, can't they at least test stuff that's actually going to matter? In middle school, I was taught parts of speech diagrams (in English) and how to manually calculate the square root of a number (in math). To me, these are classic examples of how to waste time and brain cells.
Parts of speech diagrams were foolish because they didn't help you learn parts of speech any better. You were more concerned about trying to remember what goes on diaganol lines and what goes on straight lines or something like that. I don't remember exactly. Which is exactly the point. I'm a writer and I still think it was useless.
Manually calculating the square root of a number was even more pointless. Anyone who ever uses the square root in their profession will determine it via a calculator or computer. I actually obtained a bachelor's degree in math and I never manually calculated a square root in university. If I had, I'd never have finished any of the exams. No engineer or mathematician is ever going to do this by hand!
This is what's called make work. If you taught you how to think or deduce or gave you brain flexibility or anything other than simply memorizing something you'll never need after the test, it might be worth something. But state administrators need to fill up a syllabus so stuff like this gets thrown in.
Instead of wasting brain cells and energy on nonesense like manual square roots, why not hammer home stuff kids will actually use? For example, mathematical skills related to balancing a checkbook.
A big one is that people should know rules concerning apostrophes. This is a pet peeve of mine. Perhaps because my mom was an English teacher so stuff like this got hammered into me when I was young. The use of apostrophes is careless. But it's also an example of pretensiousness.
Being wrong because you're trying to be pretentious is more annoying more than simply being wrong. The latter is merely an error of omission; the former, one of commission.
Many people say "I feel well" when they almost always mean "I feel good." Or they'll say "Between you and I..." when they really mean "Between you and me." And they do so because it SOUNDS more educated. "I feel good" sounds uncultured to the ear. But it's gramatically correct unless referring to your sense of touch.
Mis-use of apostrophes is one of the most common causes of grammatical errors, but one of the simplest to avoid.
I was at the YMCA yesterday and there was a flyer advertising a basketball league. The text read something like "League fee's are due by Jan. 28." Worse, I was at my local high school. The new addition had bathrooms but they hadn't yet put up permanent signs identifying them. So one of the doors had a hand-written sign that read "Boy's room." It's bad enough that someone (presumably someone in authority) made this mistake. But after four months, no one has bothered to fix it. It's pretty embarassing.
So here is a simple primer to the use of apostrophes.
Apostrophes are used for two primary reasons.
a) To indicate a contraction
b) To indicate possession
Contractions
These are used to indicate a shortened form of (usually) something else. For example, "isn't" is a contraction of "is not". "I'll" instead of "I will." These are fairly straight forward except sometimes when the conjugation "is" is involved. "John's going to the library" really means "John is going to the library." It does not indicate...
Possession
Possession is usually indicated by the apostrophe s combination. "John's book" means "the book that belongs to John." Most people simply put an apostrophe if the noun in question is plural. "The Cubs' game." [Some people insist on adding an 's even to nouns ending in an s, such as "James's shoes." This is generally considered less preferable but not flat out incorrect]
The position of the apostrophe is very important and this is what often leads to confusion. "My brother's room" means something very different than "my brothers' room." The key is to note what comes before the apostrophe. "My brother's room" means "the room of my [one] brother." Whereas "my brothers' room" means "the room of my [multiple] brothers." One little space can make a big difference. That's why "boy's room" was wrong, unless it was specifically reserved for one guy in particular.
It
"It" is the most often butchered word when it comes to apostrophes. So here's the simple explanation
"It's" means "it is." ex-It's a shame what Bush is doing.
"Its" indicates possession. ex-The dog wags its tail.
The word its' does not exist. If you want to show possession, use its.
Sunday, January 25, 2004
POWELL U-TURN ON WMDs
Now the BBC is reporting that Secretary of State Colin Powell has conceded that Iraq may not have possessed any stocks of weapons of mass destruction before the war last year. Well that's useful to know now.
Now the BBC is reporting that Secretary of State Colin Powell has conceded that Iraq may not have possessed any stocks of weapons of mass destruction before the war last year. Well that's useful to know now.
Friday, January 23, 2004
US WEAPONS HEAD CONTRADICTS BUSH ON WMDs
At first, the suggestion that Iraq wasn't really a threat to America was made primarily by warmed over 60s hippies and other long-haired freaky people. So it was easily dismissed by people who "knew better", who insisted we should simply be quiet and trust our president. He knew what he was doing.
Then the contention that Iraq could launch its alleged weapons within 45 minutes was rubbished. Even when a former cabinet secretary claimed Pres. Bush was looking for a reason to conquer Iraq from day one of his administration, apologists whined that it was sour grapes or just a guy who wanted to hype his book. When evil UN weapons chief Hans Blix cast doubt on accusations of Iraq having a WMD program, he was shredded by the US foreign policy establishment and yapping heads. But this allegation by outgoing AMERICAN head of inspections, a man appointed by Pres. Bush himself, is particularly damaging. No one can accuse him of not knowing what he's talking about, though expect the White House to try. This is perhaps the biggest breach in the house of cards yet revealed.
I usually don't post articles from other sources in their entireity, but I will make an exception here...
Source: Reuters
Ex-Arms Hunter Kay Says No WMD Stockpiles in Iraq
By Tabassum Zakaria
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - David Kay stepped down as leader of the U.S. hunt for banned weapons in Iraq on Friday and said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons.
In a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which says its invasion of Iraq was justified by the presence of illicit arms, Kay told Reuters in a telephone interview he had concluded there were no Iraqi stockpiles to be found.
"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties," he said.
The CIA announced earlier that former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who has previously expressed doubts that unconventional weapons would be found, would succeed Kay as Washington's chief arms hunter.
Kay said he believes most of what was going to be found in the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has been found and that the hunt would become more difficult once America returned control of the country to the Iraqis.
The United States went to war against Baghdad last year citing a threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. To date, no banned arms have been found.
In his annual State of the Union on Tuesday, President Bush insisted that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had actively pursued dangerous programs right up to the start of the U.S. attack in March.
Citing a report to Congress in October, Bush said Kay had found "dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations."
"Had we failed to act," Bush said, "the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day."
JURY STILL OUT
And on Wednesday, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States had not given up on finding unconventional weapons in Iraq. "The jury is still out," he said in a radio interview.
Kay said he left the post due to a "complex set of issues. It related in part to a reduction in the resource and a change in focus of ISG," he said referring to the Iraq Survey Group, which is in charge of the weapons hunt.
ISG analysts were diverted from hunting for weapons of mass destruction to helping in the fight against the insurgency, Kay said.
"When I had started out I had made it a condition that ISG be exclusively focused on WMD, that's no longer so," he said.
"We're not going to find much after June. Once the Iraqis take complete control of the government it is just almost impossible to operate in the way that we operate," Kay said.
"I think we have found probably 85 percent of what we're going to find," he said. "I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production and that's what we're really talking about."
Kay said he was going back to the private sector.
In a statement announcing Kay's departure, CIA Director George Tenet praised Kay for his "extraordinary service under dangerous and difficult circumstances."
Duelfer, 51, a former deputy executive chairman of the U.N. Special Commission that was responsible for dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, had previously expressed doubts that unconventional weapons would be found.
"I think that Mr. Kay and his team have looked very hard. I think the reason that they haven't found them is they're probably not there," Duelfer told NBC television earlier this month.
But in a statement included in the CIA announcement, Duelfer, who will be based in Iraq and as CIA special adviser to direct the WMD search, said he was keeping an open mind.
"I'm approaching it with an open mind and am absolutely committed to following the evidence wherever it takes us," he said.
At first, the suggestion that Iraq wasn't really a threat to America was made primarily by warmed over 60s hippies and other long-haired freaky people. So it was easily dismissed by people who "knew better", who insisted we should simply be quiet and trust our president. He knew what he was doing.
Then the contention that Iraq could launch its alleged weapons within 45 minutes was rubbished. Even when a former cabinet secretary claimed Pres. Bush was looking for a reason to conquer Iraq from day one of his administration, apologists whined that it was sour grapes or just a guy who wanted to hype his book. When evil UN weapons chief Hans Blix cast doubt on accusations of Iraq having a WMD program, he was shredded by the US foreign policy establishment and yapping heads. But this allegation by outgoing AMERICAN head of inspections, a man appointed by Pres. Bush himself, is particularly damaging. No one can accuse him of not knowing what he's talking about, though expect the White House to try. This is perhaps the biggest breach in the house of cards yet revealed.
I usually don't post articles from other sources in their entireity, but I will make an exception here...
Source: Reuters
Ex-Arms Hunter Kay Says No WMD Stockpiles in Iraq
By Tabassum Zakaria
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - David Kay stepped down as leader of the U.S. hunt for banned weapons in Iraq on Friday and said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons.
In a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which says its invasion of Iraq was justified by the presence of illicit arms, Kay told Reuters in a telephone interview he had concluded there were no Iraqi stockpiles to be found.
"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties," he said.
The CIA announced earlier that former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who has previously expressed doubts that unconventional weapons would be found, would succeed Kay as Washington's chief arms hunter.
Kay said he believes most of what was going to be found in the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has been found and that the hunt would become more difficult once America returned control of the country to the Iraqis.
The United States went to war against Baghdad last year citing a threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. To date, no banned arms have been found.
In his annual State of the Union on Tuesday, President Bush insisted that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had actively pursued dangerous programs right up to the start of the U.S. attack in March.
Citing a report to Congress in October, Bush said Kay had found "dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations."
"Had we failed to act," Bush said, "the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day."
JURY STILL OUT
And on Wednesday, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States had not given up on finding unconventional weapons in Iraq. "The jury is still out," he said in a radio interview.
Kay said he left the post due to a "complex set of issues. It related in part to a reduction in the resource and a change in focus of ISG," he said referring to the Iraq Survey Group, which is in charge of the weapons hunt.
ISG analysts were diverted from hunting for weapons of mass destruction to helping in the fight against the insurgency, Kay said.
"When I had started out I had made it a condition that ISG be exclusively focused on WMD, that's no longer so," he said.
"We're not going to find much after June. Once the Iraqis take complete control of the government it is just almost impossible to operate in the way that we operate," Kay said.
"I think we have found probably 85 percent of what we're going to find," he said. "I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production and that's what we're really talking about."
Kay said he was going back to the private sector.
In a statement announcing Kay's departure, CIA Director George Tenet praised Kay for his "extraordinary service under dangerous and difficult circumstances."
Duelfer, 51, a former deputy executive chairman of the U.N. Special Commission that was responsible for dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, had previously expressed doubts that unconventional weapons would be found.
"I think that Mr. Kay and his team have looked very hard. I think the reason that they haven't found them is they're probably not there," Duelfer told NBC television earlier this month.
But in a statement included in the CIA announcement, Duelfer, who will be based in Iraq and as CIA special adviser to direct the WMD search, said he was keeping an open mind.
"I'm approaching it with an open mind and am absolutely committed to following the evidence wherever it takes us," he said.
Thursday, January 22, 2004
GENOCIDE REVISIONISTS EXPAND TO RWANDA
As mentioned in the previous entry, retired Gen. Roméo Dallaire is testifying before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. And Dallaire's new book, Shake Hands With the Devil, was recently published. The book details his dealings with the Hutu extremists who wanted to undermine the peace process that begin in 1993 and ultimately planned the genocide that occured the following year.
A guy named Robin Philpot savagely attacked the book in the Montreal paper Le Devoir (if you know French, it's here. Philpot is the author of Ca ne s'est passé comme ça à Kigali, which translates to "It didn't happen like that in Kigali" (the Rwandan capital). That book purports to give a different view of the widely held account of how the genocide happened.
The attack on the book provoked a strong reaction (see here and here). The backlash was all the more because Dallaire is widely considered a tragic hero in his native Canada, as well as by anyone familiar with the genocide. The latter of the above pieces accused Philpot of the "negation of a genocide." A reply by Philpot angrily denied this. The nonsense contained in this reply urged me to write a letter myself to the paper.
Below is a translatation of the letter I wrote. I included slight additions in [] to make things more clear since I won't dignify Philpot's crap with a translation.
Editor:
Robin Philpot says he never "denied that there were massive killings, sometimes even of an ethnic character" in Rwanda, while at the same time "rejecting categorically the abusive use of the term genocide." These writings, as well as his inflammatory critique of Gen. Romeo Dallaire's book, demonstrate his ignorance of international law.
The Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide could not be more clear. According to this document:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
During the massacres, Radio Mille Collines, nicknamed Hate Radio, read the names of Tutsis to be killed by the masses. Two heads of the Hate Radio were recently condemned to life in prison by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [ICTR]. The tragedy was planned, not according to the "instant historians" [who Philpot derided], but according to international justice.
[Philpot suggests] The use of the word genocide during a conflict somehow renders innocent the other warring party? How exactly?! The Allies surely committed certain war crimes during the Second World War. Does this prevent us from talking of a genocide against the Jews?
The 'revelation' of the political aspirations of the Rwandan Patriotic Front is presented as some how disproving the fact of genocide. [The RPF was the rebel group fighting the army of the genocidal regime. The RPF is now in power]
Yet, no genocide in history has taken place without any political aspect. Genocide is very much a political act. Inventing a scapegoat serves to distract people who live in misery. Hate is sometimes good politics. In Rwanda, in the Balkans, in the 3rd Reich, the list is not short.
Philpot would like us to believe that the majority of Rwandans were seized by a spontaneous madness, an angry that appeared out of nowhere. That hatred between neighbors and friends is the natural state of things... at least over there, where the savages live.
In fact, the extremist Hutu leaders of the ex-regime were ferociously opposed to power sharing with the Tutsis, even if the majority of Hutus wanted peace and tranquility.
This genocide, like all others in history, was not born in a vacuum. It was provoked by a small clan of people who cared about nothing other than protecting their own privileged position, which was under threat by the winds of change.
Mr. Philpot, it's this malicious mafia that we are demonizing, not the majority [he tried to create the contemptable strawman diversion that the world was blaming the Hutus as a whole people]. Contrary to the genociders, the international community doesn't preach a policy of collective guilt. This is why the ICTR is going after the architects who planned the genocide.
Philpot accuses members of the former rebellion of having committed crimes against humanity [as though this cancels out the genocide]. If so, then drag them before the ICTR too. Justice demands it.
Regardless of what the FPR did, a genocide against the Tutsis, in the PRECISE usage of the term, did take place.
Sincerely,
[Me]
[Incidentally, Philpot also approvingly quoted former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, without mentioning that he's defending a man accused before the ICTR.]
As mentioned in the previous entry, retired Gen. Roméo Dallaire is testifying before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. And Dallaire's new book, Shake Hands With the Devil, was recently published. The book details his dealings with the Hutu extremists who wanted to undermine the peace process that begin in 1993 and ultimately planned the genocide that occured the following year.
A guy named Robin Philpot savagely attacked the book in the Montreal paper Le Devoir (if you know French, it's here. Philpot is the author of Ca ne s'est passé comme ça à Kigali, which translates to "It didn't happen like that in Kigali" (the Rwandan capital). That book purports to give a different view of the widely held account of how the genocide happened.
The attack on the book provoked a strong reaction (see here and here). The backlash was all the more because Dallaire is widely considered a tragic hero in his native Canada, as well as by anyone familiar with the genocide. The latter of the above pieces accused Philpot of the "negation of a genocide." A reply by Philpot angrily denied this. The nonsense contained in this reply urged me to write a letter myself to the paper.
Below is a translatation of the letter I wrote. I included slight additions in [] to make things more clear since I won't dignify Philpot's crap with a translation.
Editor:
Robin Philpot says he never "denied that there were massive killings, sometimes even of an ethnic character" in Rwanda, while at the same time "rejecting categorically the abusive use of the term genocide." These writings, as well as his inflammatory critique of Gen. Romeo Dallaire's book, demonstrate his ignorance of international law.
The Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide could not be more clear. According to this document:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
During the massacres, Radio Mille Collines, nicknamed Hate Radio, read the names of Tutsis to be killed by the masses. Two heads of the Hate Radio were recently condemned to life in prison by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [ICTR]. The tragedy was planned, not according to the "instant historians" [who Philpot derided], but according to international justice.
[Philpot suggests] The use of the word genocide during a conflict somehow renders innocent the other warring party? How exactly?! The Allies surely committed certain war crimes during the Second World War. Does this prevent us from talking of a genocide against the Jews?
The 'revelation' of the political aspirations of the Rwandan Patriotic Front is presented as some how disproving the fact of genocide. [The RPF was the rebel group fighting the army of the genocidal regime. The RPF is now in power]
Yet, no genocide in history has taken place without any political aspect. Genocide is very much a political act. Inventing a scapegoat serves to distract people who live in misery. Hate is sometimes good politics. In Rwanda, in the Balkans, in the 3rd Reich, the list is not short.
Philpot would like us to believe that the majority of Rwandans were seized by a spontaneous madness, an angry that appeared out of nowhere. That hatred between neighbors and friends is the natural state of things... at least over there, where the savages live.
In fact, the extremist Hutu leaders of the ex-regime were ferociously opposed to power sharing with the Tutsis, even if the majority of Hutus wanted peace and tranquility.
This genocide, like all others in history, was not born in a vacuum. It was provoked by a small clan of people who cared about nothing other than protecting their own privileged position, which was under threat by the winds of change.
Mr. Philpot, it's this malicious mafia that we are demonizing, not the majority [he tried to create the contemptable strawman diversion that the world was blaming the Hutus as a whole people]. Contrary to the genociders, the international community doesn't preach a policy of collective guilt. This is why the ICTR is going after the architects who planned the genocide.
Philpot accuses members of the former rebellion of having committed crimes against humanity [as though this cancels out the genocide]. If so, then drag them before the ICTR too. Justice demands it.
Regardless of what the FPR did, a genocide against the Tutsis, in the PRECISE usage of the term, did take place.
Sincerely,
[Me]
[Incidentally, Philpot also approvingly quoted former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, without mentioning that he's defending a man accused before the ICTR.]
INTERNATIONAL RWANDA TRIBUNAL FINALLY MAKING PROGRESS
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is finally making progress. Last month, they convicted three journalists for incitement to genocide during the 1994 tragedy. They worked at the infamous Radio des Mille Collines which read out lists of names of people to be slaughtered. At the trial, several emotional witnesses, including employees of the media outlets, compared the role of the media to that of fuel on a fire. Phrases such as "go to work" and "the graves are not yet full" were read by radio disc jockeys during the spring of 1994. A newspaper called on citizens to exterminate the "cockroach Tutsis.", noted a Washington Post article.
Today, A former Rwandan education minister has been sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of genocide. . He was accused of personally leading militias to slaughter ethnic Tutsis sheltering in a church and a school, according to the BBC.
Now, the former head of UN troops in Rwanda is testifying against Colonel Theoneste Bagosora, the presumed mastermind of the genocide. "I had a very tense meeting with him and he threatened me with a pistol, saying that next time we met he would shoot me," General Dallaire told the ICTR.
It should further discredit the claim of a few revisionists that what happened in Rwanda wasn't planned and wasn't really genocide.
*
LEARN MORE
You can also read a review of Gen. Dallaire's new book Shake Hands With the Devil.
For a condensed version of the events leading up to and during the genocide, check out the extremely informative article Bystanders to Genocide which ran in The Atlantic Monthly in September 2001.
The best account of the genocide is the stunning book We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda by Philip Gourevitch. It remains the most powerful book I've ever read.
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is finally making progress. Last month, they convicted three journalists for incitement to genocide during the 1994 tragedy. They worked at the infamous Radio des Mille Collines which read out lists of names of people to be slaughtered. At the trial, several emotional witnesses, including employees of the media outlets, compared the role of the media to that of fuel on a fire. Phrases such as "go to work" and "the graves are not yet full" were read by radio disc jockeys during the spring of 1994. A newspaper called on citizens to exterminate the "cockroach Tutsis.", noted a Washington Post article.
Today, A former Rwandan education minister has been sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of genocide. . He was accused of personally leading militias to slaughter ethnic Tutsis sheltering in a church and a school, according to the BBC.
Now, the former head of UN troops in Rwanda is testifying against Colonel Theoneste Bagosora, the presumed mastermind of the genocide. "I had a very tense meeting with him and he threatened me with a pistol, saying that next time we met he would shoot me," General Dallaire told the ICTR.
It should further discredit the claim of a few revisionists that what happened in Rwanda wasn't planned and wasn't really genocide.
*
LEARN MORE
You can also read a review of Gen. Dallaire's new book Shake Hands With the Devil.
For a condensed version of the events leading up to and during the genocide, check out the extremely informative article Bystanders to Genocide which ran in The Atlantic Monthly in September 2001.
The best account of the genocide is the stunning book We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda by Philip Gourevitch. It remains the most powerful book I've ever read.
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
MIXED MESSAGES
"Our founders dedicated this country to the cause of human dignity, the rights of every person and the possibilities of every life."
-Pres. George W. Bush, State of the Union 2002
"Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."
-Pres. Bush, State of the Union Address 2003
The problem, of course, is not the activist judges but federal and state constitutions. The US Constitution has a provision guaranteeing the equal protection of the law for all citizens. Most states have similar clauses. Those "activist" judges are merely insisting that Congress and state legislatures respect the relevant constitution. Constitutional rights can’t be taken away by 50%+1 of a legislature.
Imagine if the majority in a bunch state legislatures passed laws saying that blacks couldn't marry whites. And then a few of "activist judges" decided that these laws were unconstitutional. Of course, this isn't imagination but history. Was the US Supreme Court right to strike down Jim Crow laws, laws which were an expression of majority will in the respective states?
The president spent huge chunks this year’s State of the Union address saying how wonderful we were to liberate Iraqis and Afghans. To give the oppressed people their freedom. To give women and minorities fair treatment and equality under the law. Then he threatened not to only legalize, but to constitutionalize, obligatory discrimination against a group of law-abiding American citizens.
Shame on you, Mr. President. In addition to being morally repugnant, this is not the message we need to be sending to Iraqis and Afghans as they attempt to build a better society.
"Our founders dedicated this country to the cause of human dignity, the rights of every person and the possibilities of every life."
-Pres. George W. Bush, State of the Union 2002
"Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."
-Pres. Bush, State of the Union Address 2003
The problem, of course, is not the activist judges but federal and state constitutions. The US Constitution has a provision guaranteeing the equal protection of the law for all citizens. Most states have similar clauses. Those "activist" judges are merely insisting that Congress and state legislatures respect the relevant constitution. Constitutional rights can’t be taken away by 50%+1 of a legislature.
Imagine if the majority in a bunch state legislatures passed laws saying that blacks couldn't marry whites. And then a few of "activist judges" decided that these laws were unconstitutional. Of course, this isn't imagination but history. Was the US Supreme Court right to strike down Jim Crow laws, laws which were an expression of majority will in the respective states?
The president spent huge chunks this year’s State of the Union address saying how wonderful we were to liberate Iraqis and Afghans. To give the oppressed people their freedom. To give women and minorities fair treatment and equality under the law. Then he threatened not to only legalize, but to constitutionalize, obligatory discrimination against a group of law-abiding American citizens.
Shame on you, Mr. President. In addition to being morally repugnant, this is not the message we need to be sending to Iraqis and Afghans as they attempt to build a better society.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
BEWARE OF O'REILLYS BEARING GIFTS
Our local paper runs Bill O’Reilly’s column on Monday. That day, they run O’Reilly and Cal Thomas, two hyper-conservative columnists. On Tuesday (I think), they run Molly Ivins and Ellen Goodman. Goodman’s an ordinary liberal. Ivins proves that left-wing women can be just as shrill as right-wing men. Strike a blow for equality of the sexes!
Anyway, in yesterday’s column, O’Reilly gave some tips to the Democratic Party. I usually don’t read that junk but my breakfast took a little longer to eat than usual.
O’Reilly took his usual shots against the “far left” who opposed the Iraq war and against the “radical” grassroots organization MoveOn.org.
Interestingly, MoveOn already has 1.7 million members in only two (?) years. That number is a little less than half the 4.3 million claimed by the National Rifle Organization, which has been around since 1871. If O’Reilly calls for the “radical” NRA to disband, then maybe he can do the same to MoveOn.
O’Reilly also sniffed about a video contest sponsored by MoveOn. It sollicited ads criticizing President Bush’s policies. A few of the entries compared the administration to Nazi Germany. Now, these entries weren’t judged worthy of the time of day by MoveOn, but that didn’t stop O’Reilly and other conservatives from stomping their feet loudly. If I submit a “bin Laden kicks butt” piece to the patriotism contest sponsored by the local American Legion, will that “discredit” the Legion?
O’Reilly also made fauning references to MoveOn supporter George Soros (“one far out character”). According to O’Reilly, Soros is moaning there isn’t enough ‘income redistribution’ in the world. Maybe that’s because the Soviet Union collapsed.
Of course, from this smear you’d think Soros loved communism more than anything else in the world. That must be why Soros moved away from Hungary after it fell under the Soviet boot, made a fortune in the investment markets (a great haven for capitalism haters) and established foundations through Eastern Europe to promote “open society through the support of a variety of educational, cultural and economic restructuring activities.”
But what’s most amusing is O’Reilly’s conclusion. I am sending a final warning to the Democratic Party, which my family belonged to for more than one hundred years. Wise up before it's too late. People judge you by those with whom you associate.
O’Reilly’s love and concern for the well-being of the Democratic Party is well-documented. I’m sure all Democrats will trust his advice enough to follow it. He only wants what’s best for them. Really!
Sources: George Soros bio -- Bill O’Reilly column
Our local paper runs Bill O’Reilly’s column on Monday. That day, they run O’Reilly and Cal Thomas, two hyper-conservative columnists. On Tuesday (I think), they run Molly Ivins and Ellen Goodman. Goodman’s an ordinary liberal. Ivins proves that left-wing women can be just as shrill as right-wing men. Strike a blow for equality of the sexes!
Anyway, in yesterday’s column, O’Reilly gave some tips to the Democratic Party. I usually don’t read that junk but my breakfast took a little longer to eat than usual.
O’Reilly took his usual shots against the “far left” who opposed the Iraq war and against the “radical” grassroots organization MoveOn.org.
Interestingly, MoveOn already has 1.7 million members in only two (?) years. That number is a little less than half the 4.3 million claimed by the National Rifle Organization, which has been around since 1871. If O’Reilly calls for the “radical” NRA to disband, then maybe he can do the same to MoveOn.
O’Reilly also sniffed about a video contest sponsored by MoveOn. It sollicited ads criticizing President Bush’s policies. A few of the entries compared the administration to Nazi Germany. Now, these entries weren’t judged worthy of the time of day by MoveOn, but that didn’t stop O’Reilly and other conservatives from stomping their feet loudly. If I submit a “bin Laden kicks butt” piece to the patriotism contest sponsored by the local American Legion, will that “discredit” the Legion?
O’Reilly also made fauning references to MoveOn supporter George Soros (“one far out character”). According to O’Reilly, Soros is moaning there isn’t enough ‘income redistribution’ in the world. Maybe that’s because the Soviet Union collapsed.
Of course, from this smear you’d think Soros loved communism more than anything else in the world. That must be why Soros moved away from Hungary after it fell under the Soviet boot, made a fortune in the investment markets (a great haven for capitalism haters) and established foundations through Eastern Europe to promote “open society through the support of a variety of educational, cultural and economic restructuring activities.”
But what’s most amusing is O’Reilly’s conclusion. I am sending a final warning to the Democratic Party, which my family belonged to for more than one hundred years. Wise up before it's too late. People judge you by those with whom you associate.
O’Reilly’s love and concern for the well-being of the Democratic Party is well-documented. I’m sure all Democrats will trust his advice enough to follow it. He only wants what’s best for them. Really!
Sources: George Soros bio -- Bill O’Reilly column
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)