As if creating widespread anti-Americanism in Central America with support for death squads wasn't enough, the US government is now mulling similiar tactics in Iraq. The Christian Science Monitor's terrorism and security update reports on an idea being bandied about named 'The Salvador option.'
Determined to find a way to contain the growing insurgency in Iraq, Newsweek reported Sunday that the US and Iraq are considering using a tactic that was used in Central America during the Reagan administration - "government funded or supported 'nationalist' forces that allegedly included so-called 'death squads' directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers."
Death squads in Central America may have targeted rebel leaders and sympathizers but because of obtuse tactics, recklessness and chest-beating machismo, huge numbers of civilians were the main victims.
US ambassador to Iraq John Negroponte held the same position in Honduras during the early 80s where Nicaraguan Contra rebels trained.
While the Bush administration may not have a clue how to make us more safe, they could at least stop doing things that make us less safe.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Monday, January 10, 2005
'Respect the whistle' has to work both ways
Last week, an otherwise dull soccer match between the English clubs Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United had a quite extraordinary ending. A Spurs' player took a shot from around half-field, about 50 yards away. United goalkeeper Roy Carroll somehow managed to botch an easy save and the ball squirted over the goal line by a full yard, according to all accounts. He quickly gathered the ball and got rid of it, as though nothing had happened. The officials were too far away to see the ball crossing the line and thus did not award a goal.
This incident has provoked much debate in England, giving serious ammunition to advocates of video replay for soccer. I do not support video replay for soccer, since it does not have natural breaks in the action that make limited replay work for sports like NFL football and NHL ice hockey. One proposal I've heard, that makes much more sense, is to put electronic sensors in the ball and in the goals that would alert the referee (who would wear an earpiece) that the ball has crossed the line. This is fundamentally the same thing that is used in professional tennis, where the naked eye would otherwise have to judge serves of speeds of 130 miles per hour or faster.
Another interesting effect of the Spurs' non-goal has to do with the intersection of ethics and sport. This leader (editorial) in the British paper The Guardian implies that Manchester United should fine Carroll for not admitting that the ball had crossed the line.
But the fact is simple: by not fessing up, Carroll cheated, in a rather serious, though not unusual way. It will be interesting to see whether Manchester United fine him for what he did, and whether the Football Association takes action against him, as each of them is entitled and ought to do. It will not, of course, give Spurs the goal they deserve, but it would show that someone in football still remembers the difference between right and wrong.
I am very much an advocate of sportsmanship, particularly with the kids I coach. I do not tolerate cheap play. I do not tolerate diving or its evil twin shirt pulling. I tell my players generally to not talk to the ref; I have them tell me if there's a consistent problem and I'll talk to him.
But The Guardian is wrong in this case, no matter how well-intentioned.
Interestingly, the exact same situation happened to one of the teams I coach last spring. A shot from one of our players clearly crossed the line. The keeper picked it out of the goal and rolled it to one of his defenders. The oblivious ref, consistent with the atrocious way he called that particular game, did nothing. We would've won the game had that goal been properly allowed.
I always tell my players: "Play the whistle." Which means, if the ref doesn't judge a foul, there is no foul. If the ref doesn't think it went out of bounds, it didn't go out of bounds. If one of my players stops because he thought he fouled the opponent but the other guy keeps going, our team is going to be at a disadvantage. Basically, what the ref says goes. But that has to work both ways.
I've also heard many refs tell coaches or players something to the effect, "You worry about playing/coaching and I'll worry about reffing." In other words, the coach's job is to coach, the player's job to play and the ref's job to ref.
In fact, the code of conduct for FIFA, the international soccer federation, states Referees are there to maintain discipline and Fair Play. Always accept their decisions without arguing, and help them to help you enjoy the game more. Officials are also part of the game and must be respected accordingly.
But again, that's something that has to work both ways.
You can't say "accept their decisions without arguing except when it might hurt you."
Speaking of the ethics, it was amusing to read Carroll's Manchester United teammate Roy Keane pontificating on the ethics of diving (aka: simulation, play-acting). This is the same paragon of virtue Roy Keane who admitted to INTENTIONALLY injuring Manchester City's Alf Inge Haaland who suffered a serious knee injury that essentially ended his soccer career. What did Haaland do to provoke the nutcase's ire? He allegedly accused Keano of play-acting during an earlier incident between the two. I wonder what demented ethical code makes play-acting a more serious crime than intentionally injuring someone.
This incident has provoked much debate in England, giving serious ammunition to advocates of video replay for soccer. I do not support video replay for soccer, since it does not have natural breaks in the action that make limited replay work for sports like NFL football and NHL ice hockey. One proposal I've heard, that makes much more sense, is to put electronic sensors in the ball and in the goals that would alert the referee (who would wear an earpiece) that the ball has crossed the line. This is fundamentally the same thing that is used in professional tennis, where the naked eye would otherwise have to judge serves of speeds of 130 miles per hour or faster.
Another interesting effect of the Spurs' non-goal has to do with the intersection of ethics and sport. This leader (editorial) in the British paper The Guardian implies that Manchester United should fine Carroll for not admitting that the ball had crossed the line.
But the fact is simple: by not fessing up, Carroll cheated, in a rather serious, though not unusual way. It will be interesting to see whether Manchester United fine him for what he did, and whether the Football Association takes action against him, as each of them is entitled and ought to do. It will not, of course, give Spurs the goal they deserve, but it would show that someone in football still remembers the difference between right and wrong.
I am very much an advocate of sportsmanship, particularly with the kids I coach. I do not tolerate cheap play. I do not tolerate diving or its evil twin shirt pulling. I tell my players generally to not talk to the ref; I have them tell me if there's a consistent problem and I'll talk to him.
But The Guardian is wrong in this case, no matter how well-intentioned.
Interestingly, the exact same situation happened to one of the teams I coach last spring. A shot from one of our players clearly crossed the line. The keeper picked it out of the goal and rolled it to one of his defenders. The oblivious ref, consistent with the atrocious way he called that particular game, did nothing. We would've won the game had that goal been properly allowed.
I always tell my players: "Play the whistle." Which means, if the ref doesn't judge a foul, there is no foul. If the ref doesn't think it went out of bounds, it didn't go out of bounds. If one of my players stops because he thought he fouled the opponent but the other guy keeps going, our team is going to be at a disadvantage. Basically, what the ref says goes. But that has to work both ways.
I've also heard many refs tell coaches or players something to the effect, "You worry about playing/coaching and I'll worry about reffing." In other words, the coach's job is to coach, the player's job to play and the ref's job to ref.
In fact, the code of conduct for FIFA, the international soccer federation, states Referees are there to maintain discipline and Fair Play. Always accept their decisions without arguing, and help them to help you enjoy the game more. Officials are also part of the game and must be respected accordingly.
But again, that's something that has to work both ways.
You can't say "accept their decisions without arguing except when it might hurt you."
Speaking of the ethics, it was amusing to read Carroll's Manchester United teammate Roy Keane pontificating on the ethics of diving (aka: simulation, play-acting). This is the same paragon of virtue Roy Keane who admitted to INTENTIONALLY injuring Manchester City's Alf Inge Haaland who suffered a serious knee injury that essentially ended his soccer career. What did Haaland do to provoke the nutcase's ire? He allegedly accused Keano of play-acting during an earlier incident between the two. I wonder what demented ethical code makes play-acting a more serious crime than intentionally injuring someone.
Reports of the music industry's death greatly exagerrated
Conventional wisdom has been that Internet music file sharing would destroy the traditional record industry, despite massive consolidation in the business. After all, file sharers get their music for free and it's hard to compete with free.
So anyone who believes in the doom-and-gloom would be surprised to read this article from The New York Times that states that US music sales climbed 1.6 per cent.
It also reported that The year-end music industry report showed the number of digital tracks sold last year - using devices such as Apple's iPod or Napster's subscription model - climbed to 140.9m, compared with just 19.2m in 2003.
And it seems that reports of the traditional CD's demise were slightly premature. CD album sales increased by 2.3% in 2004 as compared to 2003.
So anyone who believes in the doom-and-gloom would be surprised to read this article from The New York Times that states that US music sales climbed 1.6 per cent.
It also reported that The year-end music industry report showed the number of digital tracks sold last year - using devices such as Apple's iPod or Napster's subscription model - climbed to 140.9m, compared with just 19.2m in 2003.
And it seems that reports of the traditional CD's demise were slightly premature. CD album sales increased by 2.3% in 2004 as compared to 2003.
Sunday, January 09, 2005
'America haters'
It's hardly a newsflash that it's a tough time to be an American who dissent from patriotically correct dogma.
I've written before on my confusion as to how exactly progressives like myself are supposed to reach out to "red staters" like those who say liberals despise Christ, those who support maintaining segregationist constitutional language and those who want to ban books with gay characters.
I really would like to reach out. I really don't like progressive candidates losing most of the time, or rarely getting nominated in the first place. I really don't like it that those who think President Bush is too liberal and not overtly religious enough seem to be in the ascendancy. I really would like to expand progressive values. I just don't know how sucking up to people like those I mentioned above will help this cause. And besides, isn't dialogue supposed to be a two-way street?
The blog Ornicus ran a cartoon entitled 'America Haters.' The cartoon showed a guy in a peace-logo t-shirt holding a sign 'Stop Fascist War on Terrorism' and embracing an Islamist fanatic while standing atop a pile of corpses. Incidentally, Ornicus was attacking, not endorsing, the disgusting cartoon.
The sickening cartoon is emblematic of a possibly small but very vocal minority that would applaud Ann Coulter's advice on how to talk to liberals (with a baseball bat, I'm told, is her suggestion). How am I supposed to reach out to those who subscribe to the libelous sentiments expressed in that cartoon?
Then Al Neuharth, founder of The USA Today newspaper, wrote a column in which he said American troops should come home 'sooner rather than later.'
The harshest words Neuharth, one of those military veterans we're supposed to canonize, used in the entire column were 'unwise commanders in chief' and 'ill-advised adventures like Vietnam and Iraq.' Obviously, not everyone is going to agree with those assessments but his sentiments are hardly revolutionary.
Or to me at least. Others viewed his relatively benign comments somewhat differently.
A piece in Editor and Publisher ran some of the comments provoked by Neuharth's tame column.
George Wyman: “Mr. Neuharth is simply UnAmerican.”
Jeffrey A. Norris: “Cowards and traitors like Al Neuharth want all the comforts they know and enjoy, without a sacrifice to buy it.”
Frank Butash, West Hartford, CT.: “Apparently it's easier to run with jackals than to stand up for your country when it needs support.”
Kenneth Genest: “They had two of these in World War 2. One was called Tokyo Rose and the other Axis Sally. Their job was to discourage the American soldiers. I see they have one now at USA Today.”
Dan Clawson, Fresno,m CA.: "A disgrace to the men and women who serve. USA Today supporting the terrorist cause."
Jerry Martin, San Francisco, CA.: “Yet another self-defeating fool with a large bank account shoots himself in the foot. Their dissent equals treason. The terrorists got him just like all the other rich liberals who side against our victory. They forget that wars end, and then the country takes stock of who was where. I encourage the fool to keep mouthing against our victory over the Muslim jihad, he'll pay the social price in the end.”
T. Conway: “Mr. Neuharth has made a serious business mistake. Watch the circulation drop over the next year. The Los Angeles Times experienced the same drop after they attacked Gov. Schwarzenegger...some never learn. P.S. What side did Mr. Neuharth fight for in WW II?”
Peter Kessler: “And as for the good war, WW II, the lefties were four-square for that one. Yes sir, they were saving the USSR, Stalin and Communism. It's sad we didn't join Hitler until he wiped out the USSR. Alger Hiss and the Uptown Daily Worker (The New York Times) be damned. I see you've joined the club. Well, you're probably a founding member.”
Joe McBride, Fort Dodge, Iowa: “Mr. Neuharth, thanks to you and your ignorance the terrorists are probably booking their flights to the U.S. now! If we pull out of Iraq with the job unfinished the terrorists will be bombing McDonalds, and blowing up malls and schools here, killing our innocent men, women and children.”
Craig Wood, Waianae, Hawaii: “Today's press undermines our troops and supports our enemies. They convince parents that supporting your President is dangerous. They concentrate their ire on any fight that involves the United States and ignore all others. Like the sex scandal in the Congo with United Nations forces…. But, let some Army private put panties on an Iraqi's head and all hell brakes loose.”
Duggan Flanakin, Austin, Texas: “Neuharth should be tried for treason along with a lot of other blowhards who should be spending their energies condemning the barbarism of our enemies, the same people who destroyed the Twin Towers.“
Boots Harvey, Brentwood, CA: “One must recall that Churchill had to put up with the likes of Lord Haw-Haw, William Joyce, and his propaganda during WWII. In the end William Joyce was executed for giving aid and comfort to the enemy during war time. Would that the same fate befall Al Neuharth!”
Mel Gibbs: “The Patriot Act will put both of you (Neuharth and Mitchell) on trial for treason and convict and execute both of you as traitors for running these stories in a time of war and it should be done on TV for other communist traitors like you two to know we mean business. This is war and you should be put in prison NOW for talking like this. Who the hell do you people think you are? You give aid and comfort to our enemies and aid them in murdering our proud soldiers. You people are a disgrace to America. Your families should be put in prison with you, then be made to leave and move to the Middle East ...This is a great Christian nation and god wants us to lead the world out of darkness with great leaders like President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Communists like Al and Greg will soon be in prison and on death row for your ugly papers. We won the election and now you are mad. We own America and all the rights, you people are trash, go back to Russia and Africa and take your friends with before we put you on death row after a fair trial.”
I repeat: how are progressives, or decent Americans regardless of political stripe, supposed to reach out to people like this?
Who are the America haters? Who despises American values?
I've written before on my confusion as to how exactly progressives like myself are supposed to reach out to "red staters" like those who say liberals despise Christ, those who support maintaining segregationist constitutional language and those who want to ban books with gay characters.
I really would like to reach out. I really don't like progressive candidates losing most of the time, or rarely getting nominated in the first place. I really don't like it that those who think President Bush is too liberal and not overtly religious enough seem to be in the ascendancy. I really would like to expand progressive values. I just don't know how sucking up to people like those I mentioned above will help this cause. And besides, isn't dialogue supposed to be a two-way street?
The blog Ornicus ran a cartoon entitled 'America Haters.' The cartoon showed a guy in a peace-logo t-shirt holding a sign 'Stop Fascist War on Terrorism' and embracing an Islamist fanatic while standing atop a pile of corpses. Incidentally, Ornicus was attacking, not endorsing, the disgusting cartoon.
The sickening cartoon is emblematic of a possibly small but very vocal minority that would applaud Ann Coulter's advice on how to talk to liberals (with a baseball bat, I'm told, is her suggestion). How am I supposed to reach out to those who subscribe to the libelous sentiments expressed in that cartoon?
Then Al Neuharth, founder of The USA Today newspaper, wrote a column in which he said American troops should come home 'sooner rather than later.'
The harshest words Neuharth, one of those military veterans we're supposed to canonize, used in the entire column were 'unwise commanders in chief' and 'ill-advised adventures like Vietnam and Iraq.' Obviously, not everyone is going to agree with those assessments but his sentiments are hardly revolutionary.
Or to me at least. Others viewed his relatively benign comments somewhat differently.
A piece in Editor and Publisher ran some of the comments provoked by Neuharth's tame column.
George Wyman: “Mr. Neuharth is simply UnAmerican.”
Jeffrey A. Norris: “Cowards and traitors like Al Neuharth want all the comforts they know and enjoy, without a sacrifice to buy it.”
Frank Butash, West Hartford, CT.: “Apparently it's easier to run with jackals than to stand up for your country when it needs support.”
Kenneth Genest: “They had two of these in World War 2. One was called Tokyo Rose and the other Axis Sally. Their job was to discourage the American soldiers. I see they have one now at USA Today.”
Dan Clawson, Fresno,m CA.: "A disgrace to the men and women who serve. USA Today supporting the terrorist cause."
Jerry Martin, San Francisco, CA.: “Yet another self-defeating fool with a large bank account shoots himself in the foot. Their dissent equals treason. The terrorists got him just like all the other rich liberals who side against our victory. They forget that wars end, and then the country takes stock of who was where. I encourage the fool to keep mouthing against our victory over the Muslim jihad, he'll pay the social price in the end.”
T. Conway: “Mr. Neuharth has made a serious business mistake. Watch the circulation drop over the next year. The Los Angeles Times experienced the same drop after they attacked Gov. Schwarzenegger...some never learn. P.S. What side did Mr. Neuharth fight for in WW II?”
Peter Kessler: “And as for the good war, WW II, the lefties were four-square for that one. Yes sir, they were saving the USSR, Stalin and Communism. It's sad we didn't join Hitler until he wiped out the USSR. Alger Hiss and the Uptown Daily Worker (The New York Times) be damned. I see you've joined the club. Well, you're probably a founding member.”
Joe McBride, Fort Dodge, Iowa: “Mr. Neuharth, thanks to you and your ignorance the terrorists are probably booking their flights to the U.S. now! If we pull out of Iraq with the job unfinished the terrorists will be bombing McDonalds, and blowing up malls and schools here, killing our innocent men, women and children.”
Craig Wood, Waianae, Hawaii: “Today's press undermines our troops and supports our enemies. They convince parents that supporting your President is dangerous. They concentrate their ire on any fight that involves the United States and ignore all others. Like the sex scandal in the Congo with United Nations forces…. But, let some Army private put panties on an Iraqi's head and all hell brakes loose.”
Duggan Flanakin, Austin, Texas: “Neuharth should be tried for treason along with a lot of other blowhards who should be spending their energies condemning the barbarism of our enemies, the same people who destroyed the Twin Towers.“
Boots Harvey, Brentwood, CA: “One must recall that Churchill had to put up with the likes of Lord Haw-Haw, William Joyce, and his propaganda during WWII. In the end William Joyce was executed for giving aid and comfort to the enemy during war time. Would that the same fate befall Al Neuharth!”
Mel Gibbs: “The Patriot Act will put both of you (Neuharth and Mitchell) on trial for treason and convict and execute both of you as traitors for running these stories in a time of war and it should be done on TV for other communist traitors like you two to know we mean business. This is war and you should be put in prison NOW for talking like this. Who the hell do you people think you are? You give aid and comfort to our enemies and aid them in murdering our proud soldiers. You people are a disgrace to America. Your families should be put in prison with you, then be made to leave and move to the Middle East ...This is a great Christian nation and god wants us to lead the world out of darkness with great leaders like President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Communists like Al and Greg will soon be in prison and on death row for your ugly papers. We won the election and now you are mad. We own America and all the rights, you people are trash, go back to Russia and Africa and take your friends with before we put you on death row after a fair trial.”
I repeat: how are progressives, or decent Americans regardless of political stripe, supposed to reach out to people like this?
Who are the America haters? Who despises American values?
Saturday, January 08, 2005
9/11 viewed from a Muslim country
Peace Corps Writers Online has a great essay entitled Le Onze Septembre. It was written by Matt Brown who, like me, was a Peace Corps volunteer in Guinea. Except Brown was in Guinea when the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He recounts how he experienced that national tragedy thousands of miles away from home in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. It's a very personal account and very much worth a read.
Friday, January 07, 2005
Media consolidation in action
A friend of mine informed me of an interesting story concering an Albany (NY) radio station. The blog Albany Eye also pointed to a version of the story, which appeared in Schenectady's Daily Gazette (reprinted here).
A man named Robert Millman, from Glenville (not far from Albany), wanted to air issue ads on talk radio station WGY, one of the most prominent political stations in New York's capital district. The ads would deal with the war in Iraq, the national deficit and other things of interest to him. He'd pay for the ads out of his own pocket.
The Clear Channel affiliate refused to air the ads.
Some broadcast stations have a policy to air no issue ads. Others don't. It's unclear whether this applies to WGY. It's unclear because a WGY spokesman refused to comment on why his station wouldn't air the ads and wouldn't provide the journalist with a copy of the station's ad policies.
WGY airs mostly conservative talk radio shows like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage.
A man named Robert Millman, from Glenville (not far from Albany), wanted to air issue ads on talk radio station WGY, one of the most prominent political stations in New York's capital district. The ads would deal with the war in Iraq, the national deficit and other things of interest to him. He'd pay for the ads out of his own pocket.
The Clear Channel affiliate refused to air the ads.
Some broadcast stations have a policy to air no issue ads. Others don't. It's unclear whether this applies to WGY. It's unclear because a WGY spokesman refused to comment on why his station wouldn't air the ads and wouldn't provide the journalist with a copy of the station's ad policies.
WGY airs mostly conservative talk radio shows like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage.
A 'naked road' is a safer road?
As someone who does not drive (I walk, bike or take the bus everywhere), I am particularly interested in transportation issues. So I was interested to see a pair of BBC Online articles on transport.
One noted that a road in west London may be stripped of its kerb, traffic lights and signs in an attempt to encourage pedestrians and cars to mingle in what's called a 'naked road' experiment.
RAC [I think this refers to tbe British Royal Automobile Club] Foundation executive director Edmund King said: "This is a form of psychological traffic calming which encourages drivers to slow down and think a lot more about pedestrians and other road users.
King notes that "In Holland, there have been places where a number of roads meet and no one has the automatic right of way. Although this might make drivers more careful, it could also encourage the aggressive motorist to behave more recklessly."
Which is why the plan is right to be tested on a small scale.
A similiar experiment is being tried in Wiltshire, southern England.
Wiltshire County Council says accidents in Seend have dropped by a third and speed has dropped by an average of 5% since the lines were removed. .. Similar schemes in Holland and Scandinavia have also reportedly led to a cut in road accidents.
One noted that a road in west London may be stripped of its kerb, traffic lights and signs in an attempt to encourage pedestrians and cars to mingle in what's called a 'naked road' experiment.
RAC [I think this refers to tbe British Royal Automobile Club] Foundation executive director Edmund King said: "This is a form of psychological traffic calming which encourages drivers to slow down and think a lot more about pedestrians and other road users.
King notes that "In Holland, there have been places where a number of roads meet and no one has the automatic right of way. Although this might make drivers more careful, it could also encourage the aggressive motorist to behave more recklessly."
Which is why the plan is right to be tested on a small scale.
A similiar experiment is being tried in Wiltshire, southern England.
Wiltshire County Council says accidents in Seend have dropped by a third and speed has dropped by an average of 5% since the lines were removed. .. Similar schemes in Holland and Scandinavia have also reportedly led to a cut in road accidents.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Probability puzzle
I usually don't post stuff like this but logic and probability puzzles fascinate me.
Abiola, over at Foreign Dispatches, poses an interesting puzzle. Please post your thoughts and reasoning behind them.
You are a contestant in a gameshow, and the host presents you with two envelopes, each of which contains a cheque. You may choose only one of the two, and you get to keep whatever sum the cheque in the envelope you pick is made out for. Your host informs you that one of the envelopes is made out for a sum exactly twice as large as the other one, but he refuses to tell you which is which.
Having no means of telling which envelope contains the cheque with larger sum, you simply pick one by guessing, and after the host asks you to open your envelope, you discover that the cheque in it is made out to the sum of $50,000. The host now asks you whether you'd like to change your mind and pick the other envelope instead; do you take him up on the offer, or stick with what you have?
Abiola, over at Foreign Dispatches, poses an interesting puzzle. Please post your thoughts and reasoning behind them.
You are a contestant in a gameshow, and the host presents you with two envelopes, each of which contains a cheque. You may choose only one of the two, and you get to keep whatever sum the cheque in the envelope you pick is made out for. Your host informs you that one of the envelopes is made out for a sum exactly twice as large as the other one, but he refuses to tell you which is which.
Having no means of telling which envelope contains the cheque with larger sum, you simply pick one by guessing, and after the host asks you to open your envelope, you discover that the cheque in it is made out to the sum of $50,000. The host now asks you whether you'd like to change your mind and pick the other envelope instead; do you take him up on the offer, or stick with what you have?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)