1. Black and White or Color; how do you prefer your movies?
-Color
2. What is the one single subject that bores you to near-death?
-Abortion. In this country, it's not a debate but a shouting match. A dialogue of the deaf. (The Israeli-Palestinian shouting match is a close second)
3. MP3s, CDs, Tapes or Records: what is your favorite medium for prerecorded music?
-MP3s.
4. You are handed one first class trip plane ticket to anywhere in the world and ten million dollars cash. All of this is yours provided that you leave and not tell anyone where you are going … Ever. This includes family, friends, everyone. Would you take the money and ticket and run?
-No point in having great experiences and lots of money if you have no one to share them with.
5. Seriously, what do you consider the world’s most pressing issue now?
-Extreme poverty. I know it's a broad issue but it's at the root of so many other serious problems.
6. How would you rectify the world’s most pressing issue?
-By a more equitable distribution of wealth and social democracy.
7. You are given the chance to go back and change one thing in your life; what would that be?
-No comment.
8. You are given the chance to go back and change one event in world history, what would that be?
-The colonization of Africa. It and the slave trade were arguably the two worst crimes against humanity in centuries (at least). I would rather the region have succeeded or failed on its own merits.
9. A night at the opera, or a night at the Grand Ole’ Opry – Which do you choose?
-Opera, by default.
10. What is the one great unsolved crime of all time you’d like to solve?
-How the Yankees won so many World Series titles.
11. One famous author can come to dinner with you. Who would that be, and what would you serve for the meal?
-Chinua Achebe. And probably my lasagna because it's good. :-)
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
If you've lost Buckley...
Here's yet another radical, America-hating leftist hippie (COUGHtheinventorofmodernamericanconservativismCOUGH) who's concluded the Iraq aggression has been a failure.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Old wine, new bottle
Today, I disagreed with Human Rights Watch, disagreed with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and agreed with US ambassador to the UN John Bolton. It's rare that any of those things happen and almost unprecedented that they happen on the same issue. I knew then that it was going to be a very cold day indeed. Then I looked outside at my thermometer. Appropriately enough, it read -11 degrees F (-24 C).
The UN General Assembly is debating a plan to revamp the now discredited UN Human Rights Commission. The new Human Rights Council was supposed to be smaller and more effective and members were supposed to be subject to reviews of their own human rights record before being accepted to the Council. That's what human rights organizations wanted. The Bush administration wanted a Council that was more pliant to its will and uncritical of its actions.
However, the new proposal barely seems to make any progress in those directions.
The proposal calls for a council of 47 countries instead of the commission's 53, with new restrictions on membership, means for timely interventions in crises and a year-round presence with three meetings a year lasting a total of at least 10 weeks. The Geneva-based commission meets once a year for six weeks.
Some had called for a much smaller Council with 8-12 members, the smaller number making it easier to exclude human rights abusers.
The smaller Council would've also give it the means to respond more quickly to human rights crises. It's almost inconceivable that a 47 member Council will be significantly less unwieldy than the present 53 member Commisssion.
The General Assembly rejected Secretary General Annan's proposal that new members to the Council must be approved by 2/3 of current members.
Additionally, the resolution maintains the right of regional groups to put forward a slate of candidates which makes it easier for human rights abusers to sneak in (in much the same way Congressmen append unpopular proposals onto more popular, but unrelated, bills).
The compromise proposal stipulates that each country will also be subject to a review of its rights records at least once during its three-year term. But by whom? Presumably by the rest of the Council. If human rights abusers make up a significant portion of the Council, it will be much easier for the abusers to unite in order to protect each other. It will also be easier for the major powers to protect its allies privately while pretending to stand up for human rights publicly.
For once, Ambassador Bolton is actually right when he said the proposal had too many "deficiencies" and should be renegotiated.
"Based on conversations we've had with other governments, the strongest argument in favor of this draft is that it is not as bad as it could be," Mr. Bolton said.
I'm not sure he and I agree on what the right way forward is. I suspect his involves a proposal that reads, "The United States government shall be judge, jury and executioner in all matters of human rights and international law." But we both agree that the present proposal is basically no change to the lamentable status quo.
There should be a much smaller Human Rights Council. There should be one seat each for Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Europe and Oceania. And anywhere from two to six 'at-large' seats. That's it. There's no need for one-quarter of the UN's membership to sit on this Council. This would allow (though not guarantee) the Council to be accountable and to expeditiously address any situations that need attention. And it must have the authority to investigate all human rights violations brought to its attention, even those committed by member states, even those committed by powerful countries.
I was suprised that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, who are on the right side of most human rights issues, decided to endorse this charade.
Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "This is less than we hoped for, but it is clearly better than the Human Rights Commission, and we are supporting it."
How is this proposal significantly, or even moderately, better than the present Commission structure? I've seen no evidence that it is.
Yvonne Terlingen, United Nations representative of Amnesty International, called on governments to adopt the resolution without delay. "This is an historic opportunity that governments must not squander for selfish political interests," she said.
This is a historic opportunity, but one that the proposal wastes completely but putting the same old wine in a new bottle.
The UN General Assembly is debating a plan to revamp the now discredited UN Human Rights Commission. The new Human Rights Council was supposed to be smaller and more effective and members were supposed to be subject to reviews of their own human rights record before being accepted to the Council. That's what human rights organizations wanted. The Bush administration wanted a Council that was more pliant to its will and uncritical of its actions.
However, the new proposal barely seems to make any progress in those directions.
The proposal calls for a council of 47 countries instead of the commission's 53, with new restrictions on membership, means for timely interventions in crises and a year-round presence with three meetings a year lasting a total of at least 10 weeks. The Geneva-based commission meets once a year for six weeks.
Some had called for a much smaller Council with 8-12 members, the smaller number making it easier to exclude human rights abusers.
The smaller Council would've also give it the means to respond more quickly to human rights crises. It's almost inconceivable that a 47 member Council will be significantly less unwieldy than the present 53 member Commisssion.
The General Assembly rejected Secretary General Annan's proposal that new members to the Council must be approved by 2/3 of current members.
Additionally, the resolution maintains the right of regional groups to put forward a slate of candidates which makes it easier for human rights abusers to sneak in (in much the same way Congressmen append unpopular proposals onto more popular, but unrelated, bills).
The compromise proposal stipulates that each country will also be subject to a review of its rights records at least once during its three-year term. But by whom? Presumably by the rest of the Council. If human rights abusers make up a significant portion of the Council, it will be much easier for the abusers to unite in order to protect each other. It will also be easier for the major powers to protect its allies privately while pretending to stand up for human rights publicly.
For once, Ambassador Bolton is actually right when he said the proposal had too many "deficiencies" and should be renegotiated.
"Based on conversations we've had with other governments, the strongest argument in favor of this draft is that it is not as bad as it could be," Mr. Bolton said.
I'm not sure he and I agree on what the right way forward is. I suspect his involves a proposal that reads, "The United States government shall be judge, jury and executioner in all matters of human rights and international law." But we both agree that the present proposal is basically no change to the lamentable status quo.
There should be a much smaller Human Rights Council. There should be one seat each for Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Europe and Oceania. And anywhere from two to six 'at-large' seats. That's it. There's no need for one-quarter of the UN's membership to sit on this Council. This would allow (though not guarantee) the Council to be accountable and to expeditiously address any situations that need attention. And it must have the authority to investigate all human rights violations brought to its attention, even those committed by member states, even those committed by powerful countries.
I was suprised that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, who are on the right side of most human rights issues, decided to endorse this charade.
Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "This is less than we hoped for, but it is clearly better than the Human Rights Commission, and we are supporting it."
How is this proposal significantly, or even moderately, better than the present Commission structure? I've seen no evidence that it is.
Yvonne Terlingen, United Nations representative of Amnesty International, called on governments to adopt the resolution without delay. "This is an historic opportunity that governments must not squander for selfish political interests," she said.
This is a historic opportunity, but one that the proposal wastes completely but putting the same old wine in a new bottle.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
The quest for the oil-free economy
After my essay last week on America's energy future, two articles caught my eye.
Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy.
Sweden is to take the biggest energy step of any advanced western economy by trying to wean itself off oil completely within 15 years - without building a new generation of nuclear power stations, according to the UK Guardian daily.
Apparently, Iceland has the same goal.
Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy.
Sweden is to take the biggest energy step of any advanced western economy by trying to wean itself off oil completely within 15 years - without building a new generation of nuclear power stations, according to the UK Guardian daily.
Apparently, Iceland has the same goal.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Neo-conservatism 'in shambles,' says one of its architects
How much has the Iraq aggression discredited neo-conservatism? So thoroughly that even a primary architect of the ideology has disavowed it.
Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the best-selling book The End of History and was a member of the neoconservative project, now says that, both as a political symbol and a body of thought, it has "evolved into something I can no longer support". He says it should be discarded on to history's pile of discredited ideologies.
In his new book, Fukuyama wrote:
"The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism," he argues.
"Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally."
He said it, not me.
Update: Fukiyama explains his transformation in this NPR interview. Apparently, he complains that his ideal of neo-conservativism has been over-militarized by its current practioners. While his change of heart is certainly welcome, it was a bit naive of him to have believed otherwise. The use of military force to achieve foreign policy objectives has been a staple of American affairs in the world as far back as the Barbary Wars of the 1790s.
Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the best-selling book The End of History and was a member of the neoconservative project, now says that, both as a political symbol and a body of thought, it has "evolved into something I can no longer support". He says it should be discarded on to history's pile of discredited ideologies.
In his new book, Fukuyama wrote:
"The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism," he argues.
"Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally."
He said it, not me.
Update: Fukiyama explains his transformation in this NPR interview. Apparently, he complains that his ideal of neo-conservativism has been over-militarized by its current practioners. While his change of heart is certainly welcome, it was a bit naive of him to have believed otherwise. The use of military force to achieve foreign policy objectives has been a staple of American affairs in the world as far back as the Barbary Wars of the 1790s.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
An unseemly alliance
The political storm of the week is swirling around attempts by a company owned by the government of Dubai to operate the ports in New York, Baltimore and other cities.
(Dubai is the richest of seven fairly autonomous emirates that comprise the country called The United Arab Emirates)
The deal has come under attack from both the left and the right. Liberals and leftists see this as a golden opportunity not only to bash Bush, but also to purport to bolster their national security credentials by pandering to nativism. They think they can use this to trump the Republicans on the fear-mongering scene. Those on the far right see this as a further example of the Bush administration selling out this country's security to foreigners, the alleged invasion of the country by Mexicans being another. They're sick of what they see as Bush being soft on foreigners. 'Send em all to Gitmo,' you can almost hear them chanting.
Progressives have been leading the way in fighting the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiment that has been stoked by some since 9/11. Frankly, it's detestable that many on the left have decided to engage in an unholy alliance with the isolationists and xenophobes just because they see it as a convenient way to pile it on the president.
Throwing your principles of tolerance and fair-mindedness out the window just to take a few cheap shots at Bush. Bravo!
By all accounts, actual security of the ports would remain in the hands of the US Coast Guard and the US customs.
Let me repeat that: actual security of the ports would remain in the hands of the US Coast Guard and the US customs.
Now, this deal was badly handled by the administration. The president claims he didn't know of the deal until after it was approved. It demonstrates how tone-deaf his entourage is that they didn't think there might be any reason to brief the president of such a deal. The flap may be tawdry but it was hardly unforseable.
And when pressured, the president resorted to his usual line of 'I know what I'm doing. Just trust me.'
The problem is that he's given Americans more than ample reason to not trust his judgement. Even Republicans realize that line has become a loser.
Some charge that al-Qaeda money has been funnelled through UAE financial institutions; no precisions have been made if the banks were based in Dubai or other parts of the UAE. Regardless, Swiss banks have been infamous for holding money from various dictators, crooks and thugs, yet no one has proposed banning Swiss companies from doing business with the US. Why the different standard between white, Christian Switzerland and swarthy, Muslim Dubai?
Presumably the 9/11 hijackers who lived in the US kept some of their money in American banks while residing here. Should be ban American companies from running the ports?
Some have argued that the real problem with the deal is cronyism. I don't know if it's true or not but it seems like a criticism more worth examining than one that panders to our most base instincts.
Many of the left have rightly argued that all Muslims or Arabs should not be tarred with the same brush just because a few extremists happened to share their faith. They are right. According to this doctrine of fairness, the Dubai company should be accepted or rejected on its merits. In rejecting this company simply because of the coincidence of geography, liberal critics of the deal are adopting the very same type of 'profiling' they would scream bloody murder about if Republicans had done.
An editorial in The Washington Post rightly points out:
If members of Congress really want to burnish their "tough on terrorism" credentials, they should start by focusing on real presidential lapses, which are sufficient, and forget about the phony ones.
As [Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon] England said yesterday, the war on terrorism demands that the United States "strengthen the bonds of friendship and security . . . especially with our friends and allies in the Arab world." That means allies should be treated "equally and fairly around the world and without discrimination," he said.
Besides, as this article in The New York Times pointed out, ports' security faces far big problems than the nationality of the company is operating them.
(Dubai is the richest of seven fairly autonomous emirates that comprise the country called The United Arab Emirates)
The deal has come under attack from both the left and the right. Liberals and leftists see this as a golden opportunity not only to bash Bush, but also to purport to bolster their national security credentials by pandering to nativism. They think they can use this to trump the Republicans on the fear-mongering scene. Those on the far right see this as a further example of the Bush administration selling out this country's security to foreigners, the alleged invasion of the country by Mexicans being another. They're sick of what they see as Bush being soft on foreigners. 'Send em all to Gitmo,' you can almost hear them chanting.
Progressives have been leading the way in fighting the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiment that has been stoked by some since 9/11. Frankly, it's detestable that many on the left have decided to engage in an unholy alliance with the isolationists and xenophobes just because they see it as a convenient way to pile it on the president.
Throwing your principles of tolerance and fair-mindedness out the window just to take a few cheap shots at Bush. Bravo!
By all accounts, actual security of the ports would remain in the hands of the US Coast Guard and the US customs.
Let me repeat that: actual security of the ports would remain in the hands of the US Coast Guard and the US customs.
Now, this deal was badly handled by the administration. The president claims he didn't know of the deal until after it was approved. It demonstrates how tone-deaf his entourage is that they didn't think there might be any reason to brief the president of such a deal. The flap may be tawdry but it was hardly unforseable.
And when pressured, the president resorted to his usual line of 'I know what I'm doing. Just trust me.'
The problem is that he's given Americans more than ample reason to not trust his judgement. Even Republicans realize that line has become a loser.
Some charge that al-Qaeda money has been funnelled through UAE financial institutions; no precisions have been made if the banks were based in Dubai or other parts of the UAE. Regardless, Swiss banks have been infamous for holding money from various dictators, crooks and thugs, yet no one has proposed banning Swiss companies from doing business with the US. Why the different standard between white, Christian Switzerland and swarthy, Muslim Dubai?
Presumably the 9/11 hijackers who lived in the US kept some of their money in American banks while residing here. Should be ban American companies from running the ports?
Some have argued that the real problem with the deal is cronyism. I don't know if it's true or not but it seems like a criticism more worth examining than one that panders to our most base instincts.
Many of the left have rightly argued that all Muslims or Arabs should not be tarred with the same brush just because a few extremists happened to share their faith. They are right. According to this doctrine of fairness, the Dubai company should be accepted or rejected on its merits. In rejecting this company simply because of the coincidence of geography, liberal critics of the deal are adopting the very same type of 'profiling' they would scream bloody murder about if Republicans had done.
An editorial in The Washington Post rightly points out:
If members of Congress really want to burnish their "tough on terrorism" credentials, they should start by focusing on real presidential lapses, which are sufficient, and forget about the phony ones.
As [Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon] England said yesterday, the war on terrorism demands that the United States "strengthen the bonds of friendship and security . . . especially with our friends and allies in the Arab world." That means allies should be treated "equally and fairly around the world and without discrimination," he said.
Besides, as this article in The New York Times pointed out, ports' security faces far big problems than the nationality of the company is operating them.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
America's energy future
President Bush claims to have joined the group of citizens concerned with America's energy future. If he's sincere, it's certainly a welcome addition, however belated. The old oil man famously said the US was 'addicted to oil' in his recent State of the Union address.
He also recently called for tapping renewable energy sources like wind and solar power to contend with surging energy costs.
That America is addicted to oil is not really news; it's been the case for decades. And Bush is hardly the first president to call for increased support for renewable energy sources; Jimmy Carter did the same thing.
While the 2003 State of the Union address focused primarily on justifying the impending Iraq aggression, Bush tossed a bone to pre-empt left-leaning critics by proposing a $1.2 billion hydrogen fuel initiative.
What's been lacking is consistent, systematic and comprehensive government support for research into these alternative energy sources. Interest always picks up in times like ours when energy prices are high, but interest collapses as soon as the prices do. I've heard Bush mention that hydrogen fuel initiative not one single time since the State of the Union.
Adirondack Musing blog wonders:
Buy a gas-electric hybrid car and you could be eligible for up to a $3150 tax credit. But if you are a business owner and buy an SUV that weighs over 3 tons you get a deduction of up to $25,000. And, you can depreciate the entire remaining amount over 6 years.
If the government wants to positively influence energy policy, it can start by at least offering the incentives for desirable behavior rather than rewarding undesirable energy choices.
This guy has some other ideas.
He also recently called for tapping renewable energy sources like wind and solar power to contend with surging energy costs.
That America is addicted to oil is not really news; it's been the case for decades. And Bush is hardly the first president to call for increased support for renewable energy sources; Jimmy Carter did the same thing.
While the 2003 State of the Union address focused primarily on justifying the impending Iraq aggression, Bush tossed a bone to pre-empt left-leaning critics by proposing a $1.2 billion hydrogen fuel initiative.
What's been lacking is consistent, systematic and comprehensive government support for research into these alternative energy sources. Interest always picks up in times like ours when energy prices are high, but interest collapses as soon as the prices do. I've heard Bush mention that hydrogen fuel initiative not one single time since the State of the Union.
Adirondack Musing blog wonders:
Buy a gas-electric hybrid car and you could be eligible for up to a $3150 tax credit. But if you are a business owner and buy an SUV that weighs over 3 tons you get a deduction of up to $25,000. And, you can depreciate the entire remaining amount over 6 years.
If the government wants to positively influence energy policy, it can start by at least offering the incentives for desirable behavior rather than rewarding undesirable energy choices.
This guy has some other ideas.
Monday, February 20, 2006
European double standard on freedom of expression
The rioting and other violence purportedly against the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed were a hysterical overreaction and almost certainly manipulated by malefactors.
The main concept invoked by defenders of the cartoonists and the newspapers was freedom of expression. Such a defense was based on the principle embodied by Voltaire's famous quote: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
However, one charge made by many angry Muslims was absolutely true: that of western double standards.
As I mentioned earlier, the British government is pushing a bill that would ban the 'glorification' of terrorism. The words glorification and terrorism are not defined.
This despite the fact that Britain already has laws against incitement to murder and incitement to terrorism.
Would it a phrase like "The US sowed the seeds of 9/11 by its foreign policy over the course of several decades" become illegal in Britain if this bill passes?
It seems quite probable.
An infamous British 'historian' was today sentenced to three years in jail in Vienna for denying the Holocaust. He pleaded guilty for the crime based on a speech he gave in Austria some 15 years ago.
(Even many of the political enemies of the 'historian' opposed his prosecution for fear of making him into a free speech martyr.)
Austria is one of 11 European countries with anachronistic laws banning Holocaust denial.
So many Muslims surely wonder: why is one form of offense vigorously defended under 'free expression' by Europeans but another form will land you in jail?
The main concept invoked by defenders of the cartoonists and the newspapers was freedom of expression. Such a defense was based on the principle embodied by Voltaire's famous quote: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
However, one charge made by many angry Muslims was absolutely true: that of western double standards.
As I mentioned earlier, the British government is pushing a bill that would ban the 'glorification' of terrorism. The words glorification and terrorism are not defined.
This despite the fact that Britain already has laws against incitement to murder and incitement to terrorism.
Would it a phrase like "The US sowed the seeds of 9/11 by its foreign policy over the course of several decades" become illegal in Britain if this bill passes?
It seems quite probable.
An infamous British 'historian' was today sentenced to three years in jail in Vienna for denying the Holocaust. He pleaded guilty for the crime based on a speech he gave in Austria some 15 years ago.
(Even many of the political enemies of the 'historian' opposed his prosecution for fear of making him into a free speech martyr.)
Austria is one of 11 European countries with anachronistic laws banning Holocaust denial.
So many Muslims surely wonder: why is one form of offense vigorously defended under 'free expression' by Europeans but another form will land you in jail?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)