The conservative Times of London ran an interesting book review of Bernard Porter's book EMPIRE AND SUPEREMPIRE: Britain, America and the World.
According to reviewer Paul Kennedy, Porter's book offers a vivid comparison between 19th and 20th century British imperialism and the present American version.
The US has 350,000 troops abroad. Only 11 countries in the world have more than that many men in their entire military! Quite a bit for a country that doesn't do empire, according to War Sec. Rumsfeld.
Kennedy noted that despite some bumps, the British Empire dissolved with a fair degree of grace and a decent sense of timing.
Will that also be true, one wonders, of America? Both Porter and, as will have been long obvious, this reviewer fear that America’s imperial retreat, when it comes, will be far less easy and smooth.
Worries about how conquered peoples would react to their conquerors is not some touch feely, post-World War II political correctness imposing modern day values on the past. That apprehension existed a long time ago, going back to John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith, if not before.
Additionally, For it was in that year that Sir Alfred Lyall, the British imperial administrator, offered the firm opinion that: "I know of no instance in history of a nation being educated by another nation into self-government and independence; every nation has fought its way up in the world as the English have done."
Because they rejected the obvious reality of America as an empire in the first place, the Crusaders in Washington did not heed these cautionary tales.
Though one need not be an expert in history to have predicted this. One only needed a rudimentary understanding of human nature.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Darwinism
Can someone tell me why those who support creationism/intelligent design and rabidly object to scientific Darwinism tend to be the most ardent proponents of economic and social Darwinism?
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Bits and pieces
This week, we saw one of the key differences between President Bush and his ally British prime minister Tony Blair.
Charles Clarke was home secretary in Blair's government; while there is no exact equivalent in the US government, the position is comparable to the Homeland Security Secretary. A furor erupted when it was revealed that the Home Office inadvertantly released many foreign prisoners onto British streets rather than deporting them back to their home countries.
Clarke acknowledged the errors but insisted that he was the man to fix the problems.
High-ranking Bush administration officials have admittedly errors regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq. (Grudgingly, under pressure and in the most flippant way possible). They also insisted that they were the ones to fix the problems.
Blair rejected Clarke's argument and held him accountable. Clarke was fired yesterday.
Bush accepted the arguments of his people and has never held anyone accountable (except when he needed a sacrificial lamb like Mike Brown to save his skin). Some, like War Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice-President Cheney, are still in office. Others saw their disastrous errors rewarded with presidential medals of freedom. Then again, voters can't complain because they refused to hold Bush himself accountable in 2004.
***
The term of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan will come to an end next year. As discussion of who will succeed the widely respected Nobel peace laureate Annan heats up, The Namibian offers a developing country perspective on what the position requires.
Though the post of UN secretary general has been described as that of 'secular pope,' it was also called 'the most impossible job on Earth' by the first holder of the job. The job has only gotten many times more challenging since that accurate statement was made.
The secretary general is expected to make things happen but is given no executive authority (outside UN personnel decisions) to do so. His arms are handcuffed behind his back but he is frequently blamed for 'not doing enough' by those very same people who hold the keys to those handcuffs.
As The Namibian explained:
The Secretary General is expected to enjoy the backing of governments, especially the five permanent members of the Security Council, but be above partiality to any of them.
He establishes his credentials by bureaucratic or diplomatic service, but, once elected, must transcend his past and serve as a voice of the world, even a "secular Pope."
The Secretary General is entrusted with assisting member states to make sound and well-informed decisions, which he is then obliged to execute, but he is also authorised to influence their work and even to propose actions that they should undertake.
He administers a complex organisation and serves as head of the UN agencies, but must exercise this role within budgetary and regulatory constraints imposed by the member governments.
True, the Secretary General has an unparalleled agenda-shaping authority.
But he does not have the power to execute all his ideas, and he articulates a vision that only governments can fulfil.
He moves the world, but he cannot direct it.
Far from condemning Annan for not doing enough, I can only marvel at how much he has accomplished, despite the handcuffs, in his ten years. Granted, he couldn't stop the Iraq aggression and his reputation did take a hit during the oil-for-food scandal.
Annan never wanted the UN to admister oil-for-food because he knew that corruption and oil go hand in hand and he knew that the UN had never done anything like it before; but it was forced upon him by the US and the Security Council.
Many have argued that the post needs to be split up in two positions: one as diplomat-in-chief (the public face of the UN) and one as administrator-in-chief (the internal boss). Annan was brilliant at the former but I'm not sure how good he was at the latter.
Regardless, he remains not only one of the most successful leaders in the organization's history but easily one of the most respected statesmen in the world today. His successor will have big shoes to fill
***
Speaking of Namibia, Leonard Pitts has a great column trashing the tabloid predators.
America doesn't have a royal family like Britain, but we do have celebrities. They serve the same function as far as the paparazzi jackals are concerned.
Famous actors, politicians and athletes basically have no privacy. I have no objection to them being raked over the coals for making bad films, bad policy or having bad seasons.
But I don't care who's having a baby. I don't care who's splitting with his spouse or significant other. I REALLY don't care who's going to eat his newborn's placenta.
I do, however, care that there's a autocracy starving its citizens to death not far from Namibia in Zimbabwe. I do care that there's genocide in Darfur. I do care that Americans spend far more on health care but are less healthy than other westerners. I do care that the US government is spying on peaceful protesters for no good reason. I care that authorities are spying on non-protesters as well.
So why am I being bothered by 'news' of Angelina Jolie ordering a KFC Twister in southern Africa?
Well, I would be if I watched American TV news.
While it's easy to blame tabloid scum, and lord knows they deserve it, it's too easy to stop there. If people weren't interested in these non-events, the tabloids wouldn't be routinely invading the privacy of these actors, athletes and politicians. So blame yourself too.
***
I used to be a big fan of Christopher Hitchens. So much so that my blog's name was inspired by his book Letters to a Young Contrarian. I always admired Hitchens because he was never afraid to challenge some un-progressive tendencies of the left. He also unafraid to challenge some of the intellectual sloppiness that plagued the defense of many fashionable leftist causes.
I found him more nuanced and less dogmatic (and thus more faithful to principles instead of ideology) than other left-wing icons like Noam Chomsky. He had the cajones to challenge the iconography surrounding people like Mother Teresa and Henry Kissinger; whether you agree or disagree with the specifics, you had to admire his willingness to challenge cults of personality.
But Hitch has gone a bit loopy over Iraq. He was always an ardent critic of both Saddam Hussein and of Islamic extremism. So it wasn't shocking that he supported the US invasion against Iraq. He was never a pacifist.
However, some of his rhetoric has gone far beyond simply defending the principle of 'liberating' Iraq. Much of it appears to me a shameful sycophantic defense of both the Bush administration in general and its abuses and blunders in particular. Some of his pieces are so belligerent, they leave me wondering if they were written by Christopher Hitchens or Scott McClellan.
(It was odd, however, that Hitchens has become so sycophantic in defense of the Iraq aggression at the same time he was ratcheting up his campaign against Henry Kissinger for the conduct of the Vietnam aggression)
Now, Prof. Juan Cole alleges that Hitchens has hacked into private email discussions and published articles based on them.
Has Hitch gone mad?
Or perhaps I forgot my own maxim.
I've always said that the political spectrum is not a line but a circle. The far left has much more in common with the far right than it does with the moderate left (and vice versa of course). Has Hitchens gone so far left that he's now far right?
I really don't care if he's a neo-con or a Trotskyist or whatever he'd call himself. I'm just saddened that he appears to have acted so unethically; even worse in that it was done to advance an unethical cause.
I may not change my blog's title. I still consider myself a bit of a contrarian even if Hitch has become a sycophant. But I am disappointed nonetheless.
Charles Clarke was home secretary in Blair's government; while there is no exact equivalent in the US government, the position is comparable to the Homeland Security Secretary. A furor erupted when it was revealed that the Home Office inadvertantly released many foreign prisoners onto British streets rather than deporting them back to their home countries.
Clarke acknowledged the errors but insisted that he was the man to fix the problems.
High-ranking Bush administration officials have admittedly errors regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq. (Grudgingly, under pressure and in the most flippant way possible). They also insisted that they were the ones to fix the problems.
Blair rejected Clarke's argument and held him accountable. Clarke was fired yesterday.
Bush accepted the arguments of his people and has never held anyone accountable (except when he needed a sacrificial lamb like Mike Brown to save his skin). Some, like War Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice-President Cheney, are still in office. Others saw their disastrous errors rewarded with presidential medals of freedom. Then again, voters can't complain because they refused to hold Bush himself accountable in 2004.
***
The term of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan will come to an end next year. As discussion of who will succeed the widely respected Nobel peace laureate Annan heats up, The Namibian offers a developing country perspective on what the position requires.
Though the post of UN secretary general has been described as that of 'secular pope,' it was also called 'the most impossible job on Earth' by the first holder of the job. The job has only gotten many times more challenging since that accurate statement was made.
The secretary general is expected to make things happen but is given no executive authority (outside UN personnel decisions) to do so. His arms are handcuffed behind his back but he is frequently blamed for 'not doing enough' by those very same people who hold the keys to those handcuffs.
As The Namibian explained:
The Secretary General is expected to enjoy the backing of governments, especially the five permanent members of the Security Council, but be above partiality to any of them.
He establishes his credentials by bureaucratic or diplomatic service, but, once elected, must transcend his past and serve as a voice of the world, even a "secular Pope."
The Secretary General is entrusted with assisting member states to make sound and well-informed decisions, which he is then obliged to execute, but he is also authorised to influence their work and even to propose actions that they should undertake.
He administers a complex organisation and serves as head of the UN agencies, but must exercise this role within budgetary and regulatory constraints imposed by the member governments.
True, the Secretary General has an unparalleled agenda-shaping authority.
But he does not have the power to execute all his ideas, and he articulates a vision that only governments can fulfil.
He moves the world, but he cannot direct it.
Far from condemning Annan for not doing enough, I can only marvel at how much he has accomplished, despite the handcuffs, in his ten years. Granted, he couldn't stop the Iraq aggression and his reputation did take a hit during the oil-for-food scandal.
Annan never wanted the UN to admister oil-for-food because he knew that corruption and oil go hand in hand and he knew that the UN had never done anything like it before; but it was forced upon him by the US and the Security Council.
Many have argued that the post needs to be split up in two positions: one as diplomat-in-chief (the public face of the UN) and one as administrator-in-chief (the internal boss). Annan was brilliant at the former but I'm not sure how good he was at the latter.
Regardless, he remains not only one of the most successful leaders in the organization's history but easily one of the most respected statesmen in the world today. His successor will have big shoes to fill
***
Speaking of Namibia, Leonard Pitts has a great column trashing the tabloid predators.
America doesn't have a royal family like Britain, but we do have celebrities. They serve the same function as far as the paparazzi jackals are concerned.
Famous actors, politicians and athletes basically have no privacy. I have no objection to them being raked over the coals for making bad films, bad policy or having bad seasons.
But I don't care who's having a baby. I don't care who's splitting with his spouse or significant other. I REALLY don't care who's going to eat his newborn's placenta.
I do, however, care that there's a autocracy starving its citizens to death not far from Namibia in Zimbabwe. I do care that there's genocide in Darfur. I do care that Americans spend far more on health care but are less healthy than other westerners. I do care that the US government is spying on peaceful protesters for no good reason. I care that authorities are spying on non-protesters as well.
So why am I being bothered by 'news' of Angelina Jolie ordering a KFC Twister in southern Africa?
Well, I would be if I watched American TV news.
While it's easy to blame tabloid scum, and lord knows they deserve it, it's too easy to stop there. If people weren't interested in these non-events, the tabloids wouldn't be routinely invading the privacy of these actors, athletes and politicians. So blame yourself too.
***
I used to be a big fan of Christopher Hitchens. So much so that my blog's name was inspired by his book Letters to a Young Contrarian. I always admired Hitchens because he was never afraid to challenge some un-progressive tendencies of the left. He also unafraid to challenge some of the intellectual sloppiness that plagued the defense of many fashionable leftist causes.
I found him more nuanced and less dogmatic (and thus more faithful to principles instead of ideology) than other left-wing icons like Noam Chomsky. He had the cajones to challenge the iconography surrounding people like Mother Teresa and Henry Kissinger; whether you agree or disagree with the specifics, you had to admire his willingness to challenge cults of personality.
But Hitch has gone a bit loopy over Iraq. He was always an ardent critic of both Saddam Hussein and of Islamic extremism. So it wasn't shocking that he supported the US invasion against Iraq. He was never a pacifist.
However, some of his rhetoric has gone far beyond simply defending the principle of 'liberating' Iraq. Much of it appears to me a shameful sycophantic defense of both the Bush administration in general and its abuses and blunders in particular. Some of his pieces are so belligerent, they leave me wondering if they were written by Christopher Hitchens or Scott McClellan.
(It was odd, however, that Hitchens has become so sycophantic in defense of the Iraq aggression at the same time he was ratcheting up his campaign against Henry Kissinger for the conduct of the Vietnam aggression)
Now, Prof. Juan Cole alleges that Hitchens has hacked into private email discussions and published articles based on them.
Has Hitch gone mad?
Or perhaps I forgot my own maxim.
I've always said that the political spectrum is not a line but a circle. The far left has much more in common with the far right than it does with the moderate left (and vice versa of course). Has Hitchens gone so far left that he's now far right?
I really don't care if he's a neo-con or a Trotskyist or whatever he'd call himself. I'm just saddened that he appears to have acted so unethically; even worse in that it was done to advance an unethical cause.
I may not change my blog's title. I still consider myself a bit of a contrarian even if Hitch has become a sycophant. But I am disappointed nonetheless.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Sen. Clinton, MoveOn raked over the coals
Columnist Joshua Frank rips into Sen. Hillary Clinton for her hypocritical position on Iraq. A position which amounts to "It's all the Republicans fault and the Republicans don't have a clue. Re-elect me and I'll do more or less the same thing!" Which is about the best she can do since she voted to approve the aggression in the first place and doesn't have the spine to admit that the war is now (was always) unwinnable like Rep. John Murtha. Sen. Clinton, who harbors 2008 presidential ambitions (shiver), is under the delusion that this ambiguity will somehow make her immune to charges of being a 'raging liberal.' While Clinton's record as senator is far more conservative than the far right would have you believe, that's not going to stop the Swift Boat smear brigade from tarring her as the second coming of Marx.
Frank notes that, contrary to what you might infer from almost all of the mainstream media here in New York state, Clinton will actually have a primary opponent. Jonathan Tasini's position on Iraq is much more clear: bring the troops home now, because they have become an impedient to the development of democracy in the country. Tasini has said he won't endorse Clinton if he loses the primary.
Whether you agree or disagree, it's a lot more clear than Sen. Clinton's position.
Since Tasini is a long shot, especially given the media blackout, Frank also features several smaller party candidates who also oppose the Iraq aggression. Green candidate Sander Hicks' position on Iraq is similiar to Tasini's and he opposes military intervention against Iran.
In another piece, Frank bemoans the surrender of the screechy MoveOn.org. Frank notes that MoveOn's reformist credentials have been discredited as it's sold out to the liberal establishment.
Frank writes:
Activism should never be partisan, but MoveOn.org isn't about to hold the Democrats' accountable for supporting Bush's war agenda.
I'm not even all that sure MoveOn opposes the Iraq war. Sure, they rallied opposition during the lead-up to the invasion a few years back, but since then they've done little if anything that should garner the respect of the antiwar movement. Despite Kerry's grotesque position on the Iraq war in 2004, MoveOn implored their members to donate cash to his campaign, but said nary a word about his pro-war posturing. You can't support a candidate without putting demands on their candidacy, and MoveOn's breakdown has made them all but irrelevant as an antiwar club.
He doesn't spare Sen. Clinton either.
Case in point. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has continued to support Bush's war in Iraq as well as his greater war on terror, yet MoveOn refuses to voice frustration. Instead, they support the war-hungry senator and admit they won't stand up to her during an election year.
"The case I would make is that 2006 needs to be a year of reckoning for Republicans on Iraq," Tom Matzzie, the Washington director for MoveOn recently told the New York Times. "If the antiwar candidate is creamed by Hillary Clinton, it's a distraction."
A distraction from what? If I remember correctly, it wasn't just the Republican Party that got us into this dreadful mess. The Democrats voted for it, helped sell the damn thing, and even bombed the hell out of Iraq during the 1990s, all the while supporting deadly UN sanctions. And as Americans begin to turn on this war, including prominent elected officials from both parties, Hillary still won't retract her defense of the war, let alone meet with genuine antiwar activists here in New York.
Frank is spot on here. But I take a slight issue with his general thesis. MoveOn did not surrender to the Democratic establishment. It has always been a vehicle for the Democratic establishment. It was a vehicle to help the moderately liberal wing take the party back from the centrists. Neither wing wants fundamental reforms.
You only need to look at most of MoveOn's 'positions' (if you can call them that). The motto
The main disappointment is from those who hoped MoveOn would become some sort of progressive think tank. It's instead become a partisan lobby group. A money machine, not an ideas machine.
MoveOn's motto is "The Republicans are evil and wrong about everything. Vote Democrat."
What do the Democrats believe?
"The Republicans are evil and wrong about everything. The Democrats would do a better job."
How would they do a better job?
"By being less evil and wrong than Republicans."
What would they do?
"One thing's for sure: they wouldn't give big tax breaks to the rich [the part after 'they wouldn't' is customized to pander to whatever audience is targeted]."
The Democrats are devoid of ideas and nothing better demonstrates this than MoveOn. MoveOn's energies are devoted to raising money and demonizing Republicans for the purpose of raising money. They are professional whiners just like Pat Robertson and his ilk. If they spent a quarter of that energy on developing innovative new ideas, they might actually start winning elections too.
Frank notes that, contrary to what you might infer from almost all of the mainstream media here in New York state, Clinton will actually have a primary opponent. Jonathan Tasini's position on Iraq is much more clear: bring the troops home now, because they have become an impedient to the development of democracy in the country. Tasini has said he won't endorse Clinton if he loses the primary.
Whether you agree or disagree, it's a lot more clear than Sen. Clinton's position.
Since Tasini is a long shot, especially given the media blackout, Frank also features several smaller party candidates who also oppose the Iraq aggression. Green candidate Sander Hicks' position on Iraq is similiar to Tasini's and he opposes military intervention against Iran.
In another piece, Frank bemoans the surrender of the screechy MoveOn.org. Frank notes that MoveOn's reformist credentials have been discredited as it's sold out to the liberal establishment.
Frank writes:
Activism should never be partisan, but MoveOn.org isn't about to hold the Democrats' accountable for supporting Bush's war agenda.
I'm not even all that sure MoveOn opposes the Iraq war. Sure, they rallied opposition during the lead-up to the invasion a few years back, but since then they've done little if anything that should garner the respect of the antiwar movement. Despite Kerry's grotesque position on the Iraq war in 2004, MoveOn implored their members to donate cash to his campaign, but said nary a word about his pro-war posturing. You can't support a candidate without putting demands on their candidacy, and MoveOn's breakdown has made them all but irrelevant as an antiwar club.
He doesn't spare Sen. Clinton either.
Case in point. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has continued to support Bush's war in Iraq as well as his greater war on terror, yet MoveOn refuses to voice frustration. Instead, they support the war-hungry senator and admit they won't stand up to her during an election year.
"The case I would make is that 2006 needs to be a year of reckoning for Republicans on Iraq," Tom Matzzie, the Washington director for MoveOn recently told the New York Times. "If the antiwar candidate is creamed by Hillary Clinton, it's a distraction."
A distraction from what? If I remember correctly, it wasn't just the Republican Party that got us into this dreadful mess. The Democrats voted for it, helped sell the damn thing, and even bombed the hell out of Iraq during the 1990s, all the while supporting deadly UN sanctions. And as Americans begin to turn on this war, including prominent elected officials from both parties, Hillary still won't retract her defense of the war, let alone meet with genuine antiwar activists here in New York.
Frank is spot on here. But I take a slight issue with his general thesis. MoveOn did not surrender to the Democratic establishment. It has always been a vehicle for the Democratic establishment. It was a vehicle to help the moderately liberal wing take the party back from the centrists. Neither wing wants fundamental reforms.
You only need to look at most of MoveOn's 'positions' (if you can call them that). The motto
The main disappointment is from those who hoped MoveOn would become some sort of progressive think tank. It's instead become a partisan lobby group. A money machine, not an ideas machine.
MoveOn's motto is "The Republicans are evil and wrong about everything. Vote Democrat."
What do the Democrats believe?
"The Republicans are evil and wrong about everything. The Democrats would do a better job."
How would they do a better job?
"By being less evil and wrong than Republicans."
What would they do?
"One thing's for sure: they wouldn't give big tax breaks to the rich [the part after 'they wouldn't' is customized to pander to whatever audience is targeted]."
The Democrats are devoid of ideas and nothing better demonstrates this than MoveOn. MoveOn's energies are devoted to raising money and demonizing Republicans for the purpose of raising money. They are professional whiners just like Pat Robertson and his ilk. If they spent a quarter of that energy on developing innovative new ideas, they might actually start winning elections too.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Religious extremism and its brave opponents
Islam is one of the world's most popular religions. Though it's fairly unpopular in the west nowadays. During the Middle Ages, the cultural and scientific center of the world was not Christian Europe but the Islamic Middle East. What many believe to be the oldest university in the world is not in Italy or France but in Egypt. Before it become synonymous with the end of the Earth, Timbuktu was one of the most important educational centers on the planet and housed an amazing library and archive.
So how did the Islamic world go from being the cutting edge of science, technology and culture to being scene as regressive and anti-modern?
That's a subject better addressed by scholars than by me. While the Islamic world was cutting edge in the 11th century, some societies in the Muslim world, Saudi Arabia for example, seem stuck in that era.
It's obvious that the majority of modern day Muslims are moderate, peace-loving people. It's also obvious that there is a small group of Muslim puritanical fanatics who've hijacked the faith for their own purposes.
In that sense, it's not much different than Christianity or Judaism. But one of the important differences is that the Muslims radicals exert a power and influence far beyond their numbers. Mainstream Christians (and Jews) are far more likely to criticize extremist co-religionaires than mainstream Muslims. Most Christians condemn murderers of abortion doctors; most Israelis criticize some of the whacko settlers.
The biggest reason for this is that predominantly Christian countries or countries with a Christian tradition tend, at this moment, to be freer than Muslim ones. This isn't universal. Zimbabwe is a mostly Christian country, as is Belarus. But on the whole, this is true.
The other big factor is because in most Christian countries, there's a strong emphasis on the separation of church and state. This wasn't always the case. In places like Quebec, France and Chile, the church (Catholic in those cases) once unabashedly meddled in politics. And all of those places prospered after government asserted its independence and reined in the influence of religious institutions (not to be confused with religious belief) on public policy. In those places, the separation of church and state occured after a backlash erupted against religious straightjackets. The backlash has yet to occur* in most Muslim countries.
(*-many predict that such a surge is imminent in Iran, however the threat of sanctions and military action is allowing the regime to stir up nationalism/patriotism that will undermine the chances of such reform and thus strengthen the regime)
A final factor to consider is this. The Muslim world is on the defensive. The west has invaded two Muslim countries in the last four years and there's serious talk of military action against a third. When you're on the defensive, you tend to close ranks. President Bush's approval rating in November 2001 was an astronomical 86 percent. In August 2001, it was a modest 55 percent. Did a third of the country suddenly decide that the president was a genius? No. After the September 11 attacks, Americans, even many liberals and Democrats, felt under violated and closed ranks. Muslims, even many moderates, are doing the same. (Again, this applies to Iran)
With the passage of time after 9/11, normal service was resumed; once the Muslim world no longer feel under siege from outside, moderates will also feel more free to criticize extremists. Sadly, the siege mentality is likely to last until at least 2009. And even if a moderate succeeds President Bush, mistrust and suspicion in the Muslim world, two of the three key terrorist and martyr recruiting tools, aren't going to disappear overnight.
It's worth adding that while the influence of religious institutions on state institutions is prominent in many countries in the Middle East, South Asia and in Indonesia, it's relatively minimal in mostly democratic countries of Muslim West Africa (with the notable exception of northern Nigeria). This demonstrates that the Muslim world can peacefully co-exist with both church-state separation, social moderation, religious tolerance and democracy, provided there is a broad public and governmental will to marginalize extremism.
You might be confused for thinking that criticism of Islamism (Islam manipulated for reactionary socio-political purposes, rather than those of faith) was limited to the US neo-conservatives, the Theocracy Brigade and others who seem want to invade every Islamic country in the world.
In reality, human rights' and feminist groups were criticizing the reactionary practices of Islamist regimes long before most American conservatives could spell Taliban, let alone identify what country it ruled. Progressives were criticizing these regimes long before it became a cause célèbre amongst conservatives to justify random acts of military aggression. This was done because the moderate left realized that these reactionary, theocratic regimes were the worst enemies of progressivism.
Human rights' groups, feminists and other progressives said we should care about what was going on in Taliban Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and other places and did so by echoing Martin Luther King Jr's warning that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
They were patronizingly dismissed.
These concerns were pooh-poohed the naive whinings of that most mocked of groups: do-gooders.
At least until September 12, 2001. That's when conservatives expropriated these arguments for their own militaristic ends. Ends far different than those of the progressives, who wanted human rights not war, who wanted humanity not the destruction of humanity.
Sadly, the conservatives' solution was to remedy the injustice by perpetrating a far greater injustice.
And most tragically and criminally of all: the original injustice has barely been addressed.
As a result, it's worth reminding people that large parts of the Islamic community really does have issues to deal with. It's not a complete fiction of disingenuous neo-cons (even if their motives are dubious at best). There is a progressive argument to justify the need for an Islamic Reformation.
While many mainstream Muslims are afraid to criticize the zealots, it's worth saluting the bravery of those who choose to speak out. Especially since that Reformation can only come from within.
Take Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She's a Muslim who was born in Somalia. She fled to Holland in the 90s and is presently a member of the Dutch parliament.
She wrote a short film criticizing Islam's treatment of women which aired on Dutch television. The co-writer and director of the film, who happened to be a descendant of the painter Vincent Van Gogh, was assassinated by a Muslim radical. It's true that Theo Van Gogh was long an agent provocateur but Ali was a humble woman who merely wanted to make a few points, modest by Dutch standards. Ali herself received serious death threats. She went into hiding for a while and now is constantly accompanied by body guards.
Extremist Muslims view her as a traitor in much the same way critics of President Bush and the Iraq aggression are viewed as traitors by extremist Americans. Fanatics view self-criticism as the ultimate act of disloyalty.
She recently published a book of essays called The Virgin Cage, which was just translated into English. As she explained in an NPR interview, the essays attack Islam's treatment of women and gays. When asked why she published the book even though she was already feeling heat from the film, she explained that she had nothing to lose. She said that at least by putting out the film and book, even if she were murdered like her colleague Van Gogh, her impact would live on, hopefully undermining the radical interpretations of Islam.
She's a Muslim, not an Islamophobe. She does not want western countries to invade Syria or seize Iran's oil fields. She just wants Islam teaching to demand women (and gays, apparently) be treated with respect and afforded freedom to live in a dignified manner.
You want absolutism? Here's my absolute. Any interpretation of a religion that justifies wanton violence is inherently illegitimate. Any interpretation of a religion that justifies, or even casualizes, the inhumane treatment of people is inherently illegitimate.
The messed up intrepretation of Christianity that allows George W. Bush to rationalize waging unprovoked military aggressions and destroying the lives of countless people, none of whom did anything to him or his countrymen, is immoral. The messed up intrepretation of Islam that allows Osama bin Laden to promote the murder of thousands of innocent people and ruin the lives of their family members, none of whom did anything to him or his co-religionaires, is immoral. The messed up intrepretations of their religion by al-Qaeda, the Lord's Resistance Army, the IRA, the UVF, Zacarias Moussaoui and others like them are immoral.
None of them are fit to lick Ayaan Hirsi Ali's boots.
So how did the Islamic world go from being the cutting edge of science, technology and culture to being scene as regressive and anti-modern?
That's a subject better addressed by scholars than by me. While the Islamic world was cutting edge in the 11th century, some societies in the Muslim world, Saudi Arabia for example, seem stuck in that era.
It's obvious that the majority of modern day Muslims are moderate, peace-loving people. It's also obvious that there is a small group of Muslim puritanical fanatics who've hijacked the faith for their own purposes.
In that sense, it's not much different than Christianity or Judaism. But one of the important differences is that the Muslims radicals exert a power and influence far beyond their numbers. Mainstream Christians (and Jews) are far more likely to criticize extremist co-religionaires than mainstream Muslims. Most Christians condemn murderers of abortion doctors; most Israelis criticize some of the whacko settlers.
The biggest reason for this is that predominantly Christian countries or countries with a Christian tradition tend, at this moment, to be freer than Muslim ones. This isn't universal. Zimbabwe is a mostly Christian country, as is Belarus. But on the whole, this is true.
The other big factor is because in most Christian countries, there's a strong emphasis on the separation of church and state. This wasn't always the case. In places like Quebec, France and Chile, the church (Catholic in those cases) once unabashedly meddled in politics. And all of those places prospered after government asserted its independence and reined in the influence of religious institutions (not to be confused with religious belief) on public policy. In those places, the separation of church and state occured after a backlash erupted against religious straightjackets. The backlash has yet to occur* in most Muslim countries.
(*-many predict that such a surge is imminent in Iran, however the threat of sanctions and military action is allowing the regime to stir up nationalism/patriotism that will undermine the chances of such reform and thus strengthen the regime)
A final factor to consider is this. The Muslim world is on the defensive. The west has invaded two Muslim countries in the last four years and there's serious talk of military action against a third. When you're on the defensive, you tend to close ranks. President Bush's approval rating in November 2001 was an astronomical 86 percent. In August 2001, it was a modest 55 percent. Did a third of the country suddenly decide that the president was a genius? No. After the September 11 attacks, Americans, even many liberals and Democrats, felt under violated and closed ranks. Muslims, even many moderates, are doing the same. (Again, this applies to Iran)
With the passage of time after 9/11, normal service was resumed; once the Muslim world no longer feel under siege from outside, moderates will also feel more free to criticize extremists. Sadly, the siege mentality is likely to last until at least 2009. And even if a moderate succeeds President Bush, mistrust and suspicion in the Muslim world, two of the three key terrorist and martyr recruiting tools, aren't going to disappear overnight.
It's worth adding that while the influence of religious institutions on state institutions is prominent in many countries in the Middle East, South Asia and in Indonesia, it's relatively minimal in mostly democratic countries of Muslim West Africa (with the notable exception of northern Nigeria). This demonstrates that the Muslim world can peacefully co-exist with both church-state separation, social moderation, religious tolerance and democracy, provided there is a broad public and governmental will to marginalize extremism.
You might be confused for thinking that criticism of Islamism (Islam manipulated for reactionary socio-political purposes, rather than those of faith) was limited to the US neo-conservatives, the Theocracy Brigade and others who seem want to invade every Islamic country in the world.
In reality, human rights' and feminist groups were criticizing the reactionary practices of Islamist regimes long before most American conservatives could spell Taliban, let alone identify what country it ruled. Progressives were criticizing these regimes long before it became a cause célèbre amongst conservatives to justify random acts of military aggression. This was done because the moderate left realized that these reactionary, theocratic regimes were the worst enemies of progressivism.
Human rights' groups, feminists and other progressives said we should care about what was going on in Taliban Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and other places and did so by echoing Martin Luther King Jr's warning that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
They were patronizingly dismissed.
These concerns were pooh-poohed the naive whinings of that most mocked of groups: do-gooders.
At least until September 12, 2001. That's when conservatives expropriated these arguments for their own militaristic ends. Ends far different than those of the progressives, who wanted human rights not war, who wanted humanity not the destruction of humanity.
Sadly, the conservatives' solution was to remedy the injustice by perpetrating a far greater injustice.
And most tragically and criminally of all: the original injustice has barely been addressed.
As a result, it's worth reminding people that large parts of the Islamic community really does have issues to deal with. It's not a complete fiction of disingenuous neo-cons (even if their motives are dubious at best). There is a progressive argument to justify the need for an Islamic Reformation.
While many mainstream Muslims are afraid to criticize the zealots, it's worth saluting the bravery of those who choose to speak out. Especially since that Reformation can only come from within.
Take Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She's a Muslim who was born in Somalia. She fled to Holland in the 90s and is presently a member of the Dutch parliament.
She wrote a short film criticizing Islam's treatment of women which aired on Dutch television. The co-writer and director of the film, who happened to be a descendant of the painter Vincent Van Gogh, was assassinated by a Muslim radical. It's true that Theo Van Gogh was long an agent provocateur but Ali was a humble woman who merely wanted to make a few points, modest by Dutch standards. Ali herself received serious death threats. She went into hiding for a while and now is constantly accompanied by body guards.
Extremist Muslims view her as a traitor in much the same way critics of President Bush and the Iraq aggression are viewed as traitors by extremist Americans. Fanatics view self-criticism as the ultimate act of disloyalty.
She recently published a book of essays called The Virgin Cage, which was just translated into English. As she explained in an NPR interview, the essays attack Islam's treatment of women and gays. When asked why she published the book even though she was already feeling heat from the film, she explained that she had nothing to lose. She said that at least by putting out the film and book, even if she were murdered like her colleague Van Gogh, her impact would live on, hopefully undermining the radical interpretations of Islam.
She's a Muslim, not an Islamophobe. She does not want western countries to invade Syria or seize Iran's oil fields. She just wants Islam teaching to demand women (and gays, apparently) be treated with respect and afforded freedom to live in a dignified manner.
You want absolutism? Here's my absolute. Any interpretation of a religion that justifies wanton violence is inherently illegitimate. Any interpretation of a religion that justifies, or even casualizes, the inhumane treatment of people is inherently illegitimate.
The messed up intrepretation of Christianity that allows George W. Bush to rationalize waging unprovoked military aggressions and destroying the lives of countless people, none of whom did anything to him or his countrymen, is immoral. The messed up intrepretation of Islam that allows Osama bin Laden to promote the murder of thousands of innocent people and ruin the lives of their family members, none of whom did anything to him or his co-religionaires, is immoral. The messed up intrepretations of their religion by al-Qaeda, the Lord's Resistance Army, the IRA, the UVF, Zacarias Moussaoui and others like them are immoral.
None of them are fit to lick Ayaan Hirsi Ali's boots.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Sports report
I love the Boston Red Sox baseball team. But one of the annoying traits about Sox fans is that they are as aggressive in portraying themselves as persecuted martyrs than even the right-wing Theocracy Brigade. While I like Beantown as a city more than the Big Apple, Bostonians' inferiority complex vis-a-vis New York City can become insufferable at times.
The most recent cause for Sox fans to whine was the return of Johnny Damon, the former Boston fan favorite who defected to the hated New York Yankees.
T-shirts were made with slogans like, "Damon: Hair like Jesus. Hits like Mary. Loyal like Judas." At least that's a bit more clever than the typical anti-Red Sox chants proferred by Yankee fans
Damon was offered a $40 million contract for 4 years by the Red Sox. The Yankees offered him a bit more money, so he switched sides.
Personally, I didn't care. I would've preferred he stay in Boston but I wasn't going to jump off a bridge just because the self-described 'Idiot' left the team. In modern sports, that's the way things go. There's almost no loyalty in sports anymore, at least by the players. That's old news. If you can't deal with it, don't be a fan.
But Damon couldn't let things roll off his back.
Before his return to Boston, Damon was quoted as saying, "I expect them [Boston fans] to boo the fact that I'm here. That I went over and that I'm playing with a team that truly needed me, truly wanted me."
I have no objection to Damon selling himself to the highest bidder. The Yankees offered him $13 million a year and he took it. I don't for one second begrudge him that.
But to imply that the Red Sox offer of $10 million a year to play 162 games of baseball was derisory? To imply that such an offer to a player who's pretty good but hardly one of the all-time legends was a slap in the face? An indication they didn't truly want him? Give me a break.
Was he trying to pander to the average fan's stereotype of the obnoxious, spoiled, grossly overpaid athlete who isn't within the same solar system as reality? Or was he trying prove to everyone that he really is the idiot he claimed he was back during the team's 2004 World Series run?
Either way, he should've kept his big mouth shut.
***
The coaching situation in English soccer has become almost more entertaining than the games themselves.
First, you have Chelsea won another English Premiership title and completed a second consecutive undefeated league season.
You might be confused by the above statement. According to the official stats, Chelsea have lost 5 league matches (out of 65) in the last two years. But all 5 of those defeats were due to poor refereeing, cheating opponents, a malicious press, a conspiracy by English and/or European soccer administrators or some combination of those factors.
At least that's if you listen to Chelsea's manager Jose Mourinho.
After his team clinched back-to-back titles on Saturday, you'd think the self-proclaimed 'Special One' would've been happy. But Mourinho is never one to pass up a chance to engage in whining or self-pity.
He complained that neither he nor the club were getting enough respect. In the last two years, he was only named manager of the month twice, he sniffed. You'd hardly know he became the first non-British manager to win consecutive English championships.
And that's the rub with Mourinho. He's a great manager. In the last three seasons, his teams have not lost a single home game in the league. Sure, he's been succesful with Chelsea, who are bankrolled by a Russian oil shark. But he was also successful with the FC Porto. Porto are a big club in Portugal, but an extremely modest side by continental standards. Yet Mourinho won the two most prestigious European trophies with Porto despite far fewer resources.
Mourinho's a great manager but an obnoxious person. He claims he's not out to make friends but snivels whenever someone criticizes him or his team or his style of play.
Too often, Mourinho acts like a petulant child who didn't get 'enough' Christmas gifts instead of a world class manager.
Maybe that's why he's never stayed more than a couple years at any one club. No one can stand him longer than that.
***
Then, you have the fiasco over the English FA's (soccer federation) search for a new national team coach. While most federations would've waited until after the upcoming World Cup to find a successor to the outgoing boss, the FA is far too senseless for that. They engaged in a long, drawn out process that has only distracted everyone's attention from the England team's preparations for the upcoming World Cup in Germany, which should've been everyone's focus.
Then, they decided on Brazilian Luis Felipe Scolari as the new guy. This caused an outrage as much of the country's soccer community wanted an Englishman to manage England, even though Scolari won the World Cup with his home country four years ago. The English coaching fraternity complained that they went through all the coaching courses and got all the qualifications but were passed over for the ultimate job. It was, they said, an indictment of the FA's own coach development system. The problem was that the most prominent English candidates simply didn't have the big time experience because all the big time clubs have non-English managers. (The highest ranked team with an English manager will finish 7th)
Then, the English press jackals feasted on Scolari's private life and prompted him to withdraw his name from consideration. The loathsome English tabloid press have a very long tradition of fattening up their sporting and political heros with praise before eating them. They make Bill O'Reilly look like Walter Cronkite.
Now, the FA appears to have settled on an Englishman, Steve McClaren. But of course, McLaren is now seen as second rate. His coaching record at the club level is distinctly unimpressive considering the resources he's had at his disposal. But even McClaren has has been warned against taking the job by a former mentor because of the lunatic press scrutiny that accompanies it.
In most soccer mad countries, the soccer press criticizes coaches for tactics and player personnel decisions. The English press delves deep into coaches personal lives. During the build up, it was revealed that McClaren had had an affair with his secretary at one point. Similar sexual revelations have been made against the current England boss. Though in fairness, neither was impeached for their actions.
It looks like McClaren will get the job if he's foolish enough to want it. And England fans will be stuck with a coach who's even more boring than the current coach who's boringness they complain about. But at least the current FA chief has ensured that the next job search will be for his own position.
Cheers!
***
US boss Bruce Arena has so such distractions. While hardly devoid of petty politics, parochialism and incompetence, at least the US Soccer Federation leadership was wise enough to wait until after the World Cup to contemplate Arena's potential successor. It's not that often you hear the words 'US Soccer leadership' and 'wise enough' in the same sentence.
Arena, the longest serving national team boss who will be in Germany, announced his 23 man World Cup roster*. The only surprises were forward Brian Ching (who plays in Houston) being taken over Taylor Twellman (New England). Twellman was the US' leading goal scorer during 2006 but Ching is the leading scorer in the domestic Major League Soccer. The other surprise is that of Kansas City defender Jimmy Conrad going ahead of the more internationally experienced Gregg Berhalter, who plays in Germany.
I think this underscores the unprecedented depth of the talent pool Arena had to choose from. While I would've taken Berhalter and Twellman, I don't think anyone could argue that Ching and Conrad are poor or second-rate choices.
This surely the best US World Cup team ever. But it will need to be as the US is facing two of the best teams in the world in the first round: Italy and the Czech Republic. The other challenge is that the US is unlikely to sneak up on anyone, like they did during their 2002 World Cup quarterfinal run (where they deserved to go one step further).
The other cool thing is the interest that was generated in the run up to Arena's announcement. It seems like everyone and their grandmother was offering their 23 suggestions to Bruce and arguing with their friends about it. It almost felt like we're becoming a real soccer country.
(*-Note: Injured defender Frankie Hedjuk has been replaced by Chris Albright of Los Angeles)
Update: USA Today has a nice profile of Sunil Gulati, the new president of US Soccer.
Clarification: It should be noted that it has not been announced if Arena will continue as US boss after Germany. I assumed he would move on because he has already held the job for 8 years, which is an extremely long time at the national team level.
CNNSI's Grant Wahl has an excellent profile on Bruce in which he speculates that Arena will continue to 2010 (barring a first round disaster or an unexpected run to the semifinals or beyond). Bruce has done a fantastic job transforming not just the quality of the national team but the mentality and the expectations.
I'd love for him to stay four more years.
The most recent cause for Sox fans to whine was the return of Johnny Damon, the former Boston fan favorite who defected to the hated New York Yankees.
T-shirts were made with slogans like, "Damon: Hair like Jesus. Hits like Mary. Loyal like Judas." At least that's a bit more clever than the typical anti-Red Sox chants proferred by Yankee fans
Damon was offered a $40 million contract for 4 years by the Red Sox. The Yankees offered him a bit more money, so he switched sides.
Personally, I didn't care. I would've preferred he stay in Boston but I wasn't going to jump off a bridge just because the self-described 'Idiot' left the team. In modern sports, that's the way things go. There's almost no loyalty in sports anymore, at least by the players. That's old news. If you can't deal with it, don't be a fan.
But Damon couldn't let things roll off his back.
Before his return to Boston, Damon was quoted as saying, "I expect them [Boston fans] to boo the fact that I'm here. That I went over and that I'm playing with a team that truly needed me, truly wanted me."
I have no objection to Damon selling himself to the highest bidder. The Yankees offered him $13 million a year and he took it. I don't for one second begrudge him that.
But to imply that the Red Sox offer of $10 million a year to play 162 games of baseball was derisory? To imply that such an offer to a player who's pretty good but hardly one of the all-time legends was a slap in the face? An indication they didn't truly want him? Give me a break.
Was he trying to pander to the average fan's stereotype of the obnoxious, spoiled, grossly overpaid athlete who isn't within the same solar system as reality? Or was he trying prove to everyone that he really is the idiot he claimed he was back during the team's 2004 World Series run?
Either way, he should've kept his big mouth shut.
***
The coaching situation in English soccer has become almost more entertaining than the games themselves.
First, you have Chelsea won another English Premiership title and completed a second consecutive undefeated league season.
You might be confused by the above statement. According to the official stats, Chelsea have lost 5 league matches (out of 65) in the last two years. But all 5 of those defeats were due to poor refereeing, cheating opponents, a malicious press, a conspiracy by English and/or European soccer administrators or some combination of those factors.
At least that's if you listen to Chelsea's manager Jose Mourinho.
After his team clinched back-to-back titles on Saturday, you'd think the self-proclaimed 'Special One' would've been happy. But Mourinho is never one to pass up a chance to engage in whining or self-pity.
He complained that neither he nor the club were getting enough respect. In the last two years, he was only named manager of the month twice, he sniffed. You'd hardly know he became the first non-British manager to win consecutive English championships.
And that's the rub with Mourinho. He's a great manager. In the last three seasons, his teams have not lost a single home game in the league. Sure, he's been succesful with Chelsea, who are bankrolled by a Russian oil shark. But he was also successful with the FC Porto. Porto are a big club in Portugal, but an extremely modest side by continental standards. Yet Mourinho won the two most prestigious European trophies with Porto despite far fewer resources.
Mourinho's a great manager but an obnoxious person. He claims he's not out to make friends but snivels whenever someone criticizes him or his team or his style of play.
Too often, Mourinho acts like a petulant child who didn't get 'enough' Christmas gifts instead of a world class manager.
Maybe that's why he's never stayed more than a couple years at any one club. No one can stand him longer than that.
***
Then, you have the fiasco over the English FA's (soccer federation) search for a new national team coach. While most federations would've waited until after the upcoming World Cup to find a successor to the outgoing boss, the FA is far too senseless for that. They engaged in a long, drawn out process that has only distracted everyone's attention from the England team's preparations for the upcoming World Cup in Germany, which should've been everyone's focus.
Then, they decided on Brazilian Luis Felipe Scolari as the new guy. This caused an outrage as much of the country's soccer community wanted an Englishman to manage England, even though Scolari won the World Cup with his home country four years ago. The English coaching fraternity complained that they went through all the coaching courses and got all the qualifications but were passed over for the ultimate job. It was, they said, an indictment of the FA's own coach development system. The problem was that the most prominent English candidates simply didn't have the big time experience because all the big time clubs have non-English managers. (The highest ranked team with an English manager will finish 7th)
Then, the English press jackals feasted on Scolari's private life and prompted him to withdraw his name from consideration. The loathsome English tabloid press have a very long tradition of fattening up their sporting and political heros with praise before eating them. They make Bill O'Reilly look like Walter Cronkite.
Now, the FA appears to have settled on an Englishman, Steve McClaren. But of course, McLaren is now seen as second rate. His coaching record at the club level is distinctly unimpressive considering the resources he's had at his disposal. But even McClaren has has been warned against taking the job by a former mentor because of the lunatic press scrutiny that accompanies it.
In most soccer mad countries, the soccer press criticizes coaches for tactics and player personnel decisions. The English press delves deep into coaches personal lives. During the build up, it was revealed that McClaren had had an affair with his secretary at one point. Similar sexual revelations have been made against the current England boss. Though in fairness, neither was impeached for their actions.
It looks like McClaren will get the job if he's foolish enough to want it. And England fans will be stuck with a coach who's even more boring than the current coach who's boringness they complain about. But at least the current FA chief has ensured that the next job search will be for his own position.
Cheers!
***
US boss Bruce Arena has so such distractions. While hardly devoid of petty politics, parochialism and incompetence, at least the US Soccer Federation leadership was wise enough to wait until after the World Cup to contemplate Arena's potential successor. It's not that often you hear the words 'US Soccer leadership' and 'wise enough' in the same sentence.
Arena, the longest serving national team boss who will be in Germany, announced his 23 man World Cup roster*. The only surprises were forward Brian Ching (who plays in Houston) being taken over Taylor Twellman (New England). Twellman was the US' leading goal scorer during 2006 but Ching is the leading scorer in the domestic Major League Soccer. The other surprise is that of Kansas City defender Jimmy Conrad going ahead of the more internationally experienced Gregg Berhalter, who plays in Germany.
I think this underscores the unprecedented depth of the talent pool Arena had to choose from. While I would've taken Berhalter and Twellman, I don't think anyone could argue that Ching and Conrad are poor or second-rate choices.
This surely the best US World Cup team ever. But it will need to be as the US is facing two of the best teams in the world in the first round: Italy and the Czech Republic. The other challenge is that the US is unlikely to sneak up on anyone, like they did during their 2002 World Cup quarterfinal run (where they deserved to go one step further).
The other cool thing is the interest that was generated in the run up to Arena's announcement. It seems like everyone and their grandmother was offering their 23 suggestions to Bruce and arguing with their friends about it. It almost felt like we're becoming a real soccer country.
(*-Note: Injured defender Frankie Hedjuk has been replaced by Chris Albright of Los Angeles)
Update: USA Today has a nice profile of Sunil Gulati, the new president of US Soccer.
Clarification: It should be noted that it has not been announced if Arena will continue as US boss after Germany. I assumed he would move on because he has already held the job for 8 years, which is an extremely long time at the national team level.
CNNSI's Grant Wahl has an excellent profile on Bruce in which he speculates that Arena will continue to 2010 (barring a first round disaster or an unexpected run to the semifinals or beyond). Bruce has done a fantastic job transforming not just the quality of the national team but the mentality and the expectations.
I'd love for him to stay four more years.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Three years of 'mission accomplished'
Three years ago yesterday, President Bush landed a jet on the deck of USS Abraham Lincoln. The image of him emerging from the military jet in a military pilot's uniform was meant to convey strength and perhaps to make people forget about the controversy surrounding his own military service or non-service. He gave a speech in front of a banner that read 'Mission accomplished' and told of how major combat operations have ended in Iraq.
Critics of the aggression have been accused of focusing on the negative so I'll try to be positive. While 2405 American soldiers have died in Iraq, a mere 94 percent of them have died since the 'end of major combat operations.' A mere 2270 have died in the apparent mop up operations following 'mission accomplished.' Huzzah!
Most of the 35,000 or so Iraqi civilians killed during the 'liberation' have died since Pres. Top Gun's brave and wise pronouncement, but it could've been worse.
Sure, more US troops died last month than in any of the months of 'major combat operations' but I'm sure a few schools were built. And maybe some day, children won't be to afraid to leave home to attend them!
Three years ago, the president declared 'Mission accomplished.'
What exactly was the mission? Was it merely to overthrew Saddam Hussein? Was it to control Iraq's oil fields and establish an American economic foothold in the Middle East? Or was it to strike a blow against terrorism, as the administration assured us before the invasion? (We know the weapons of mass destruction line has been discredited)
In 2002, the last full year of Saddam's regime, there were hardly any fatalities in Iraq due to terrorism, according to the State Department.
In 2005, in American-occupied Iraq, there were some 8300 people killed as a result of terrorist attacks. That represents a majority of all the people killed by terrorism on the entire planet last year.
Iraq went from being unaffected by (non-regime) terrorism under Saddam to being the country blighted by terrorism more than the rest of the world combined.
If this is 'mission accomplished,' I imagine the Iraqis might want President Bush to come up with another mission. Well, the Iranian people might disagree. Still, I don't think the Iraqis can stand much more of this success.
But at least the present situation is a vast improvement over Saddam, right? Right?!! Perhaps. But I don't know if Iraqis can take much more of this sort of freedom either.
Critics of the aggression have been accused of focusing on the negative so I'll try to be positive. While 2405 American soldiers have died in Iraq, a mere 94 percent of them have died since the 'end of major combat operations.' A mere 2270 have died in the apparent mop up operations following 'mission accomplished.' Huzzah!
Most of the 35,000 or so Iraqi civilians killed during the 'liberation' have died since Pres. Top Gun's brave and wise pronouncement, but it could've been worse.
Sure, more US troops died last month than in any of the months of 'major combat operations' but I'm sure a few schools were built. And maybe some day, children won't be to afraid to leave home to attend them!
Three years ago, the president declared 'Mission accomplished.'
What exactly was the mission? Was it merely to overthrew Saddam Hussein? Was it to control Iraq's oil fields and establish an American economic foothold in the Middle East? Or was it to strike a blow against terrorism, as the administration assured us before the invasion? (We know the weapons of mass destruction line has been discredited)
In 2002, the last full year of Saddam's regime, there were hardly any fatalities in Iraq due to terrorism, according to the State Department.
In 2005, in American-occupied Iraq, there were some 8300 people killed as a result of terrorist attacks. That represents a majority of all the people killed by terrorism on the entire planet last year.
Iraq went from being unaffected by (non-regime) terrorism under Saddam to being the country blighted by terrorism more than the rest of the world combined.
If this is 'mission accomplished,' I imagine the Iraqis might want President Bush to come up with another mission. Well, the Iranian people might disagree. Still, I don't think the Iraqis can stand much more of this success.
But at least the present situation is a vast improvement over Saddam, right? Right?!! Perhaps. But I don't know if Iraqis can take much more of this sort of freedom either.
Monday, May 01, 2006
The ethics of corrections
It's often said that a lie is half way around the world before the truth even gets out of the starting gate. I was reminded of that after reading a recent local story in the newspaper.
One of my pet peeves is that the big story gets a blaring headline of the front page or the lead on the 6:00 news. But the correction to the critical piece of information is buried on page D49; at least newspapers run corrections, something you almost never see on television news. This isn't limited to local media; it seems everyone plays fast and loose with accuracy.
Sometimes, corrections aren't even listed as corrections.
In Glens Falls, there has been a bit of controversy surrounding a group that calls itself The Juggalos after a band. The group hangs out in the park in front of the public library generally being a nuisance, but not enough to allow the police to take action. Some people think they're intimidating because they dress as 'goths.' I don't care how they dress but if they are intimidating, it's because there are so many of them and they often block the entrance to the library.
Two of their members was arrested on charges of armed robbery and the daily Post-Star made a big play of this. The next day, the paper ran an interview with one of their (non-arrested) members who tried to explain that they weren't scary people just because they dressed differently. I thought this was fair.
Not long after, several people were arrested in relation to an arson fire that ruined a kindergarten classroom in nearby Fort Edward They were also identified as being part of The Juggalos by The Post-Star. That fact was featured prominently in a big front page headline entitled: 'Juggalos linked to second crime.'
The next day, the paper corrected itself. But you wouldn't notice if you weren't paying close attention.
In a followup story, meekly titled 'One indicted in school arson: Other indictments, charges expected against additional youths,' the paper reported:
[The suspect Brian] Kozelouzek's younger sister, 16-year-old Lacey Kozelouzek, who was among the teens charged with criminal trespass in the fire, said neither she nor her brother were involved with the Glens Falls group that calls itself Juggalos.
This nugget was casually buried near the end of the article.
And it wasn't even labelled as a correction or clarification.
There wasn't even any admission that the previous report was unintentionally erroneous.
I don't blame the paper for their initial reporting; they were merely passing along what police had told them. But once they discovered this fact which blatantly contradicts their previous reporting, you'd think they would've given it a little more play. You'd think they would've at least prefaced the above sentence with, "Contrary to what The Post-Star had been informed previously,..." or something like that.
No one expects a media outlet to be perfect. Especially when reporting on an ongoing investigation where the story can change many times. But journalistic ethics should dictate a mistake in a blaring front page headline merits more than the non-correction it got in this case.
I'm sure The Post-Star would deny that they are trying to smear this group and I take them at the word. But you can see how someone could be mistaken for thinking otherwise.
One of my pet peeves is that the big story gets a blaring headline of the front page or the lead on the 6:00 news. But the correction to the critical piece of information is buried on page D49; at least newspapers run corrections, something you almost never see on television news. This isn't limited to local media; it seems everyone plays fast and loose with accuracy.
Sometimes, corrections aren't even listed as corrections.
In Glens Falls, there has been a bit of controversy surrounding a group that calls itself The Juggalos after a band. The group hangs out in the park in front of the public library generally being a nuisance, but not enough to allow the police to take action. Some people think they're intimidating because they dress as 'goths.' I don't care how they dress but if they are intimidating, it's because there are so many of them and they often block the entrance to the library.
Two of their members was arrested on charges of armed robbery and the daily Post-Star made a big play of this. The next day, the paper ran an interview with one of their (non-arrested) members who tried to explain that they weren't scary people just because they dressed differently. I thought this was fair.
Not long after, several people were arrested in relation to an arson fire that ruined a kindergarten classroom in nearby Fort Edward They were also identified as being part of The Juggalos by The Post-Star. That fact was featured prominently in a big front page headline entitled: 'Juggalos linked to second crime.'
The next day, the paper corrected itself. But you wouldn't notice if you weren't paying close attention.
In a followup story, meekly titled 'One indicted in school arson: Other indictments, charges expected against additional youths,' the paper reported:
[The suspect Brian] Kozelouzek's younger sister, 16-year-old Lacey Kozelouzek, who was among the teens charged with criminal trespass in the fire, said neither she nor her brother were involved with the Glens Falls group that calls itself Juggalos.
This nugget was casually buried near the end of the article.
And it wasn't even labelled as a correction or clarification.
There wasn't even any admission that the previous report was unintentionally erroneous.
I don't blame the paper for their initial reporting; they were merely passing along what police had told them. But once they discovered this fact which blatantly contradicts their previous reporting, you'd think they would've given it a little more play. You'd think they would've at least prefaced the above sentence with, "Contrary to what The Post-Star had been informed previously,..." or something like that.
No one expects a media outlet to be perfect. Especially when reporting on an ongoing investigation where the story can change many times. But journalistic ethics should dictate a mistake in a blaring front page headline merits more than the non-correction it got in this case.
I'm sure The Post-Star would deny that they are trying to smear this group and I take them at the word. But you can see how someone could be mistaken for thinking otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)