I was never a fan of Sarah Palin, as several posts have made clear, but I am grieved that her church seems to have been burned down by arsonists. Of course we do not know many details but the news is suggestive. This is the kind of evidence of a serious breach in our country that politicians, in the interest of the public weal, would do well to avoid. The kind of political campaign that the country has just been through could seriously tear a society apart. I don't like calling such campaigns "hard fought," which is the euphemism now in use. The truth is that many misrepresentations of fact were promoted, creating distrust and bitterness on many sides -- and nasty, even criminal, reactions. In the end healing may not come easy.
[Click on the title for a link to a source on the fire.]
Friday, December 19, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Vice President admits that he approved of torture
Yesterday the Vice President admitted that he had supported the abuse of prisoners held by the Americans.
According to a news report by David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster Vice President Richard Cheney admited authorizing torture in an interview on ABC with Jonathan Karl. Karl asked him if he approved of interrogation tactics used against a so-called "high value prisoner" at the Guantanamo Bay prison. Mr. Cheney said, "I supported it," in reference to the practice known as "water-boarding," a form of simulated drowning. After World War II, Japanese soldiers were tried and convicted of war crimes in US courts for water-boarding. "I was aware of the program, certainly,” Cheney said. He helped “get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do," Cheney said. "And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it."
Again, our troopers have gone to jail for abusing prisoners but Cheney approved it.
Cheney added that he thought the practice was “remarkably successful”.
Not so, said the Senate report on the abuse of prisoners [see my note yesterday].
According to a news report by David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster Vice President Richard Cheney admited authorizing torture in an interview on ABC with Jonathan Karl. Karl asked him if he approved of interrogation tactics used against a so-called "high value prisoner" at the Guantanamo Bay prison. Mr. Cheney said, "I supported it," in reference to the practice known as "water-boarding," a form of simulated drowning. After World War II, Japanese soldiers were tried and convicted of war crimes in US courts for water-boarding. "I was aware of the program, certainly,” Cheney said. He helped “get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do," Cheney said. "And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it."
Again, our troopers have gone to jail for abusing prisoners but Cheney approved it.
Cheney added that he thought the practice was “remarkably successful”.
Not so, said the Senate report on the abuse of prisoners [see my note yesterday].
Saturday, December 13, 2008
The Really Bad Apples were at the top
We are all reeling from the news that many in high places have swindled the public. But I am still grieving over the last great swindle, perhaps the greatest in American history, that betrayed America’s stated values and took the lives of thousands of faithful American warriors, all for a lie that was repeated over and over again.
Most of us, I suppose, who were alarmed about the invasion of Iraq without reasonable cause felt so helpless at the time. I at least felt betrayed by my duly elected government. Now the reality of the abuse of power and the misrepresentations of the truth that were promoted in order to justify it are coming out. But I fear that the public may not be able to hear it. Other news occupies the front pages.
The report issued yesterday by the Senate Armed Services committee at least stated for all to see that the lie, having been put into place, had many ramifications. Now Donald Rumsfeld is named for authorizing torture in the report produced by Carl Levin and John McCain on behalf of the Senate; the report is described as “the most thorough review by Congress to date of the origins of the abuse of prisoners in American military custody.”
Note that the report “explicitly rejects the Bush administration’s contention that tough interrogation methods have helped keep the country and its troops safe.”
“The report also rejected previous claims by Mr. Rumsfeld and others that Defense Department policies played no role in the harsh treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 and in other episodes of abuse.”
It says that the abuse of prisoners “grew out of interrogation policies approved by Mr. Rumsfeld and other top officials.”
In a sense, this is not news, as several publications by troopers on the ground made it clear that they were expected to torture prisoners (See, for example, Tony Lagouranis and Allen Mikaelian. 2007. Fear Up Harsh: An Army Interrogator's Dark Journey Through Iraq. New York: New American Library). Those practices in the American military reveal what the military was encouraged to do. The American military is a well trained highly disciplined machine. That such things were taking place indicates that they were known and approved by higher ups. That those same officials denied that they had approved of torture was a betrayal of those under their authority. For them to claim that it was done by merely a few “bad apples” when these soldiers had been given orders to torture was a cowardly escape. It was a way that those in power could absolve themselves while getting things done their way. Pinochet and his generals who absolved themselves of all crimes in Chile was hardly worse.
Such a betrayal can break morale and discipline in an army that has has been trained faithfully to fulfill orders. Those young people who went to jail or were discharged dishonorably for obeying orders were betrayed by their own government. It is the yokels at the top who should have gone to jail. Rumsfeld was named here, but could he have given such orders without higher authority?
How much higher could the culpability go?
Most of us, I suppose, who were alarmed about the invasion of Iraq without reasonable cause felt so helpless at the time. I at least felt betrayed by my duly elected government. Now the reality of the abuse of power and the misrepresentations of the truth that were promoted in order to justify it are coming out. But I fear that the public may not be able to hear it. Other news occupies the front pages.
The report issued yesterday by the Senate Armed Services committee at least stated for all to see that the lie, having been put into place, had many ramifications. Now Donald Rumsfeld is named for authorizing torture in the report produced by Carl Levin and John McCain on behalf of the Senate; the report is described as “the most thorough review by Congress to date of the origins of the abuse of prisoners in American military custody.”
Note that the report “explicitly rejects the Bush administration’s contention that tough interrogation methods have helped keep the country and its troops safe.”
“The report also rejected previous claims by Mr. Rumsfeld and others that Defense Department policies played no role in the harsh treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 and in other episodes of abuse.”
It says that the abuse of prisoners “grew out of interrogation policies approved by Mr. Rumsfeld and other top officials.”
In a sense, this is not news, as several publications by troopers on the ground made it clear that they were expected to torture prisoners (See, for example, Tony Lagouranis and Allen Mikaelian. 2007. Fear Up Harsh: An Army Interrogator's Dark Journey Through Iraq. New York: New American Library). Those practices in the American military reveal what the military was encouraged to do. The American military is a well trained highly disciplined machine. That such things were taking place indicates that they were known and approved by higher ups. That those same officials denied that they had approved of torture was a betrayal of those under their authority. For them to claim that it was done by merely a few “bad apples” when these soldiers had been given orders to torture was a cowardly escape. It was a way that those in power could absolve themselves while getting things done their way. Pinochet and his generals who absolved themselves of all crimes in Chile was hardly worse.
Such a betrayal can break morale and discipline in an army that has has been trained faithfully to fulfill orders. Those young people who went to jail or were discharged dishonorably for obeying orders were betrayed by their own government. It is the yokels at the top who should have gone to jail. Rumsfeld was named here, but could he have given such orders without higher authority?
How much higher could the culpability go?
Thursday, November 27, 2008
An early sign that the mortgage crisis is ending?
Thanks to McClatchy for directing me to this site.
http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/1431559.html
Homebuyers jump at falling mortgage rates
By Dale Kasler
dkasler@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Nov. 27, 2008 | Page 8B
Stuart Stenhouse has been watching the housing market for some time. On Wednesday, lured by a plunge in mortgage rates, the 40-year-old Sacramentan jumped in.
"That's why I'm starting," Stenhouse said as he traipsed around Beazer Homes' Natomas Field development in a cold midday drizzle. He doubted he would buy immediately, but the lower rates prompted him to start looking at town homes in the low-$200,000 range.
Sacramento's troubled housing market, which has been gaining momentum for several months, got a new jolt this week. An $800 billion stimulus plan for the credit markets, unveiled Tuesday by the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department, sent fixed-rate mortgages tumbling as much as 1 percentage point.
Almost immediately, homebuyers with deals pending raced to lock in rates. Potential homebuyers called their agents and said they were ready to look in earnest. Homeowners took a fresh look at the refinance market.
It's unlikely this will cure all that ails the real estate market. It won't spell relief for homeowners who've fallen behind on their payments or can't refinance out of an expensive variable-rate mortgage because they owe more than their houses are worth.
Still, the move was seen as helpful. Alan Wagner, president of the Sacramento Association of Realtors, said the lower rates might help firm up the region's housing prices – which have continued to plummet even as the volume of sales has improved. At the very least, the rates will probably bring more buyers out of the woodwork, and soon.
"Where Friday is going to be Black Friday for retail people, it'll be a day for people to start looking for houses," said Wagner, an agent with Re/Max Gold in Elk Grove.
Jeff Tarbell of Comstock Mortgage, with offices in Sacramento and Roseville, said 30-year fixed-rate mortgages fell to around 5.375 percent. They had been something over 6 percent before the stimulus plan was announced.
This week's average mortgage rate of 5.97 percent was the lowest since the week of Oct. 9, when rates fell to 5.94 percent. Average rates have been below 6 percent 16 weeks this year, according to mortgage giant Freddie Mac. The year's low was 5.48 percent the week of Jan. 24; the high was 6.63 percent the week of July 24.
Tuesday's news overwhelmed computers at Comstock, and the banks where it places loans, as purchasers moved to take advantage.
"There was so much volume in such a short window of time, I would say probably our own system, and four or five of the big banks that we register loans with, went down or went into some sort of a tizzy," Tarbell said. It quieted Wednesday but was still busy.
One of Tarbell's clients, who's moving from the Bay Area, was about to lock in a $400,000 mortgage at 6 percent. He ended up borrowing at 5.625 percent. Savings: $161 a month.
The government plan includes $500 billion in new cash to buy up mortgage-backed securities, plus another $100 billion to buy debt securities issued by government-affiliated mortgage firms such as Freddie Mac.
Separately, $200 billion will be loaned to institutions that invest in securities backed by auto, credit-card and small-business loans.
By purchasing those securities, the government drives up their price. That drives down the securities' yield, which drives down the interest rates consumers pay.
The plan comes as the Sacramento housing market, one of the first in the country to collapse, is still struggling to find its footing. October marked the seventh straight month with higher sales, but prices are still falling off a cliff.
MDA DataQuick said Sacramento County median prices fell to $195,000 in October, a 35 percent drop from a year ago. Placer County's median of $320,000 was 21 percent below last year and 39 percent below the 2005 peak.
Moreover, the new-home market remains weak. Housing starts in greater Sacramento are down 34 percent this year, says the Construction Industry Research Board.
That means, at least for now, downward pressure on prices. "The buyers are out there looking for really good deals, and they're getting really good deals," said Patti Smith of Patti Smith Timberline Realty in Georgetown.
Lower rates will help, though. "We will see an increase in sales," said Kathryn Boyce with the Sacramento office of researcher Hanley Wood Market Intelligence. "People who were on the edge, who stopped looking because interest rates went up, will now want to jump back in quickly."
Steve Galster, co-owner of the Galster Group real estate firm in Fair Oaks, has a client who began looking at properties in September but then stopped, frightened that home values hadn't hit bottom. Despite nudging from Galster the past two months, the client wouldn't resume searching.
But when the interest rates fell, the client called Galster. "He's been watching things, and all of a sudden he says, 'Why not now?'" according to Galster.
The two are going house-hunting Saturday morning.
Call The Bee's Dale Kasler, (916) 321-1066. Read his blog on the economy, Home Front, at www.sacbee.com/blogs.
Comment Guidelines
Dear Readers,
Thank you for coming to sacbee.com. We welcome your participation in our commenting boards and forums, but we ask that you follow a few simple rules to keep the boards open and the discourse civil.
We reserve the right to delete comments that contain inappropriate links, obscenities or vulgarities, spam, hate speech, personal attacks, plagiarism or copyright violations. You can help notify us of potential abuses by flagging comments that you find offensive. Action will be taken against users who repeatedly or flagrantly violate the rules. Keep it clean and you should have no problems.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
Comments: 2 Showing:
* [@Nyx.AdditionalAuthorInfo@]
Jack520 wrote on 11/27/2008 06:29:29 AM:
Home prices do what home prices do. I have always said this and it is so true. When they go up, people rush in cause they dont want to be priced out. When they go down, they are afraid to buy. This keeps the trend going. You all saw what kept them going up, I do not need to refresh you on this trend. Why do they start to go up? Well, first, if you can buy a home for roughly the same price as renting, why rent? You have to take into consideration the tax savings, with the state taxes at 9 % and federal roughly 26% combined, that makes around 34 % ( they do not add). If you are paying 1200 a month for rent, then you can pay 1800 for your house payment ( do you taxes yourself and find out, dont trust my number ). Then determine what you can buy for that amount....When the market gets close to making it more cost effective to buy versus rent, is when the market begins to turn up. Are we there....you do the math. As more people buy, so do their friends. I am glad young families can buy.
Recommend (0) Report abuse
http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/1431559.html
Homebuyers jump at falling mortgage rates
By Dale Kasler
dkasler@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Nov. 27, 2008 | Page 8B
Stuart Stenhouse has been watching the housing market for some time. On Wednesday, lured by a plunge in mortgage rates, the 40-year-old Sacramentan jumped in.
"That's why I'm starting," Stenhouse said as he traipsed around Beazer Homes' Natomas Field development in a cold midday drizzle. He doubted he would buy immediately, but the lower rates prompted him to start looking at town homes in the low-$200,000 range.
Sacramento's troubled housing market, which has been gaining momentum for several months, got a new jolt this week. An $800 billion stimulus plan for the credit markets, unveiled Tuesday by the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department, sent fixed-rate mortgages tumbling as much as 1 percentage point.
Almost immediately, homebuyers with deals pending raced to lock in rates. Potential homebuyers called their agents and said they were ready to look in earnest. Homeowners took a fresh look at the refinance market.
It's unlikely this will cure all that ails the real estate market. It won't spell relief for homeowners who've fallen behind on their payments or can't refinance out of an expensive variable-rate mortgage because they owe more than their houses are worth.
Still, the move was seen as helpful. Alan Wagner, president of the Sacramento Association of Realtors, said the lower rates might help firm up the region's housing prices – which have continued to plummet even as the volume of sales has improved. At the very least, the rates will probably bring more buyers out of the woodwork, and soon.
"Where Friday is going to be Black Friday for retail people, it'll be a day for people to start looking for houses," said Wagner, an agent with Re/Max Gold in Elk Grove.
Jeff Tarbell of Comstock Mortgage, with offices in Sacramento and Roseville, said 30-year fixed-rate mortgages fell to around 5.375 percent. They had been something over 6 percent before the stimulus plan was announced.
This week's average mortgage rate of 5.97 percent was the lowest since the week of Oct. 9, when rates fell to 5.94 percent. Average rates have been below 6 percent 16 weeks this year, according to mortgage giant Freddie Mac. The year's low was 5.48 percent the week of Jan. 24; the high was 6.63 percent the week of July 24.
Tuesday's news overwhelmed computers at Comstock, and the banks where it places loans, as purchasers moved to take advantage.
"There was so much volume in such a short window of time, I would say probably our own system, and four or five of the big banks that we register loans with, went down or went into some sort of a tizzy," Tarbell said. It quieted Wednesday but was still busy.
One of Tarbell's clients, who's moving from the Bay Area, was about to lock in a $400,000 mortgage at 6 percent. He ended up borrowing at 5.625 percent. Savings: $161 a month.
The government plan includes $500 billion in new cash to buy up mortgage-backed securities, plus another $100 billion to buy debt securities issued by government-affiliated mortgage firms such as Freddie Mac.
Separately, $200 billion will be loaned to institutions that invest in securities backed by auto, credit-card and small-business loans.
By purchasing those securities, the government drives up their price. That drives down the securities' yield, which drives down the interest rates consumers pay.
The plan comes as the Sacramento housing market, one of the first in the country to collapse, is still struggling to find its footing. October marked the seventh straight month with higher sales, but prices are still falling off a cliff.
MDA DataQuick said Sacramento County median prices fell to $195,000 in October, a 35 percent drop from a year ago. Placer County's median of $320,000 was 21 percent below last year and 39 percent below the 2005 peak.
Moreover, the new-home market remains weak. Housing starts in greater Sacramento are down 34 percent this year, says the Construction Industry Research Board.
That means, at least for now, downward pressure on prices. "The buyers are out there looking for really good deals, and they're getting really good deals," said Patti Smith of Patti Smith Timberline Realty in Georgetown.
Lower rates will help, though. "We will see an increase in sales," said Kathryn Boyce with the Sacramento office of researcher Hanley Wood Market Intelligence. "People who were on the edge, who stopped looking because interest rates went up, will now want to jump back in quickly."
Steve Galster, co-owner of the Galster Group real estate firm in Fair Oaks, has a client who began looking at properties in September but then stopped, frightened that home values hadn't hit bottom. Despite nudging from Galster the past two months, the client wouldn't resume searching.
But when the interest rates fell, the client called Galster. "He's been watching things, and all of a sudden he says, 'Why not now?'" according to Galster.
The two are going house-hunting Saturday morning.
Call The Bee's Dale Kasler, (916) 321-1066. Read his blog on the economy, Home Front, at www.sacbee.com/blogs.
Comment Guidelines
Dear Readers,
Thank you for coming to sacbee.com. We welcome your participation in our commenting boards and forums, but we ask that you follow a few simple rules to keep the boards open and the discourse civil.
We reserve the right to delete comments that contain inappropriate links, obscenities or vulgarities, spam, hate speech, personal attacks, plagiarism or copyright violations. You can help notify us of potential abuses by flagging comments that you find offensive. Action will be taken against users who repeatedly or flagrantly violate the rules. Keep it clean and you should have no problems.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
Comments: 2 Showing:
* [@Nyx.AdditionalAuthorInfo@]
Jack520 wrote on 11/27/2008 06:29:29 AM:
Home prices do what home prices do. I have always said this and it is so true. When they go up, people rush in cause they dont want to be priced out. When they go down, they are afraid to buy. This keeps the trend going. You all saw what kept them going up, I do not need to refresh you on this trend. Why do they start to go up? Well, first, if you can buy a home for roughly the same price as renting, why rent? You have to take into consideration the tax savings, with the state taxes at 9 % and federal roughly 26% combined, that makes around 34 % ( they do not add). If you are paying 1200 a month for rent, then you can pay 1800 for your house payment ( do you taxes yourself and find out, dont trust my number ). Then determine what you can buy for that amount....When the market gets close to making it more cost effective to buy versus rent, is when the market begins to turn up. Are we there....you do the math. As more people buy, so do their friends. I am glad young families can buy.
Recommend (0) Report abuse
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Saudi Aid and Fatwas to Calm Pakistani Militants?
Atlantic-Community.org has a note, referenced to Asia Times Online [but I can’t find it] stating that
“General Petraeus has given Saudi Arabia control over aid to Pakistan. ++ It is hoped that a series of religious decrees against terrorism and a continued debate on inter-religious dialogue with Saudi support will reach troubled areas in Pakistan. ++ Saudi involvement risks pulling them into a quagmire of politics and military action. ++ However, the US, Saudis and Pakistanis engaging militants individually can have results.”
I cannot internalize how a general so reputedly intelligent could do something so transparently unwise. Yes, Pakistan has, as the article says, “failed” to produce the kind of results we want on “the war on terror”, but to make use of Saudi Arabia to remedy the situation is folly beyond measure. If the Pakistanis are conflicted about how they want to make use of Islamic ideals to motivate their citizenry, Saudi Arabia has to be at least as conflicted. Indeed, they admit to carrying on a low-grace civil war against their own “jehadists.” Can Petraeus be unaware of the many times in Saudi history that various extreme Islamist groups have become major problems for government control? How can Saudi theologians, wahhabi theologians at that, develop the kinds of theological decrees that would rein in extremists in “troubled areas” of Pakistan?
I am dumbfounded and horrified. Dear Lord, save us.
[click on the title for a link to the source]
“General Petraeus has given Saudi Arabia control over aid to Pakistan. ++ It is hoped that a series of religious decrees against terrorism and a continued debate on inter-religious dialogue with Saudi support will reach troubled areas in Pakistan. ++ Saudi involvement risks pulling them into a quagmire of politics and military action. ++ However, the US, Saudis and Pakistanis engaging militants individually can have results.”
I cannot internalize how a general so reputedly intelligent could do something so transparently unwise. Yes, Pakistan has, as the article says, “failed” to produce the kind of results we want on “the war on terror”, but to make use of Saudi Arabia to remedy the situation is folly beyond measure. If the Pakistanis are conflicted about how they want to make use of Islamic ideals to motivate their citizenry, Saudi Arabia has to be at least as conflicted. Indeed, they admit to carrying on a low-grace civil war against their own “jehadists.” Can Petraeus be unaware of the many times in Saudi history that various extreme Islamist groups have become major problems for government control? How can Saudi theologians, wahhabi theologians at that, develop the kinds of theological decrees that would rein in extremists in “troubled areas” of Pakistan?
I am dumbfounded and horrified. Dear Lord, save us.
[click on the title for a link to the source]
Monday, November 03, 2008
Preparing for the outcome
It is now the night before the election and, even though the pundits claim to know how it will come out, many of us are anxious. Now is the time to prepare to accept the result, whatever it is.
Our country is dangerously polarized. When this election is over we must all be prepared to join in making the best of the result, even if we disagree with it. What makes democracy work is the universal commitment to consent to the will of the majority and to protect the right of the minority to retain their own voice, even in defeat.
Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Speech, brief as it was, delivered in the rain, captured the spirit that must prevail among us after a bitter contest.
The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” … Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue … still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, … to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Our country is dangerously polarized. When this election is over we must all be prepared to join in making the best of the result, even if we disagree with it. What makes democracy work is the universal commitment to consent to the will of the majority and to protect the right of the minority to retain their own voice, even in defeat.
Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Speech, brief as it was, delivered in the rain, captured the spirit that must prevail among us after a bitter contest.
The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” … Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue … still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, … to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The terrorist rhetoric of McCain and Palin is dangerous
It is unnerving to turn from narratives about how brutal wars take form elsewhere, as in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, or Darfur, to American politics. Most Americans are unaware that those wars took form in what was supposed to be, or claimed to be, a democratic process. But through the skillful use of innuendo political leaders created doubt, suspicion, and fear and so were able to put in motion ignoble even inhuman acts.
• It was after Franjo Tudjman was elected in Croatia that the Serbs and Croats broke into conflict, involving people who knew each other, neighbor taking up arms against neighbor. The context was Tudjman’s declaration that Croatia was for the Croats and his deployment of Ustashe symbols – symbols used by criminal Croats allied with Hitler during World War II who systematically sought to exterminate Jews, Serbs, Roma and other minorities in the area. The minority Serbs in the new state of Croatia feared that they would again suffer as their parents and grandparents had in World War II. [Denich, Bette. 1994. "Dismembering Yugoslavia: Nationalist Ideologies and the Symbolic Revival of Genocide." American Ethnologist 21(2):367-390].
• Early after Sudan became independent, as political parties formed, they did not carry on gentlemen’s disputes about power. Within the Umma party, for instance, there was a bitter division among the leaders: One leader began to appeal to the “African” tribes while his opponent appealed to the “Arabs” – a distinction in DarFur that scarcely constituted a difference. But as the two sides exaggerated the racial-cultural rhetoric they established a context for the creation of intense hostilities that would [along with many other factors however] lead to the fighting that is now described as genocide in Darfur. [Prunier, Gerard. 2005. The Ambiguous Genocide. Ithaca: Cornel University.]
• In Rwanda a notable Hutu declared in 1960 that Rwanda's new freedom meant that “Democracy has vanquished feudalism.” The truth was otherwise. In fact, it enabled the dominant Hutus to put in motion an attempt to exterminate their Tutsi neighbors. Deploying newspapers and radio they promoted the idea that the Tutsis were the source of national problems, describing them as “cockroaches.” They needed to be exterminated for the public good. It was not merely a matter of propaganda, as they also established organizations through which the process of extermination could begin and through which pressure might be exerted on the rest of the population to conform. So it was that the day came when it was possible to induce many ordinary Hutus to take up machetes against their neighbors. Such is the power of public myth and rhetoric fabricated and promoted for political ends. [Gourevitch, Philip. 1998. We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We are to be Killed with our Families. New York: Farrar, Strauss.]
Many of us have been uneasy about the way that McCain and Palin – and many others in the Republican propaganda network – have characterized Barak Obama. Many persist in calling him a Muslim [by implication a terrorist], and a socialist. These are not mistakes: they are deliberate and pointed. But it is more dangerous to the American public than may be supposed.
Take what happened today in Miami, Florida. From Fivethirtyeight.com
“After the rally, we witnessed a near-street riot involving the exiting McCain crowd and two Cuban-American Obama supporters. Tony Garcia, 63, and Raul Sorando, 31, were suddenly surrounded by an angry mob. There is a moment in a crowd when something goes from mere yelling to a feeling of danger, and that's what we witnessed. As photographers and police raced to the scene, the crowd elevated from stable to fast-moving scrum, and the two men were surrounded on all sides as we raced to the circle.
The event maybe lasted a minute, two at the most, before police competently managed to hustle the two away from the scene and out of the danger zone. Only FiveThirtyEight tracked the two men down for comment, a quarter mile down the street.
"People were screaming 'Terrorist!' 'Communist!' 'Socialist!'" Sorando said when we caught up with him. "I had a guy tell me he was gonna kill me."
Asked what had precipitated the event, "We were just chanting 'Obama!' and holding our signs. That was it. And the crowd suddenly got crazy."
The claims that politicians make matter. Politicians, if they are properly situated, can create an unbridgeable chasm in a society. Wasn't it Goering who said that propaganda needs to be simple and repeated many times until people come think there is something to it? Surely if freedom is to work, the pursuit of public office should entail the obligation to speak fairly and truthfully in making public claims.
I pray that our country will be spared what many other countries have experienced. It is easier than we think to poison the democratic process.
• It was after Franjo Tudjman was elected in Croatia that the Serbs and Croats broke into conflict, involving people who knew each other, neighbor taking up arms against neighbor. The context was Tudjman’s declaration that Croatia was for the Croats and his deployment of Ustashe symbols – symbols used by criminal Croats allied with Hitler during World War II who systematically sought to exterminate Jews, Serbs, Roma and other minorities in the area. The minority Serbs in the new state of Croatia feared that they would again suffer as their parents and grandparents had in World War II. [Denich, Bette. 1994. "Dismembering Yugoslavia: Nationalist Ideologies and the Symbolic Revival of Genocide." American Ethnologist 21(2):367-390].
• Early after Sudan became independent, as political parties formed, they did not carry on gentlemen’s disputes about power. Within the Umma party, for instance, there was a bitter division among the leaders: One leader began to appeal to the “African” tribes while his opponent appealed to the “Arabs” – a distinction in DarFur that scarcely constituted a difference. But as the two sides exaggerated the racial-cultural rhetoric they established a context for the creation of intense hostilities that would [along with many other factors however] lead to the fighting that is now described as genocide in Darfur. [Prunier, Gerard. 2005. The Ambiguous Genocide. Ithaca: Cornel University.]
• In Rwanda a notable Hutu declared in 1960 that Rwanda's new freedom meant that “Democracy has vanquished feudalism.” The truth was otherwise. In fact, it enabled the dominant Hutus to put in motion an attempt to exterminate their Tutsi neighbors. Deploying newspapers and radio they promoted the idea that the Tutsis were the source of national problems, describing them as “cockroaches.” They needed to be exterminated for the public good. It was not merely a matter of propaganda, as they also established organizations through which the process of extermination could begin and through which pressure might be exerted on the rest of the population to conform. So it was that the day came when it was possible to induce many ordinary Hutus to take up machetes against their neighbors. Such is the power of public myth and rhetoric fabricated and promoted for political ends. [Gourevitch, Philip. 1998. We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We are to be Killed with our Families. New York: Farrar, Strauss.]
Many of us have been uneasy about the way that McCain and Palin – and many others in the Republican propaganda network – have characterized Barak Obama. Many persist in calling him a Muslim [by implication a terrorist], and a socialist. These are not mistakes: they are deliberate and pointed. But it is more dangerous to the American public than may be supposed.
Take what happened today in Miami, Florida. From Fivethirtyeight.com
“After the rally, we witnessed a near-street riot involving the exiting McCain crowd and two Cuban-American Obama supporters. Tony Garcia, 63, and Raul Sorando, 31, were suddenly surrounded by an angry mob. There is a moment in a crowd when something goes from mere yelling to a feeling of danger, and that's what we witnessed. As photographers and police raced to the scene, the crowd elevated from stable to fast-moving scrum, and the two men were surrounded on all sides as we raced to the circle.
The event maybe lasted a minute, two at the most, before police competently managed to hustle the two away from the scene and out of the danger zone. Only FiveThirtyEight tracked the two men down for comment, a quarter mile down the street.
"People were screaming 'Terrorist!' 'Communist!' 'Socialist!'" Sorando said when we caught up with him. "I had a guy tell me he was gonna kill me."
Asked what had precipitated the event, "We were just chanting 'Obama!' and holding our signs. That was it. And the crowd suddenly got crazy."
The claims that politicians make matter. Politicians, if they are properly situated, can create an unbridgeable chasm in a society. Wasn't it Goering who said that propaganda needs to be simple and repeated many times until people come think there is something to it? Surely if freedom is to work, the pursuit of public office should entail the obligation to speak fairly and truthfully in making public claims.
I pray that our country will be spared what many other countries have experienced. It is easier than we think to poison the democratic process.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Sarah Palin is pro-choice
As far as I can tell, Sarah Palin’s position on abortion is the pro-choice position. In the extended quotation below, from her interview with Katie Couric, I have placed some key terms in italics, to emphasize how compatible her position is with pro-choice.
"Palin: I am pro-life. And I'm unapologetic about my position there on pro-life. And I understand good people on both sides of the abortion debate. In fact, good people in my own family have differing views on abortion and when it should be allowed. So … I respect people's opinion on this.
Now, I would counsel to choose life. I would like to see a culture of life in this country. But I would also like to see taking it one step further. Not just saying I am pro-life, and I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country. But I want, then, those women who find themselves in circumstances that are absolutely less than ideal, for them to be supported for adoptions to be made easier. For more support given to foster parents and adoptive families. That is my personal opinion on this.
Couric: But, ideally, you think it should be illegal …
Palin: If you …
Couric: …for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion?
Palin: I'm saying that, personally, I would counsel the person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in. And, um, if you're asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an … abortion, absolutely not. That's nothing I would ever support.
Then, now, some may characterize my position as being extreme, because I am pro-life … and I want women empowered to know that, you know, we can help them. They can be strong enough, and they can have the resources provided them to give that child life.
Notice the language: She would counsel against abortion. That is not the pro-life position; the pro-life position is that abortion should be criminalized. She would personally advise against it. Many of those who are pro-choice would likewise advise against abortion in some cases. I suspect that some would advise against abortion even in the most egregious situations. The issue is not whether one is for or against abortion: it is whether abortion should be criminalized. Palin believes it should not be: she is pro-choice, whatever she calls herself.
Pro-choice is not “pro-abortion,” a term that masks the real nature of the debate. No one is “for” abortion. It is always an act of erasure, an acknowledgment of, to use the mildest of terms, a mistake. It is always a tragedy, a loss. It is an acknowledgment of something gone wrong: No one is for that. Those of us who are pro-choice are not for abortion. Many of us would, like Palin, counsel against abortion, and like Palin, if the people involved decide otherwise, however grieved we might be by their decision, we would not have them be treated as criminals. The debate has so far veiled the fact that one can be “against abortion” in principle and at the same time against criminalizing abortion.
Sarah Palin’s position is to “counsel a person to choose life …”. She would "not want anyone to go to jail." She is pro-choice.
"Palin: I am pro-life. And I'm unapologetic about my position there on pro-life. And I understand good people on both sides of the abortion debate. In fact, good people in my own family have differing views on abortion and when it should be allowed. So … I respect people's opinion on this.
Now, I would counsel to choose life. I would like to see a culture of life in this country. But I would also like to see taking it one step further. Not just saying I am pro-life, and I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country. But I want, then, those women who find themselves in circumstances that are absolutely less than ideal, for them to be supported for adoptions to be made easier. For more support given to foster parents and adoptive families. That is my personal opinion on this.
Couric: But, ideally, you think it should be illegal …
Palin: If you …
Couric: …for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion?
Palin: I'm saying that, personally, I would counsel the person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in. And, um, if you're asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an … abortion, absolutely not. That's nothing I would ever support.
Then, now, some may characterize my position as being extreme, because I am pro-life … and I want women empowered to know that, you know, we can help them. They can be strong enough, and they can have the resources provided them to give that child life.
Notice the language: She would counsel against abortion. That is not the pro-life position; the pro-life position is that abortion should be criminalized. She would personally advise against it. Many of those who are pro-choice would likewise advise against abortion in some cases. I suspect that some would advise against abortion even in the most egregious situations. The issue is not whether one is for or against abortion: it is whether abortion should be criminalized. Palin believes it should not be: she is pro-choice, whatever she calls herself.
Pro-choice is not “pro-abortion,” a term that masks the real nature of the debate. No one is “for” abortion. It is always an act of erasure, an acknowledgment of, to use the mildest of terms, a mistake. It is always a tragedy, a loss. It is an acknowledgment of something gone wrong: No one is for that. Those of us who are pro-choice are not for abortion. Many of us would, like Palin, counsel against abortion, and like Palin, if the people involved decide otherwise, however grieved we might be by their decision, we would not have them be treated as criminals. The debate has so far veiled the fact that one can be “against abortion” in principle and at the same time against criminalizing abortion.
Sarah Palin’s position is to “counsel a person to choose life …”. She would "not want anyone to go to jail." She is pro-choice.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Another tragic loss to the Afghanistan peoples, for spurious reasons
From the point of view of the Taliban virtually everyone bringing aid to Afghanistan can be regarded as subversive. Perhaps this woman was singled out because she was a Christian but if she had been working for any other aid organization -- UN, USAID, etc. -- she would have been a target. And the Taliban are right: such people are undermining the social world they stand for. But we are seeing more signs that the Taliban are no longer a purely Afghan organization: The practice of beheading, what took place only yesterday also, is a horrific practice broadly connected to radical Arabs.
10/20/08
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Taliban gunmen on a motorbike killed a Christian aid worker in the Afghan capital on Monday, and the militant group said it had targeted the woman because she was proselytizing.
The woman, a British national, worked with handicapped Afghans and was killed in the western part of Kabul as she was walking alone around 8 a.m., police said. Najib Samsoor, a district police chief, originally said the woman was from South Africa, but the British government later said she was British.
The gunmen shot the victim in the body and leg with a pistol, said Interior Ministry spokesman Zemeri Bashary. Officials did not release her name.
Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, claimed responsibility for the slaying, saying the woman was killed because she was spreading Christianity.
"This woman came to Afghanistan to teach Christianity to people of Afghanistan," Mujahid told the Associated Press. "Our (leaders) issued a decree to kill this woman. This morning our people killed her in Kabul."
The woman's organization — SERVE, Serving Emergency Relief and Vocational enterprises — describes itself as a Christian charity registered in Britain. The group's Web page says the charity has been working with Afghan refugees since 1980 in Pakistan.
"SERVE Afghanistan's purpose is to express God's love and bring hope by serving the people of Afghanistan, especially the needy, as we seek to address personal, social and environmental needs," SERVE's Web page says.
Afghanistan is a conservative Islamic nation and has little tolerance for outside religious interference. Proselytizing is prohibited by law, and other Christian missionaries or charities have faced severe hostilities.
Last summer a group of 23 South Korean aid workers from a church group were taken hostage in southern Afghanistan. Two were killed and the rest were released.
In 2001, eight international aid workers, including two Americans, were imprisoned and charged with preaching Christianity. The eight were freed by Afghan mujahedeen fighters attacking the Taliban after the U.S.-led invasion.
In 2006, an Afghan man who converted from Islam to Christianity was sentenced to death by an Afghan court. Following an international outcry Afghan authorities declared the man insane and he was granted asylum in Italy, where he now lives.
Monday's attack adds to a growing sense of insecurity in Kabul. The capital is now blanketed in police checkpoints. Embassies, military bases and the U.N. are erecting cement wall barriers to guard against suicide bombings.
Kidnappings targeting wealthy Afghans have long been a problem in Kabul, but attacks against Westerners in the city and surrounding provinces have also increased recently. In mid-August, Taliban militants killed three women working for the U.S. aid group International Rescue Committee while they were driving in Logar, a province south of Kabul.
Meanwhile, assault helicopters dropped NATO troops into Jalrez district of Wardak province on Thursday, leading to a two-day battle involving airstrikes in which more than 20 militants were killed, the military alliance said in a statement Monday.
Wardak province, just 40 miles west of Kabul, has become an insurgent stronghold on the doorsteps of the capital.
Militants have expanded their traditional bases in the country's south and east — on the border with Pakistan — and have gained territory in the provinces surrounding Kabul, a worrying development for Afghan and NATO troops.
Those advances are part of the reason that top U.S. military officials have warned that the international mission to defeat the Taliban is in peril, and why NATO generals have called for a sharp increase in the number of troops here.
Some 65,000 international troops now operate in Afghanistan, including around 32,000 Americans.
10/20/08
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Taliban gunmen on a motorbike killed a Christian aid worker in the Afghan capital on Monday, and the militant group said it had targeted the woman because she was proselytizing.
The woman, a British national, worked with handicapped Afghans and was killed in the western part of Kabul as she was walking alone around 8 a.m., police said. Najib Samsoor, a district police chief, originally said the woman was from South Africa, but the British government later said she was British.
The gunmen shot the victim in the body and leg with a pistol, said Interior Ministry spokesman Zemeri Bashary. Officials did not release her name.
Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, claimed responsibility for the slaying, saying the woman was killed because she was spreading Christianity.
"This woman came to Afghanistan to teach Christianity to people of Afghanistan," Mujahid told the Associated Press. "Our (leaders) issued a decree to kill this woman. This morning our people killed her in Kabul."
The woman's organization — SERVE, Serving Emergency Relief and Vocational enterprises — describes itself as a Christian charity registered in Britain. The group's Web page says the charity has been working with Afghan refugees since 1980 in Pakistan.
"SERVE Afghanistan's purpose is to express God's love and bring hope by serving the people of Afghanistan, especially the needy, as we seek to address personal, social and environmental needs," SERVE's Web page says.
Afghanistan is a conservative Islamic nation and has little tolerance for outside religious interference. Proselytizing is prohibited by law, and other Christian missionaries or charities have faced severe hostilities.
Last summer a group of 23 South Korean aid workers from a church group were taken hostage in southern Afghanistan. Two were killed and the rest were released.
In 2001, eight international aid workers, including two Americans, were imprisoned and charged with preaching Christianity. The eight were freed by Afghan mujahedeen fighters attacking the Taliban after the U.S.-led invasion.
In 2006, an Afghan man who converted from Islam to Christianity was sentenced to death by an Afghan court. Following an international outcry Afghan authorities declared the man insane and he was granted asylum in Italy, where he now lives.
Monday's attack adds to a growing sense of insecurity in Kabul. The capital is now blanketed in police checkpoints. Embassies, military bases and the U.N. are erecting cement wall barriers to guard against suicide bombings.
Kidnappings targeting wealthy Afghans have long been a problem in Kabul, but attacks against Westerners in the city and surrounding provinces have also increased recently. In mid-August, Taliban militants killed three women working for the U.S. aid group International Rescue Committee while they were driving in Logar, a province south of Kabul.
Meanwhile, assault helicopters dropped NATO troops into Jalrez district of Wardak province on Thursday, leading to a two-day battle involving airstrikes in which more than 20 militants were killed, the military alliance said in a statement Monday.
Wardak province, just 40 miles west of Kabul, has become an insurgent stronghold on the doorsteps of the capital.
Militants have expanded their traditional bases in the country's south and east — on the border with Pakistan — and have gained territory in the provinces surrounding Kabul, a worrying development for Afghan and NATO troops.
Those advances are part of the reason that top U.S. military officials have warned that the international mission to defeat the Taliban is in peril, and why NATO generals have called for a sharp increase in the number of troops here.
Some 65,000 international troops now operate in Afghanistan, including around 32,000 Americans.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
More bad news on Pakistan
Today's McClatchy papers are saying there is a new intelligence estimate of the situation in Pakistan that paints a bleak picture. The Al Qaeda-backed insurgency is growing, the Pakistan army is reluctant to take firm action, food and energy are getting short, and the government is paralyzed by infighting. This is supposed to be "top secret". The report comes after a request to consider "the U S presence in the region can be effective." A growing issue is the economy: "The Pakistani public is clamoring for relief as the crisis pushes millions more into poverty, giving insurgent groups more opportunities to recruit young Pakistanis."
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Black, Muslim, Arab, Socialist, Whatever.
The emails going out about Obama have been crafty. The gossip is not that he is black – that’s obvious enough – but that he is dangerous for other reasons. You can’t say a man’s unacceptable because he’s black these days; no one wants to admit to being racist. You have to invent something else.
I have heard several phony reasons. The most widely circulated one is that he is a secret Muslim. Someone called in on a TV program last week who had supposed that Obama openly admitted to being a Muslim: the caller was asking which sect Obama belonged to, Shia or Sunni. Fortunately, the panelist on the program corrected him: Obama is not a Muslim, he is a Christian. A woman in Florida told a television reporter that she could not trust Obama because he would socialize the country [somehow she was missing the government buyout taking place as she spoke; it's now too late for Obama to do it, Bush and company have just done it]. And yesterday a woman in a suburb of Minneapolis told John McCain that she could not trust Obama because he was an “Arab.”
Whatever the reason, we know Obama can’t be trusted, these people are saying. As Sarah Palin keeps putting it, “he’s different from us.” The nuance is clear: Black, Muslim, Arab, socialist: whatever he is, he different. And dangerous.
I have heard several phony reasons. The most widely circulated one is that he is a secret Muslim. Someone called in on a TV program last week who had supposed that Obama openly admitted to being a Muslim: the caller was asking which sect Obama belonged to, Shia or Sunni. Fortunately, the panelist on the program corrected him: Obama is not a Muslim, he is a Christian. A woman in Florida told a television reporter that she could not trust Obama because he would socialize the country [somehow she was missing the government buyout taking place as she spoke; it's now too late for Obama to do it, Bush and company have just done it]. And yesterday a woman in a suburb of Minneapolis told John McCain that she could not trust Obama because he was an “Arab.”
Whatever the reason, we know Obama can’t be trusted, these people are saying. As Sarah Palin keeps putting it, “he’s different from us.” The nuance is clear: Black, Muslim, Arab, socialist: whatever he is, he different. And dangerous.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Incindiary politics can get out of control
The rhetoric of the presidential race in the US has become insidious and incendiary. There could be more danger in the rhetoric of character assassination than we suppose. Somehow until I reached a mature age I failed to see how dangerously influential the ideological activity of leaders including the learned elite can be. The educated professional elite, leaders in thought and public education, at least many of them, joined in Hitler’s Third Reich, for transparently self-serving reasons. The professional elite in South Africa aided and abetted those figures who conceived of and operationalized apartheid; without the involvement of the educated elite the fifteen percent could never have controlled the other eighty-five percent. Even more troubling to me is the role of the learned elites in formulating the ideas that eventually would rend apart the country of Yugoslavia, breaking it into Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia (and so on). It was the ideas of the intelligentsia that created the movements of fear that became genocidal among these populations. It was fear, joined with hate, that trashed personal friendships among the Yugoslavs that had existed for decades. Eventually fear as well as the arrogance of racism drove ethnic cleansing.
So I wonder about what could come out of the incendiary speeches being given by the contestants for the presidency now. Our country has been intensely divided for years and the strategic decisions of politicians to deploy “wedge issues” in election campaigns has had much to do with hardening these divisions. Leaders matter. Good leadership matters. What we have had in our country is such intense partisanship among our leaders that inevitably the public has similarly formed into two irreconcilable blocs; it is as if the two sides live in different worlds. No matter how outrageous are the accusations, some people will fail to see them as calculated measures to gain advantage, to win public support for specific agendas. For them the assertions are not metaphorical but real. Some people will take the extreme attacks on character literally. If any of them were to act on the claims being made, someone could die. Society could become even more dangerously polarized. At some point we have to beg the two sides to be civil. We are trying to choose a president: the process simply cannot become a knife fight in a phone booth.
Let us pray for statesmen who will avoid the character assassinations of the past and seek to treat their opponents with ordinary courtesy.
So I wonder about what could come out of the incendiary speeches being given by the contestants for the presidency now. Our country has been intensely divided for years and the strategic decisions of politicians to deploy “wedge issues” in election campaigns has had much to do with hardening these divisions. Leaders matter. Good leadership matters. What we have had in our country is such intense partisanship among our leaders that inevitably the public has similarly formed into two irreconcilable blocs; it is as if the two sides live in different worlds. No matter how outrageous are the accusations, some people will fail to see them as calculated measures to gain advantage, to win public support for specific agendas. For them the assertions are not metaphorical but real. Some people will take the extreme attacks on character literally. If any of them were to act on the claims being made, someone could die. Society could become even more dangerously polarized. At some point we have to beg the two sides to be civil. We are trying to choose a president: the process simply cannot become a knife fight in a phone booth.
Let us pray for statesmen who will avoid the character assassinations of the past and seek to treat their opponents with ordinary courtesy.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Mythical inspiration for a new "flood" of Jihadis into Afghanistan
The Guardian [10/2/08] says that General David McKiernan, the top US commander in Afghanistan , “warned yesterday that militant Islamist jihadis were flooding into the country from all corners of the Muslim world to join the Taliban's fight against the Nato alliance, mostly via Pakistan
If this is so, then it appears thatAfghanistan
Behind this is the oft-quoted aphorism that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, an observation that now enjoys the authority of myth. Of such myths social affairs are made. It was true enough of the British experience, and the Russian, but not of the Mongols and other Central Asian invaders, nor in fact of the Arabs. But those "graveyard experiences" for the empires were no less devastating for the Afghanistan peoples themselves; after the Second Afghan war, for instance, Afghanistan was a shambles.
The jehadis are as alien to this country as the Americans, but like the Pakistanis and the Iranians they seem unable to internalize it. We grieve for the Afghanistan peoples who have to put up with yet another intrusion of foreign interests, to add yet one more complication to their own already richly complicated society.
The Guardian also says that the US is trying to “improve cooperation with the Pakistani military and intelligence services to halt the flow of jihadis.” This is of course crucial for the success of the western powers -- and in my opinion for the Afghans. Whether it really works is to be seen.
If this is so, then it appears that
Behind this is the oft-quoted aphorism that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, an observation that now enjoys the authority of myth. Of such myths social affairs are made. It was true enough of the British experience, and the Russian, but not of the Mongols and other Central Asian invaders, nor in fact of the Arabs. But those "graveyard experiences" for the empires were no less devastating for the Afghanistan peoples themselves; after the Second Afghan war, for instance, Afghanistan was a shambles.
The jehadis are as alien to this country as the Americans, but like the Pakistanis and the Iranians they seem unable to internalize it. We grieve for the Afghanistan peoples who have to put up with yet another intrusion of foreign interests, to add yet one more complication to their own already richly complicated society.
The Guardian also says that the US is trying to “improve cooperation with the Pakistani military and intelligence services to halt the flow of jihadis.” This is of course crucial for the success of the western powers -- and in my opinion for the Afghans. Whether it really works is to be seen.
[Click on the title above for a link to the article.]
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Other cliams of an Anti-Taliban movement among the Tribes
Another article, this one in Foreign Policy in Focus, on the possible rising dissent among the tribes with the Taliban movement in their midst.
[Click on the title to link to it.]
[Click on the title to link to it.]
Civil War in the Tribal Areas?
An article that appeared today in the Guardian suggests that the Pushtun tribes are now mobilizing against the Taliban, and presumably Al Qaeda. According to the article the local populations still have the ability to control the Taliban in most of the tribal areas although that ability has been lost in Swat.
A civil war in the Tribal Areas? The Americans will surely see this as good news. However, there is the factor of the Pak army, which as many have noted is conflicted on how to develop the country. Even as the army can't control its own Taliban [and other Islamist groups it has been nourishing for years] it doesn't want the Americans to attack the Taliban in the Tribal Areas. Pride of sovereignty even if it can't be enforced.
But if the tribes unite against the Taliban [if most of them actually join this project it will be one of the few times such a unification of tribes has ever happened] then that will dramatically change the scene in Pakistan.
This could be big news.
[Click on the title to link to the article]
A civil war in the Tribal Areas? The Americans will surely see this as good news. However, there is the factor of the Pak army, which as many have noted is conflicted on how to develop the country. Even as the army can't control its own Taliban [and other Islamist groups it has been nourishing for years] it doesn't want the Americans to attack the Taliban in the Tribal Areas. Pride of sovereignty even if it can't be enforced.
But if the tribes unite against the Taliban [if most of them actually join this project it will be one of the few times such a unification of tribes has ever happened] then that will dramatically change the scene in Pakistan.
This could be big news.
[Click on the title to link to the article]
Monday, September 08, 2008
In 60 days she could be President: Do we know her?
I find it odd, even insulting, that the McCain crowd would pick for VP someone they scarcely knew merely to win votes. This seems to me to trivialize the whole process of choosing a President and Vice President -- and even to trivialize the role and responsibilities of the most powerful person in the world. They suppose that they will gain votes by doing this: what kind of people do they think will buy into this? People who seriously care about the Presidency? The USA? The world? What would American affairs have been like if all the leaders in American history were chosen so carelessly, so precipitously?
I wish I could feel better about this process.
I wish I could feel better about this process.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Superficial impressions of Kabul
Whatever one can say about a city like Kabul based on a short whirlwind visit can only be impressionistic, but for what it's worth I note here some of my impressions.
> Everyone has a cell phone. For me that was a surprise, but I understand now that that is about par in most countries, especially those where the roads are poor.
> A huge amount of money is being invested in the city. Lots of road building. Many palatial houses are being built. Where does it come from? One person said at least some of it is drug money.
> As before, there appear to be no zoning rules so people seem able to put virtually anything on their private property. So there is an odd scattering of expensive investments around the city.
> The walls around virtually every house are no longer a mere 8 or 9 feet. Now most houses have added large steel panels on top of the walls adding another 12-15 or feet to the hight, and sometimes on top of those is razor wire. Obviously folks are worried about attacks on their homes.
> The taliban are, as we know, in the countryside not far out of Kabul these days. They are trying to strangle the city by interrupting traffic in and out. So far, there seems to be no shortage of anything, based merely on a cursory look at what's in the bazaar.
> Publishing industry seems to be doing well. I was treated with great courtesy by one person who owns several newspapers. He said he is free to say whatever he wants. Up to a point. If he wants he can talk about the drug industry in general, but if he begins to ask how 50% of the opium produced in the country [which is to say half of the world's opium supply] is produced in one county of one province, then that is meddling a little too close. All those officials in the area would then seem to be implicated, and he knows better than to step into that cesspool.
> There are some wonderful signs of growth and investment that will be beneficial for the whole country. The most notable of them is the massive reconstruction of Babur's garden. There is a fine museum there, in the recently constructed caravansarai at the bottom of the system of terraces that has been renovated.
> Everyone has a cell phone. For me that was a surprise, but I understand now that that is about par in most countries, especially those where the roads are poor.
> A huge amount of money is being invested in the city. Lots of road building. Many palatial houses are being built. Where does it come from? One person said at least some of it is drug money.
> As before, there appear to be no zoning rules so people seem able to put virtually anything on their private property. So there is an odd scattering of expensive investments around the city.
> The walls around virtually every house are no longer a mere 8 or 9 feet. Now most houses have added large steel panels on top of the walls adding another 12-15 or feet to the hight, and sometimes on top of those is razor wire. Obviously folks are worried about attacks on their homes.
> The taliban are, as we know, in the countryside not far out of Kabul these days. They are trying to strangle the city by interrupting traffic in and out. So far, there seems to be no shortage of anything, based merely on a cursory look at what's in the bazaar.
> Publishing industry seems to be doing well. I was treated with great courtesy by one person who owns several newspapers. He said he is free to say whatever he wants. Up to a point. If he wants he can talk about the drug industry in general, but if he begins to ask how 50% of the opium produced in the country [which is to say half of the world's opium supply] is produced in one county of one province, then that is meddling a little too close. All those officials in the area would then seem to be implicated, and he knows better than to step into that cesspool.
> There are some wonderful signs of growth and investment that will be beneficial for the whole country. The most notable of them is the massive reconstruction of Babur's garden. There is a fine museum there, in the recently constructed caravansarai at the bottom of the system of terraces that has been renovated.
Warnings of impending disaster: anyone listening?
Some notes on an add by the Peter G Peterson Foundation in today's New York Times [pp. 14-15].
> The total of the US government liabilities and unfunded entitlement promises is $53 trillion. This amounts to $456,000 debt per household.
> Medicare and Social Security amount to $41 trillion of the above number.
> Our trade deficit is $800 billion a year and we are saving about zero collectively.
> This makes us dependent on foreign lenders to supply the funds we need [that is, want] to maintain our standard of living. Japan and China and other countries now own about half of our public debt.
So much for the reality we don't want to know. The most worrisome part of this story is that the American people are not listening; I suspect they will scarcely take note of this advertisement. It even says we should not punish our politicians for telling us the truth: if they tell us that it will cost us to avert disaster. I wonder. The finest example in literature of precisely this kind of situation is in the Bible: the refusal of the Hebrews to take note of impending disaster. "Oh land, land, land! Hear the word of the Lord!" says Jeremiah. What chance is there that this country will elect the kind of leaders that would turn the country away from disaster?
> The total of the US government liabilities and unfunded entitlement promises is $53 trillion. This amounts to $456,000 debt per household.
> Medicare and Social Security amount to $41 trillion of the above number.
> Our trade deficit is $800 billion a year and we are saving about zero collectively.
> This makes us dependent on foreign lenders to supply the funds we need [that is, want] to maintain our standard of living. Japan and China and other countries now own about half of our public debt.
So much for the reality we don't want to know. The most worrisome part of this story is that the American people are not listening; I suspect they will scarcely take note of this advertisement. It even says we should not punish our politicians for telling us the truth: if they tell us that it will cost us to avert disaster. I wonder. The finest example in literature of precisely this kind of situation is in the Bible: the refusal of the Hebrews to take note of impending disaster. "Oh land, land, land! Hear the word of the Lord!" says Jeremiah. What chance is there that this country will elect the kind of leaders that would turn the country away from disaster?
Monday, July 28, 2008
Embarrassing revelations of conditions in Afghanistan
Some bad news on Afghanistan is coming out, to the shame of Afghan leadership and also, in some cases, to the Americans.
1. Tom Schweich's description of the failure of many to deal adequately with the expansion of the drug industry in Afghanistan should embarrass not only the Afghan leadership -- Hamed Karzai in particular -- but also the Americans, especially the Pentagon, who can't seem to agree on what they are actually there for. See New York Times Magazine, 7/27/08 "Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?"
2. Farooq, whoever he is, has passed on to us the website announcing the existence of a woman prisoner at Baghram, Afghanistan, whose screams have been heard by other prisoners. We hope the truth about the existence and condition of this woman will soon be made known: See the following site:
http://www.indymedia-letzebuerg.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 5542&Itemid=28
3. RAWA has reported the gang rape of a 12 year old girl in Sar-e Pul, Afghanistan, by individuals connected to "warlords" -- at least persons with lots of leverage. Another outrage that ought to be exposed and dealt with by the Afghanistan government. The judicial system is desperately in need of revision. See http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/07/22/ warlords-gang-rape-12-year-old-girl-her-family-threatens-to-commit-mass-suicide- if-justice-is-not-done.html
1. Tom Schweich's description of the failure of many to deal adequately with the expansion of the drug industry in Afghanistan should embarrass not only the Afghan leadership -- Hamed Karzai in particular -- but also the Americans, especially the Pentagon, who can't seem to agree on what they are actually there for. See New York Times Magazine, 7/27/08 "Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?"
2. Farooq, whoever he is, has passed on to us the website announcing the existence of a woman prisoner at Baghram, Afghanistan, whose screams have been heard by other prisoners. We hope the truth about the existence and condition of this woman will soon be made known: See the following site:
http://www.indymedia-letzebuerg.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 5542&Itemid=28
3. RAWA has reported the gang rape of a 12 year old girl in Sar-e Pul, Afghanistan, by individuals connected to "warlords" -- at least persons with lots of leverage. Another outrage that ought to be exposed and dealt with by the Afghanistan government. The judicial system is desperately in need of revision. See http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/07/22/ warlords-gang-rape-12-year-old-girl-her-family-threatens-to-commit-mass-suicide- if-justice-is-not-done.html
Friday, July 25, 2008
Greatest Threat? The Republical Party?
For some time I have felt like Jeremiah.
I have been fearing our country, and our world led by our country, are creating a wreck of inesimable proportions. As no one else seems to think so I have tended to wonder if I was just being over-dramatic. Am I merely depressed? Given that most of my friends seem unable to internalize the scale of the problem our country and our world faces, or even some of them seem completely unaware, I have tried to scale back my expressions of alarm.
I have been fearing our country, and our world led by our country, are creating a wreck of inesimable proportions. As no one else seems to think so I have tended to wonder if I was just being over-dramatic. Am I merely depressed? Given that most of my friends seem unable to internalize the scale of the problem our country and our world faces, or even some of them seem completely unaware, I have tried to scale back my expressions of alarm.
So the new post on Information Clearing House has gotten my attention. A Republican, Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review, is saying that “The Greatest Threat America Has Ever Faced” is the neoconservative controlled Republican Party. That's scarry.
He doesn't even list all the issues that seem to me salient for our time. The one thing he makes clear is that the neoconservative Republicans have created a huge mess, and emphasizes their disinterest in the Constitution. On that he would know better than I. But he seems to assume his readers know that there are broader issues of concern: that the situation in the Middle East -South Asia -Central Asia is profoundly dangerous, that global warming is real and almost beyond recovery, etc.
He makes me feel I might be sane after all. Is there anyone out there listening?
[click on the title for a link to the article.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)