"Today the people of Iraq have spoken to the world, and the world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East." -- President George W. Bush
The initial verdict from Iraq? Hours after the country's first democratic elections, President Bush has declared the day's event a "resounding success". The vast majority of reports coming out of the country seem to corroborate that analysis. As CNN's Anderson Cooper commented from Baghdad, "it's hard not to smile" when seeing the spirited and celebratory attitude of the Iraqi people on a historic day.
Election day violence left three dozen dead, but despite that and many other problems, it was a good day. There was a better than expected turnout at the polls, with more than 8 million Iraqis--at least 55% of the electorate--casting their votes. The Kurds and Shiites came out in large numbers, and even a decent number of Sunnis, many of whom had threatened to boycott the election.
The winner of the election will not be known for at least another week, but as has been stated repeatedly, the terrorist insurgency in Iraq suffered a crushing loss. Bush lauded the Iraqi people for "firmly reject[ing] the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists". British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that the day's events had delivered "a blow right to the heart" of global terrorism.
This election story has garnered much more attention than the similarly successful one held in Afghanistan in 2004. After all the months of intense scrutiny and harsh criticism, President Bush can breathe a sigh of relief. Today, his resolute and steadfast approach in Iraq appears to be vindicated. I hope that this initial bit of good news does not lead policymakers to get ahead of themselves and start clamoring for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country. There remains much work yet to be done, and we must not risk an undesirable outcome by getting out before the job is finished.
Iraq is taking its first infant steps toward creating something incredible--an Islamic democracy in the area heretofore labelled "Mess O' Potamia". While the task ahead is still daunting, it's a welcome change to see good news from Iraq dominate the headlines, for one day at least!
Sunday, January 30, 2005
The New Scourge
CB is back after a weeklong hiatus during which I've had to deal with, among other things, my computer becoming infected with a virus/spyware (twice), erasing my hard drive and losing all my files (twice), setting up a new hard drive, and re-installing my OS and various software programs (three times).
My experience is a case in point to reveal the huge problem spyware poses to personal computers. While the premise--3rd party programs installing software on your PC to collect information--may seem more of a nuisance than a malicious threat, be assured that this emerging phenomenon is decidedly in the latter category.
Even only a year ago, when asked what was the biggest problem plaguing the Internet, most people would say it was spam--unsolicited email sent in bulk to thousands of users. Spam emails were often the vehicle by which computer viruses would propagate. And while spam remains an irritant, the concerted efforts of email providers to protect against spam (via filters and such) and legal action taking against some leading spam perpetrators has resulted in spam posing a diminished threat to computers.
The same cannot be said for spyware, the new rogue element of the Internet. Spyware programs seem to be uniquely designed to propagate themselves, often hidden in other software, and once entrenched on a system, will hijack a computer. Spyware programs embed themselves deeply within the computer's framework and can be nearly impossible to remove. Though free downloadable programs such as Ad-Aware and Search and Destroy are designed to counter the infiltration of spyware on PCs, some people with infected machines like myself are left with no choice but to erase their hard drive completely--losing all their files in the process--and start from scratch. Many people have their own horror stories.
The main loss for me was the hours I had to spend putting my system back together, though one can imagine that for businesses faced with this threat, the loss could drain money and resources. I hope that leading companies in the tech world will speed up their efforts to counter this growing and more dangerous threat to computers across the Internet. Spam has, for the most part, been put in the can. Now to do the same to this latest scourge!
My experience is a case in point to reveal the huge problem spyware poses to personal computers. While the premise--3rd party programs installing software on your PC to collect information--may seem more of a nuisance than a malicious threat, be assured that this emerging phenomenon is decidedly in the latter category.
Even only a year ago, when asked what was the biggest problem plaguing the Internet, most people would say it was spam--unsolicited email sent in bulk to thousands of users. Spam emails were often the vehicle by which computer viruses would propagate. And while spam remains an irritant, the concerted efforts of email providers to protect against spam (via filters and such) and legal action taking against some leading spam perpetrators has resulted in spam posing a diminished threat to computers.
The same cannot be said for spyware, the new rogue element of the Internet. Spyware programs seem to be uniquely designed to propagate themselves, often hidden in other software, and once entrenched on a system, will hijack a computer. Spyware programs embed themselves deeply within the computer's framework and can be nearly impossible to remove. Though free downloadable programs such as Ad-Aware and Search and Destroy are designed to counter the infiltration of spyware on PCs, some people with infected machines like myself are left with no choice but to erase their hard drive completely--losing all their files in the process--and start from scratch. Many people have their own horror stories.
The main loss for me was the hours I had to spend putting my system back together, though one can imagine that for businesses faced with this threat, the loss could drain money and resources. I hope that leading companies in the tech world will speed up their efforts to counter this growing and more dangerous threat to computers across the Internet. Spam has, for the most part, been put in the can. Now to do the same to this latest scourge!
Friday, January 21, 2005
Dubya 2.0
On Thursday at noon, President Bush delivered the inaugural address to his second term. He appeared markedly confident and in charge, signaling a leader who has grown into the role over four years. His speech was decent, but unfortunately afflicted by singlemindedness. No issue on the domestic agenda was addressed, nor any specific foreign policy issue. Instead we saw a celebration and exposition of American ideals by a wartime president. In spirit it may have been FDR's or Kennedy's, if only it had been more substantative and better delivered.
Bush's major problem was that he focused exclusively on grandiose rhetoric. As soon as the transcript became available online, I rushed to count the number of times the words "freedom" and "liberty" appeared. Jon Stewart did the same on The Daily Show with a running scoreboard, ultimately finding Freedom to prevail over Liberty by a score of 27-15 (to which Stewart dryly noted that "Liberty...has been playing hurt since the Patriot Act".)
The President's speech, promising at first, became a slapstick collection of cliché statements. The longer I watched, the less plausible his words seemed. All his lofty talk of America standing up for human rights and liberty and defending the oppressed--those ideals haven't always been the hallmark of Bush's first term. If those are indeed the core beliefs he is so committed to, then where was the U.S. when the genocide in Sudan broke out? Why isn't Bush encouraging friends like Musharraf or Putin to show a little more love for freedom and liberty?
The inaugural address proved to be quite enlightening to anyone who didn't already know that the President espoused freedom. Which is not to suggest that Bush's words be dismissed entirely. On the contrary, the principles he laid out in his speech are admirable. But I can only hope that Bush, after having "talked the talk", will in his second term "walk the walk." I'm still waiting for him to explain to us what he plans to actually do with his additional four years, especially with regards to Social Security (one House Republican has already termed the Bush plan a "dead horse") and the growing threat from Iran (especially in light of Sy Hersh's report and Vice President Cheney's speculation that Israel might strike first.)
Many questions remain to be answered. What that means is that the important speech to pay attention to is still to come--on February 2, when the President clues us in to the "State of the Union". It promises to be interesting, to say the least. For now, all I have left to say is, good luck to you Mr. Bush, and to all of us, in the next four years. We just might need it!
Bush's major problem was that he focused exclusively on grandiose rhetoric. As soon as the transcript became available online, I rushed to count the number of times the words "freedom" and "liberty" appeared. Jon Stewart did the same on The Daily Show with a running scoreboard, ultimately finding Freedom to prevail over Liberty by a score of 27-15 (to which Stewart dryly noted that "Liberty...has been playing hurt since the Patriot Act".)
The President's speech, promising at first, became a slapstick collection of cliché statements. The longer I watched, the less plausible his words seemed. All his lofty talk of America standing up for human rights and liberty and defending the oppressed--those ideals haven't always been the hallmark of Bush's first term. If those are indeed the core beliefs he is so committed to, then where was the U.S. when the genocide in Sudan broke out? Why isn't Bush encouraging friends like Musharraf or Putin to show a little more love for freedom and liberty?
The inaugural address proved to be quite enlightening to anyone who didn't already know that the President espoused freedom. Which is not to suggest that Bush's words be dismissed entirely. On the contrary, the principles he laid out in his speech are admirable. But I can only hope that Bush, after having "talked the talk", will in his second term "walk the walk." I'm still waiting for him to explain to us what he plans to actually do with his additional four years, especially with regards to Social Security (one House Republican has already termed the Bush plan a "dead horse") and the growing threat from Iran (especially in light of Sy Hersh's report and Vice President Cheney's speculation that Israel might strike first.)
Many questions remain to be answered. What that means is that the important speech to pay attention to is still to come--on February 2, when the President clues us in to the "State of the Union". It promises to be interesting, to say the least. For now, all I have left to say is, good luck to you Mr. Bush, and to all of us, in the next four years. We just might need it!
Monday, January 17, 2005
A Day to Honor Heroes
"And I submit to you that if a man has not discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live."Martin Luther King Jr. Day is a time when the country celebrates a great and influential man (whose name is Robert E. Lee, say some Southerners). Today, as grateful students who get the day off from school will tell you, we honor Dr. King's legacy of peace, justice, and equality. Dr. King, however, is not the only champion of liberty whose life is worth reflecting on today.
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Zhao Ziyang, former Secretary-General of the Chinese Communist Party passed away this morning. His short reign in the late 1980s witnessed an openness and limited government without precedent in totalitarian China. Ziyang, a reformist leader once seen as the heir to Deng Xiaoping, was ultimately purged for his sympathy to the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. In a famous photograph, Ziyang is shown pleading with the student protestors to give up their efforts, saying "I have come too late" to prevent the violent crackdown that would ensue. Shortly afterward, Ziyang was stripped of his titles.
For the rest of his life, he remained under house arrest, hidden by a government too fearful of the very power of Zhao's name to influence would-be reformers. Xinhua, China's state news agency, devoted a scant few sentences to his passing in its English-language report, referring to him only as "Comrade Zhao" and avoiding mention of his leadership posts. TIME's excellent profile on Zhao Ziyang, "The Prisoner of Conscience", summed it up best: "Zhao sealed his fate with an act of courage unseen among China's totalitarian leaders before or since—he broke ranks." China, had Ziyang remained at the helm, would no doubt look very different from what we see now.
Also, it was sixty years ago to this day that Raoul Wallenberg disappeared into the hands of his Soviet captors. Wallenberg was a Swedish diplomat whose ingenuity and courage during WWII saved the lives of thousands of Jews during the Holocaust. Sadly, near the war's end in January 1945, Wallenberg was arrested by the Red Army on the allegation that he was an American spy. According to the Soviets, Wallenberg died in captivity in 1947, though other accounts state that Wallenberg was alive in Siberian or Russian prisoners at least through the 1960s.
In 1981, Raoul Wallenberg became only the 5th person ever to be accorded with the status of Honorary Citizen of the United States. No critically-acclaimed Spielberg movie was ever made about him, but there is no question that his bravery is an inspiration to us all.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Muslims Offended by 24
Fans of 24, myself included, are eagerly looking forward to tomorrow's installment of Fox's hit counterterrorism drama. This season, only a week old, has already attracted a lot of controversy over its negative portrayal of Muslims. In a show whose plot focuses on a terrorist attack against the United States, it is reasonable to expect Islamic extremism to play a part. Even then, through the show's first four episodes, I've found myself wondering whether the show had gone too far in caricaturing American Muslims.
The story centers around an upper-class Muslim family that is in fact a terrorist sleeper cell. Last week, the mother poisoned her teenage son's non-Muslim girlfriend. The son, who for all appearances on the outside is a good high-school student, is helping carry out the family's plot, which thus far includes an attack on a commuter train and the kidnapping of the Secretary of Defense. While all the villains are Muslim (not unexpectedly), there has been only one "good" Muslim character thus far. This was a minor, unnamed character given only a second or two on-screen to complain about how terrorists are giving Muslims in America a bad name.
In light of this negative portrayal of American Muslims, I was not surprised to read that complaints by Muslim groups have caused Fox to respond: "Fox Cuts Anti-Muslim Scenes From 24". Fox has agreed to air PSAs by the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) showing how Muslims in America have contributed to their society. I assume that upcoming episodes of 24 will also tone down its depiction of Muslims.
I've heard some people argue that all this fuss is unnecessary. Does every potentially offensive book or TV show or movie need to go to extra lengths to appease its critics? After all, The Godfather painted Italian-Americans in a bad light, and no one thought a disclaimer from the Pope was necessary. That's what artistic license gives you the freedom to do.
I think the situation here is different. My problem is not that the villains in 24 are Muslims. In all honesty, that is a completely fair and reasonable decision given current events. I think the problem though is that the show is relying too much on Islamophobic stereotypes to create its characters and plot.
This is not a major offense, but still an understandable issue of concern to the Muslim community. The public's attitude toward Muslims is influenced in large part by what is shown on television. Given that a recent study by Cornell University showed that nearly half of all Americans believe in restricting the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, they have a right to see that they are better treated in the media.
CAIR's Rabiah Ahmed pointed out that "There aren't any positive or even neutral portrayals of Muslims on TV." She raises an excellent point. That is something that should be remedied. And while we're at it, I'm going to suggest that more Muslims should go into the entertainment business. Reversing their underrepresentation in that field is one way for Muslims to help shape the public's perception of them.
In any case, I know where I'm going to be tomorrow night--parked in front of the TV to catch the new hour of 24!
The story centers around an upper-class Muslim family that is in fact a terrorist sleeper cell. Last week, the mother poisoned her teenage son's non-Muslim girlfriend. The son, who for all appearances on the outside is a good high-school student, is helping carry out the family's plot, which thus far includes an attack on a commuter train and the kidnapping of the Secretary of Defense. While all the villains are Muslim (not unexpectedly), there has been only one "good" Muslim character thus far. This was a minor, unnamed character given only a second or two on-screen to complain about how terrorists are giving Muslims in America a bad name.
In light of this negative portrayal of American Muslims, I was not surprised to read that complaints by Muslim groups have caused Fox to respond: "Fox Cuts Anti-Muslim Scenes From 24". Fox has agreed to air PSAs by the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) showing how Muslims in America have contributed to their society. I assume that upcoming episodes of 24 will also tone down its depiction of Muslims.
I've heard some people argue that all this fuss is unnecessary. Does every potentially offensive book or TV show or movie need to go to extra lengths to appease its critics? After all, The Godfather painted Italian-Americans in a bad light, and no one thought a disclaimer from the Pope was necessary. That's what artistic license gives you the freedom to do.
I think the situation here is different. My problem is not that the villains in 24 are Muslims. In all honesty, that is a completely fair and reasonable decision given current events. I think the problem though is that the show is relying too much on Islamophobic stereotypes to create its characters and plot.
This is not a major offense, but still an understandable issue of concern to the Muslim community. The public's attitude toward Muslims is influenced in large part by what is shown on television. Given that a recent study by Cornell University showed that nearly half of all Americans believe in restricting the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, they have a right to see that they are better treated in the media.
CAIR's Rabiah Ahmed pointed out that "There aren't any positive or even neutral portrayals of Muslims on TV." She raises an excellent point. That is something that should be remedied. And while we're at it, I'm going to suggest that more Muslims should go into the entertainment business. Reversing their underrepresentation in that field is one way for Muslims to help shape the public's perception of them.
In any case, I know where I'm going to be tomorrow night--parked in front of the TV to catch the new hour of 24!
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Free for All
Today, January 15, is the fourth anniversary of the launching of Wikipedia, the free online collaborative encylopedia project that has become one of the best web sites on the Internet. When it started, the idea of creating a reference collection whose material was supplied by the public seemed absurd. Anyone at any time can with just one click create or edit an article on any subject. On the surface, the potential for abuse seems that it would wreck any chance of creating an authentic source of information.
I'm happy to report that is not the case. Wikipedia has grown at a tremendous rate, branching out into different languages (over a million articles, roughly 450,000 in the English version) and different projects, such as Wikiquote (an extremely useful free encyclopedia of quotations) and Wiktionary (free dictionary). Its legitimacy has been maintained thanks to the interest of thousands of intelligent and articulate users who self-police themselves. Wikipedia in fact is excellent at providing information on controversials topics, because its strict neutrality policy brings out both sides of an argument. Controversial articles that draw charges of bias are flagged with the appropriate disclaimer. Wikipedia's users work with one another to create the fairest presentation possible.
Furthermore, Wikipedia has a huge advantage over other encyclopedias because it is constantly being updated (several hundred times a day), allowing you to find information on new subjects. Lastly, since each of its contributors is specialized in the topic they write about (users choose what articles they want to edit or write about), Wikipedia offers detailed information on even minutiae or obscure topics.
For more reasons about "Why Wikipedia is so Great", I would encourage you to start using it yourself. Thousands of Internet users already do, and for good reason. Wikipedia is free and open to everyone. Anyone can contribute--thousands already have. Wikipedia has indexed an unbelieavable amount of information, long since surpassing its original goal of producing 100,000 articles. To me, this site represents a realization of the wonderful potential of the Internet to do good, useful work.
Wikipedia is a name I'm sure will soon be household. Happy 4th birthday to the 21st century answer to Encyclopedia Britannica!
I'm happy to report that is not the case. Wikipedia has grown at a tremendous rate, branching out into different languages (over a million articles, roughly 450,000 in the English version) and different projects, such as Wikiquote (an extremely useful free encyclopedia of quotations) and Wiktionary (free dictionary). Its legitimacy has been maintained thanks to the interest of thousands of intelligent and articulate users who self-police themselves. Wikipedia in fact is excellent at providing information on controversials topics, because its strict neutrality policy brings out both sides of an argument. Controversial articles that draw charges of bias are flagged with the appropriate disclaimer. Wikipedia's users work with one another to create the fairest presentation possible.
Furthermore, Wikipedia has a huge advantage over other encyclopedias because it is constantly being updated (several hundred times a day), allowing you to find information on new subjects. Lastly, since each of its contributors is specialized in the topic they write about (users choose what articles they want to edit or write about), Wikipedia offers detailed information on even minutiae or obscure topics.
For more reasons about "Why Wikipedia is so Great", I would encourage you to start using it yourself. Thousands of Internet users already do, and for good reason. Wikipedia is free and open to everyone. Anyone can contribute--thousands already have. Wikipedia has indexed an unbelieavable amount of information, long since surpassing its original goal of producing 100,000 articles. To me, this site represents a realization of the wonderful potential of the Internet to do good, useful work.
Wikipedia is a name I'm sure will soon be household. Happy 4th birthday to the 21st century answer to Encyclopedia Britannica!
The World in 2020
On Friday, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) presented "Mapping the Global Future" (full text), its latest report offering predictions for the state of the world in 2020. Among the highlights:
- Asian Ascension
"The Yikes Years" - David von Drehle, (Washington Post Magazine, November 2004)
"World War IV" - Norman Podhoretz (Commentary, September 2004)
- Asian Ascension
In the same way that commentators refer to the 1900s as the “American Century,” the 21'st century may be seen as the time when Asia, led by China and India, comes into its own. A combination of sustained high economic growth, expanding military capabilities, and large populations will be at the root of the expected rapid rise in economic and political power for both countries.
- China and India become major economic powers
- Japan challenged to reevaluate its role
- North Korean crisis has come to a head
- Russian influence important but limited
Asia looks set to displace Western countries as the focus for international economic dynamism—provided Asia’s rapid economic growth continues.
- World economy 80% larger than in 2000
- Average per capita income 50% higher
- The U.S., though still the single most important power, will lose ground to China and India
- China's GDP will exceed every Western country except the U.S.; India's GDP will equal or exceed all European countries
Informal networks of charitable foundations, madrassas, hawalas, and other mechanisms will continue to proliferate and be exploited by radical elements; alienation among unemployed youths will swell the ranks of those vulnerable to terrorist recruitment.
- Political Islam has significant global impact
- Democracy in former Soviet Union and Southeast Asian republics could be undone
- China/Taiwan or India/Pakistan issues could lead to one side taking preemptive military action and resulting in all-out war
- Al-Qaeda has been replaced by a numer of equally dangerous splinter groups
- Bioterrorism is the biggest security concern
- "Davos World" - globalization and the growth of China and India lead to a world not dominated by the West
- "Pax Americana" - the U.S. weathers global changes and maintains its hegemony
- "A New Caliphate" - a political organization of Islam challenges the West
- "Cycle of Fear" - concerns over security cause "large-scale intrusive security measures...possibly introducing an Orwellian world."
* * *
Further Reading:What does this all mean? Well, despite it being easy to get lost in gloomy speculation, the good news is that the rise to prominence of Bollywood will inundate the globe with sappy, melodramatic love stories full of song and dance. ("An expanded Asian-centric cultural identity may be the most profound effect of a rising Asia.")
Seriously though, the growing importance of Asia is hardly a surprise to anyone. I don't doubt that U.S. unipolarity will diminish as nations on the rise like China and India tap into the well of world power. Still, the U.S. will be at the forefront of all the major movements to come, helping to shape world affairs. Says Jessica Matthews (in the von Drehle article I link to below), "We're still best in the world at adapting to rapidly changing circumstances. No other nation takes disruption in stride the way we do." Phew!
Of the four scenarios presented by the NIC, I see the first and second as most viable--the most likely outcome may be a mix of the two. I have enough faith--for now at least--in common sense and an American's dedication to liberty that I don't see 1984 becoming a reality for us. The U.S., in my opinion, can and will win the war against Islamist extremism. We will do so not just through military force, but by demonstrating with the help of moderate Muslims that democracy offers people a better future.
The biggest threat to all this, of course, is what the NIC described in its third scenario--the formation of an Islamic caliphate that, through its religious and political authority, could mobilize Muslims across the globe into religious extremism. Bad news for us: the report warns that "[a] Caliphate would not have to be entirely successful for it to present a serious challenge to the international order." Furthermore, "[t]he proclamation of a Caliphate would not lessen the likelihood of terrorism and, in fomenting more conflict, could fuel a new generation of terrorists intent on attacking those opposed to the Caliphate, whether inside or outside the Muslim world."
We have our work cut out for us so that we can head off such a political organization, however unlikely its formation now seems. The entire mindset and cultural views of a generation of Muslims must be confronted. Radical elements of Islam are the 21st century equivalent of the Communist threat to the West. The task we are facing is difficult, but doable if we make the right policy decisions. Leading by example, we must show the people of the Middle East and elsewhere the benefits of rejecting extremism. It can be done, and I have every confidence that it will be done. I'm looking forward to the next fifteen years--it'll be one helluva ride!
Seriously though, the growing importance of Asia is hardly a surprise to anyone. I don't doubt that U.S. unipolarity will diminish as nations on the rise like China and India tap into the well of world power. Still, the U.S. will be at the forefront of all the major movements to come, helping to shape world affairs. Says Jessica Matthews (in the von Drehle article I link to below), "We're still best in the world at adapting to rapidly changing circumstances. No other nation takes disruption in stride the way we do." Phew!
Of the four scenarios presented by the NIC, I see the first and second as most viable--the most likely outcome may be a mix of the two. I have enough faith--for now at least--in common sense and an American's dedication to liberty that I don't see 1984 becoming a reality for us. The U.S., in my opinion, can and will win the war against Islamist extremism. We will do so not just through military force, but by demonstrating with the help of moderate Muslims that democracy offers people a better future.
The biggest threat to all this, of course, is what the NIC described in its third scenario--the formation of an Islamic caliphate that, through its religious and political authority, could mobilize Muslims across the globe into religious extremism. Bad news for us: the report warns that "[a] Caliphate would not have to be entirely successful for it to present a serious challenge to the international order." Furthermore, "[t]he proclamation of a Caliphate would not lessen the likelihood of terrorism and, in fomenting more conflict, could fuel a new generation of terrorists intent on attacking those opposed to the Caliphate, whether inside or outside the Muslim world."
We have our work cut out for us so that we can head off such a political organization, however unlikely its formation now seems. The entire mindset and cultural views of a generation of Muslims must be confronted. Radical elements of Islam are the 21st century equivalent of the Communist threat to the West. The task we are facing is difficult, but doable if we make the right policy decisions. Leading by example, we must show the people of the Middle East and elsewhere the benefits of rejecting extremism. It can be done, and I have every confidence that it will be done. I'm looking forward to the next fifteen years--it'll be one helluva ride!
"The Yikes Years" - David von Drehle, (Washington Post Magazine, November 2004)
"World War IV" - Norman Podhoretz (Commentary, September 2004)
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Leave None to Tell the Story
"God already left Africa."Today I biked eleven miles to the nearest movie theater in the area that was showing Hotel Rwanda, a moving new film about the 1994 Rwandan genocide. I would encourage everyone to go see this movie, a remarkable true story reminiscent of Schindler's List. If while watching you are struck by the authenticity of the emotion, know that the film uses displaced Tutsi refugees as extras and some scenes were shot at the sites where real massacres took place. Through 3/4 of this movie I had goosebumps. Like numerous others in the blogosphere whose reactions I've read, Hotel Rwanda filled me with great sadness and great anger.
-- Tears of the Sun
Prepare to be outraged at the impotence of the international community and at the indifference of the United States. President Clinton had the following to say in 1998 when visitng Kigali:
"It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror.Unfortunately for the hundreds of thousands of victims in Rwanda, far too many people did not appreciate the scope and magnitude of the disaster. Clinton, however, cannot be placed in that category. Ten years after the fact, Freedom of Information Act requests have shown that the Clinton administration knew that genocide was occuring, and chose to do nothing. Seeking to avoid the entrapment experience of Somalia, the U.S. did the unforgivable, unable to even muster forceful words of denunciation. I don't know if anyone can say with any certainty that Rwanda can ever recover fully; some suggest the country has hardly recovered at all.
The Holocaust. Cambodia. Bosnia. Rwanda. Darfur. Etc, etc, etc. Each time, we say "never again". Despite all the hand-wringing, you can count on it happening again.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Out Cold
The professional sports league that dubbed its product "The Coolest Game on Earth" has been put on ice for the past three months of its regular season.
Er, perhaps that was an inopportune use of an idiom. Long-suffering NHL fans have been waiting in vain for the ongoing lockout to end so that players can get back onto the ice and salvage what's left of the season. Considering the NHL is already a marginal professional association with only a small mainstream audience (relative to the American Big 3: NFL, MLB, and NBA), fans did not imagine that the league would shoot itself in the foot by scrapping play for an extended period. The only result has been to cause a few die-hard Canadians to get heartburn. Was the NHL actually expecting the American public to notice its absence?
A total of 903 games have already been cancelled, and what scares me is the lack of a serious effort to resolve the conflict. The loss of an entire season--something no major sports association in North America has ever faced--seems to be taken for granted with little regard for the consequences. Says Carolina Hurricanes owner Peter Karmanos:
And now while any hopes of seeing the skates laced up this season appear to have faded as this winter drags on, none other than hockey legend Wayne Gretsky spoke up earlier this month with a dire warning of the unthinkable: "Lockout could last two years if no deal soon".
Er, perhaps that was an inopportune use of an idiom. Long-suffering NHL fans have been waiting in vain for the ongoing lockout to end so that players can get back onto the ice and salvage what's left of the season. Considering the NHL is already a marginal professional association with only a small mainstream audience (relative to the American Big 3: NFL, MLB, and NBA), fans did not imagine that the league would shoot itself in the foot by scrapping play for an extended period. The only result has been to cause a few die-hard Canadians to get heartburn. Was the NHL actually expecting the American public to notice its absence?
A total of 903 games have already been cancelled, and what scares me is the lack of a serious effort to resolve the conflict. The loss of an entire season--something no major sports association in North America has ever faced--seems to be taken for granted with little regard for the consequences. Says Carolina Hurricanes owner Peter Karmanos:
"I know personally that I'd be willing to risk another season. I'm enough of a hockey fan to realize that once we got it straightened out, the fans would come back."Time for a reality check. Hockey doesn't enjoy the popularity of the MLB or NBA, let alone the NFL. There is no huge demand for the product here in the States. SportsCenter has not struggled to fill its airtime due to lack of highlight reel from the rinkside. The NHL through its lockout is losing its only chance of sustained growth and success. That chance is its ability to attract and draw in new and casual fans--a goal hard to achieve when your players are off moonlighting in Europe.
And now while any hopes of seeing the skates laced up this season appear to have faded as this winter drags on, none other than hockey legend Wayne Gretsky spoke up earlier this month with a dire warning of the unthinkable: "Lockout could last two years if no deal soon".
"I'm scared we could be looking at a year, year-and-a-half, two years, not just three months like a lot of people thought back in September.''The Great One doesn't exaggerate. The owners and players must get together and find a way to make a healthy league function (it's called a compromise, fellas). Salary cap, contraction, whatever it takes. Or even true hockey fans like myself will be forced to cross-check the NHL off our lists.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Not Much to Cheer
Spec. Charles Graner, ringleader of the disgraceful group of prisoner-abusing U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib, went on trial today on charges of committing indecent acts, mistreating Iraqi detainees, dereliction of duty, and assault. Considering the seriousness of the accusations against him--Graner is facing 17 1/2 years in military prison--one would expect Graner's defense to explain or somehow rationalize his motives for the physical violence and sexual humiliation he subjected Iraqi prisoners to.
Among the infamous pictures to come out of the Abu Ghraib scandal is one of Graner posing gleefully over a pile of naked Iraqi men in a humany pyramid. Graner's justification for these revolting actions came out this afternoon:
While the government asserts that Graner and his group were "rogue soldiers", Womack asserts that higher-up military intelligence officers ordered the abusive practices. Even if that is not true, it is fair to say that there were probably many in MI who at least condoned them. As we have learned, torture of prisoners has not been an isolated incident in the war on terrorism. Prisoner mistreatment has been noted in Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps most troublingly at the ultra-secret detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (read: this and this).
The Abu Ghraib scandal tarnished the U.S. image around the world. Unfortunately, I suspect it won't be the last embarassing episode to come to light. Mr. Womack, I'm afraid there's not much to cheer for!
Among the infamous pictures to come out of the Abu Ghraib scandal is one of Graner posing gleefully over a pile of naked Iraqi men in a humany pyramid. Graner's justification for these revolting actions came out this afternoon:
"Don't cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?" Guy Womack, Graner's attorney, said in opening arguments to the 10-member U.S. military jury at the reservist sergeant's court-martial.Unbelievable. Despite the well-deserved international outrage to the actions that went on in Abu Ghraib prison, and the punishment meted out already to a number of the soldiers involved, it appears that somehow the main perpetrator still don't get it. Womack commented further:
"A tether is a valid control to be used in corrections. In Texas we'd lasso them and drag them out of there."Admittedly, a case like this is difficult, even if most people can see obviously where the line has been crossed. No one is holding the Iraqi prisoners to be innocent victims; they were all in Abu Ghraib for a good reason. The American soldiers responsible for guarding them were in an environment of constant stress and undoubtedly were under pressure to gain as much information out of the detainees as possible. These Americans saw that their fellow soldiers throughout Iraq were the targets of an insurgency, which they felt could be combatted more effectively with the knowledge the prisoners contained.
While the government asserts that Graner and his group were "rogue soldiers", Womack asserts that higher-up military intelligence officers ordered the abusive practices. Even if that is not true, it is fair to say that there were probably many in MI who at least condoned them. As we have learned, torture of prisoners has not been an isolated incident in the war on terrorism. Prisoner mistreatment has been noted in Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps most troublingly at the ultra-secret detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (read: this and this).
The Abu Ghraib scandal tarnished the U.S. image around the world. Unfortunately, I suspect it won't be the last embarassing episode to come to light. Mr. Womack, I'm afraid there's not much to cheer for!
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Full Disclosure
Welcome to the inaugural post on the Citizens' Band (CB) blog!
With that very word, "blog", being Merriam-Webster's "Word of the Year" for 2004, the time has never been better to become acquainted with it. Blogs are new and interesting and trendy. They exist in a range of topics and sizes. Posts can consist of anything from verbose essays to terse one-sentence commentary and external link. Some are by professionals about fields the authors have expertise in; others, like the CB hopes to become, are a voice to the concerns of amateurs.
A recently published study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project shows that blog readership increased by 58% in 2004, spurred especially by the rise in politically oriented blogs. A stellar example of the latter type is PowerLine, a group blog authored by a trio of conservative commentators who update their site multiple times a day. PowerLine was recently named as TIME Magazine's first-ever "Blog of the Year".
Blogs have become the medium whereby ordinary people can, among other things, channel their "righteous indignation" over any matter that irks them. In September 2004, a now-infamous 60 Minutes story purported to show National Guard documents casting doubt on President Bush's record in the National Guard. The controversial story escalated when many people, led by several leading bloggers, called into question the authenticity of the documents. In the ensuing fallout, CBS first defended, then retracted its story with great embarassment. The power of the online word had been demonstrated.
Yesterday it was revealed through a Freedom of Information Act request by the USA Today that the Bush administration had paid conservative commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote the No Child Left Behind law and encourage fellow African-Americans to do the same. Williams, a prominent political commentator, appeared on television interviews and wrote columns in support of NCLB without disclosing his affiliation with the administration. Williams now admits the unethical nature of his actions and "wouldn't do it again." This latest scandal comes after the Bush administration's use last year of video releases designed to look like news reports supporting its prescription drug plan. That action drew a reprimand from the General Accounting Office for being an illegal use of public funds.
These are the kinds of stories that get trafficked widely on the Internet, and the reactions of your everyday web surfers (including blog readers) can help determine the outcome. We already know that the Web is a primary source of news for many people. The next step in this Internet revolution is the weblog. The weblog, or "blog", empowers individuals and groups who are otherwise limited by means and location to trade thoughts with a potentially limitless number of people.
Into this setting steps the Citizens' Band, a humble entry into the online information bazaar. In the coming weeks and months, I hope to enlist a number of contributors with a diversity of background, interests, and philosophy. So, please update your bookmarks and visit this site often as it grows. Your comments and participation in discussion are not only encouraged, they are essential to the nature of a site like this. I hope you enjoy what the CB has to offer.
With that very word, "blog", being Merriam-Webster's "Word of the Year" for 2004, the time has never been better to become acquainted with it. Blogs are new and interesting and trendy. They exist in a range of topics and sizes. Posts can consist of anything from verbose essays to terse one-sentence commentary and external link. Some are by professionals about fields the authors have expertise in; others, like the CB hopes to become, are a voice to the concerns of amateurs.
A recently published study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project shows that blog readership increased by 58% in 2004, spurred especially by the rise in politically oriented blogs. A stellar example of the latter type is PowerLine, a group blog authored by a trio of conservative commentators who update their site multiple times a day. PowerLine was recently named as TIME Magazine's first-ever "Blog of the Year".
Blogs have become the medium whereby ordinary people can, among other things, channel their "righteous indignation" over any matter that irks them. In September 2004, a now-infamous 60 Minutes story purported to show National Guard documents casting doubt on President Bush's record in the National Guard. The controversial story escalated when many people, led by several leading bloggers, called into question the authenticity of the documents. In the ensuing fallout, CBS first defended, then retracted its story with great embarassment. The power of the online word had been demonstrated.
Yesterday it was revealed through a Freedom of Information Act request by the USA Today that the Bush administration had paid conservative commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote the No Child Left Behind law and encourage fellow African-Americans to do the same. Williams, a prominent political commentator, appeared on television interviews and wrote columns in support of NCLB without disclosing his affiliation with the administration. Williams now admits the unethical nature of his actions and "wouldn't do it again." This latest scandal comes after the Bush administration's use last year of video releases designed to look like news reports supporting its prescription drug plan. That action drew a reprimand from the General Accounting Office for being an illegal use of public funds.
These are the kinds of stories that get trafficked widely on the Internet, and the reactions of your everyday web surfers (including blog readers) can help determine the outcome. We already know that the Web is a primary source of news for many people. The next step in this Internet revolution is the weblog. The weblog, or "blog", empowers individuals and groups who are otherwise limited by means and location to trade thoughts with a potentially limitless number of people.
Into this setting steps the Citizens' Band, a humble entry into the online information bazaar. In the coming weeks and months, I hope to enlist a number of contributors with a diversity of background, interests, and philosophy. So, please update your bookmarks and visit this site often as it grows. Your comments and participation in discussion are not only encouraged, they are essential to the nature of a site like this. I hope you enjoy what the CB has to offer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)