With the testimony of Naomi Campbell at the International Criminal Court about her gift of blood diamonds, the issue has come back into the public's consciousness.
First, there was an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal ($) - a piece of pro-diamond garbage. The piece was so disingenuous it almost made me sick. Hopefully most people realized the author was far from objective considering he is a diamond consultant. And even if some people gave him the benefit of the doubt, hopefully they realized his arguments were complete sophistry.
(He says that diamonds do not contribute to conflict - at least no more than many other minerals. If his point is that we should be concerned about how other resources also provide money to warlords and allows them to continue horrible acts of violence, then I would agree. Instead, I gather his point is that we shouldn't think at all about how our consumption feeds violence in parts of Africa, Asia and South America.)
One thing he says that people concerned about blood diamonds would agree with is that the Kimberly process is largely ineffective. This article in Foreign Policy sums it up. Unfortunately, the WSJ opinion author concludes that because the Kimberly process does not work, we should give up and just buy diamonds as before oblivious to the death and destruction. The FP article fortunately looks for ways to improve the process so that people can continue to buy grossly overvalued diamonds (thanks to what is actually very clever advertising going back decades) with less impact on conflict. Let's hope people actually heed the call for change.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Kagame's Second Turn and Rwanda's Progress
There have been a bunch of articles looking backwards and forwards at Rwanda as the presidential election approaches. The consensus seems to be that Paul Kagame is becoming more repressive and stifling opposition - sometimes violently. At the same time however, he is also showing success rebuilding and improving the country. Corruption is low compared to the rest of Africa, violence is also relatively low and his iron fist may be helping to eliminate the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi (if anything can). Aid donors are happy and international investment is up.
Jan and I have been having a few conversations about this idea already. Now, this country hardly poses a threat to America. And in this case, we have someone who is autocratic but also seemingly doing a good job for the country apart from the repression of opposition. So not so similar to Cuba / Venezuela / Egypt / Palestine. But it does get at the issue about when we support democracy and when to we let autocratic rulers do their thing.
On Rwanda, I am completely torn. The country experienced a horrific genocide and was involved in the war in the Congo. So maybe a strong ruler is necessary to repair the country. Then again, at what point is Kagame's repression too much? And will he ever be able to stop? What happens when his reforms stop producing results, but he is unwilling to leave? For now I think we are content to let him do his thing, but soon we might face some tough questions.
Jan and I have been having a few conversations about this idea already. Now, this country hardly poses a threat to America. And in this case, we have someone who is autocratic but also seemingly doing a good job for the country apart from the repression of opposition. So not so similar to Cuba / Venezuela / Egypt / Palestine. But it does get at the issue about when we support democracy and when to we let autocratic rulers do their thing.
On Rwanda, I am completely torn. The country experienced a horrific genocide and was involved in the war in the Congo. So maybe a strong ruler is necessary to repair the country. Then again, at what point is Kagame's repression too much? And will he ever be able to stop? What happens when his reforms stop producing results, but he is unwilling to leave? For now I think we are content to let him do his thing, but soon we might face some tough questions.
On Robert Byrd and Prejudice
I want to use the opportunity of Robert Byrd's death to write about a bigger issue - prejudice and forgiveness. It is part of the public record that elected officials like Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond, and George Wallace* were strong supporters of segregation and other racist policies. It is also clear that all three changed their views and expressed sorrow for their previous positions. All three were forgiven and enjoyed further tenures in government after segregation and racism fell out of favor.
While I am a believer in forgiveness, and I also find it comforting that people are able to change their views and admit they were wrong, I find their long legislative careers extremely troubling. The ease with which people forgave their racist views sets the example that politicians will not be held accountable for harboring biased views as long as they eventually turn around after public opinion does.
This has repercussions for current debates - specifically gay rights. Politicians can see by looking at Byrd and Thurmond that they can advocate to maintain obvious civil rights violations now and not be punished for that position later on. Opposing gay rights is both in their short term and long term interests.
It would be much better for this movement and others (tolerance towards Muslims for example) if people were held accountable in the future once the public mood changed. At least then, an elected official would have to balance their short term interests against their long term interests.
If we can be more aware of the incentive this creates against defending minorities whose rights are being violated, than we can decide to forgive but not reelect politicians that were on the wrong side of a very important issue.
*I recommend the documentary George Wallace: Settin' the Woods on Fire. It takes the position that Wallace was not a racist in his early years. Instead, it was his ambition - to become governor - that made him take up the popular white southern cause of segregation and to become its biggest proponent. That doesn't let him off the hook of course. But it does present an interesting (although maybe not surprising) issue - that in seeking power, politicians will exploit fears they don't hold themselves.
While I am a believer in forgiveness, and I also find it comforting that people are able to change their views and admit they were wrong, I find their long legislative careers extremely troubling. The ease with which people forgave their racist views sets the example that politicians will not be held accountable for harboring biased views as long as they eventually turn around after public opinion does.
This has repercussions for current debates - specifically gay rights. Politicians can see by looking at Byrd and Thurmond that they can advocate to maintain obvious civil rights violations now and not be punished for that position later on. Opposing gay rights is both in their short term and long term interests.
It would be much better for this movement and others (tolerance towards Muslims for example) if people were held accountable in the future once the public mood changed. At least then, an elected official would have to balance their short term interests against their long term interests.
If we can be more aware of the incentive this creates against defending minorities whose rights are being violated, than we can decide to forgive but not reelect politicians that were on the wrong side of a very important issue.
*I recommend the documentary George Wallace: Settin' the Woods on Fire. It takes the position that Wallace was not a racist in his early years. Instead, it was his ambition - to become governor - that made him take up the popular white southern cause of segregation and to become its biggest proponent. That doesn't let him off the hook of course. But it does present an interesting (although maybe not surprising) issue - that in seeking power, politicians will exploit fears they don't hold themselves.
Islamic Center and Ignorance
The debate over an Islamic Community Center in lower Manhattan seems like it will never go away. My position is simple. The only reason one could oppose an Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan is if you hold the whole religion of Islam responsible for what happened on September 11, 2001. In other words, you would have to think that it was regular Muslims - not radical Muslims corrupting an otherwise decent religion - that attacked us. If however you don't believe that the religion as a whole attacked us, then you wouldn't see an Islamic Community Center that represents moderate Islam as offensive of the memories of the victims (many of which were Muslim by the way).
Many Republicans want to appeal to their base by opposing it, and they are all trying to walk absurd lines to oppose it without seeming to oppose Islam. Some are trying to tell moderate Muslims not to be offended (ie Rudy Guliani and Sarah Palin). Others are just upset about how liberals are framing the debate - as if pointing out that Republicans are not conforming to one of our founding principles is an unfair debate tactic (Wall Street Journal). Some are saying that our principles should only be adhered to if dictatorships also adhere to them (Gingrich). Finally, Rick Lazio now seems to have gone off the deep end by suggesting 100 Islamic centers in New York is a security issue.
Despite the anger and sadness about the ease with which many people have been able to take a position that is at best wholly illogical and at worst bigoted, there have been some highlights. Mayor Bloomberg's speech has been widely hailed for its message of tolerance. President Obama has finally weighed in with support of the center. But the brightest light has been Fareed Zakaria.
The Anti-Defamation League has sided with those opposing the mosque. They also tried to walk a cautious line - by saying that the people attempting to build the mosque have the right to build there, but it isn't right that they do. Instead, the right thing would be for the mosque to be somewhere else in deference to the feelings of some of the victims' families - even if those feelings are unreasonable and bigoted. Essentially, an organization that opposes bigotry is saying bigotry is understandable if the bigot is a victim and furthermore, the victim / bigot's wishes should be respected.
This position is absurd and has cost an otherwise respected institution serious credibility. Fareed Zakaria has taken a stand and sent back an award he received from them because of the position they have taken. His step sends the strongest message to that organization about why their position was wrong. They seem unable to change course to gain back their credibility. However, it is voices like Fareed Zakaria's that are fortunately overpowering the ADL and the Republican party.
Many Republicans want to appeal to their base by opposing it, and they are all trying to walk absurd lines to oppose it without seeming to oppose Islam. Some are trying to tell moderate Muslims not to be offended (ie Rudy Guliani and Sarah Palin). Others are just upset about how liberals are framing the debate - as if pointing out that Republicans are not conforming to one of our founding principles is an unfair debate tactic (Wall Street Journal). Some are saying that our principles should only be adhered to if dictatorships also adhere to them (Gingrich). Finally, Rick Lazio now seems to have gone off the deep end by suggesting 100 Islamic centers in New York is a security issue.
Despite the anger and sadness about the ease with which many people have been able to take a position that is at best wholly illogical and at worst bigoted, there have been some highlights. Mayor Bloomberg's speech has been widely hailed for its message of tolerance. President Obama has finally weighed in with support of the center. But the brightest light has been Fareed Zakaria.
The Anti-Defamation League has sided with those opposing the mosque. They also tried to walk a cautious line - by saying that the people attempting to build the mosque have the right to build there, but it isn't right that they do. Instead, the right thing would be for the mosque to be somewhere else in deference to the feelings of some of the victims' families - even if those feelings are unreasonable and bigoted. Essentially, an organization that opposes bigotry is saying bigotry is understandable if the bigot is a victim and furthermore, the victim / bigot's wishes should be respected.
This position is absurd and has cost an otherwise respected institution serious credibility. Fareed Zakaria has taken a stand and sent back an award he received from them because of the position they have taken. His step sends the strongest message to that organization about why their position was wrong. They seem unable to change course to gain back their credibility. However, it is voices like Fareed Zakaria's that are fortunately overpowering the ADL and the Republican party.
Monday, August 09, 2010
MPAA Ratings
I watched This Film is Not Yet Rated. I was a bit skeptical - mostly because of how aggressive and confrontational it seemed. But it was actually a good movie and made some really interesting points.
The movie investigates the Motion Picture Association of America's movie ratings system and finds it to be secretive and full of contradictions. We shouldn't be surprised at the problems the movie raises. Anytime an industry tries to regulate itself, it will often fail when the needed regulations threaten its bottom line.
It seems clear from the movie that the MPAA ratings system has a few significant flaws. The first is of course its lack of transparency. A system that exerts such significant control over a major communication medium should make it clear who is making its decisions and how they arrive at those decisions.
Given the lack of transparency, the MPAA is free to allow conflicts to corrupt the process. It seems clear that studio films are given more guidance and support in navigating the ratings.
What seems to be the biggest problem with the ratings system though is that it tolerates significant graphic violence in an R rating but is highly sensitive to sex and downright censors any homosexual sex or intimacy. This strikes me as completely backwards. As a society, we should be much more concerned with how our treatment of violence influences violent behavior than we are about treatment of sex influences our sexual behavior since violence can have much bigger impacts on peoples' lives than sex.
The movie suggests a reason for why the MPAA might treat sex this way. It seems that the MPAA is risk averse - its goal is to avoid criticism. It seems clear that the loudest voices would be / are conservative christian groups whose main concern is with what they consider aberrant sexual behavior (usually intimacy between same sex couples or sexual positions that deviate from missionary). In fact, the bias in favor of religious groups is clear when the viewer learns that the MPAA includes representatives from the Catholic and Episcopalian churches on their appeals baord.*
To the extent that this analysis is accurate, it is concerning both because religious groups representing views that are likely to be in the minority have an undue influence on our movie choices (coming close to censoring) and because it isn't clear to the public that the rating agencies have this bias.
The solution would be a rating system that is much more transparent - which means it would need to be less simple - and separated from the studios. HBO uses its own rating system, which is actually both more simple and more complicated than the MPAA. Because it is independent of the MPAA, it can air TV shows like the L-Word, which would otherwise likely receive an NC-17 rating. There is another rating system though that accomplishes this, and Netflix is using it: Common Sense Media. It is far more descriptive about what is contained in the movie (and tv shows and music videos). Granted, this wouldn't work for the lazy parent, but seems like a much more transparent, consistent, and independent system.
*Another explanation could be that our society overall tolerates violence more than sex and the ratings reflect that. The movie does a good job of making this explanation seem less likely.
The movie investigates the Motion Picture Association of America's movie ratings system and finds it to be secretive and full of contradictions. We shouldn't be surprised at the problems the movie raises. Anytime an industry tries to regulate itself, it will often fail when the needed regulations threaten its bottom line.
It seems clear from the movie that the MPAA ratings system has a few significant flaws. The first is of course its lack of transparency. A system that exerts such significant control over a major communication medium should make it clear who is making its decisions and how they arrive at those decisions.
Given the lack of transparency, the MPAA is free to allow conflicts to corrupt the process. It seems clear that studio films are given more guidance and support in navigating the ratings.
What seems to be the biggest problem with the ratings system though is that it tolerates significant graphic violence in an R rating but is highly sensitive to sex and downright censors any homosexual sex or intimacy. This strikes me as completely backwards. As a society, we should be much more concerned with how our treatment of violence influences violent behavior than we are about treatment of sex influences our sexual behavior since violence can have much bigger impacts on peoples' lives than sex.
The movie suggests a reason for why the MPAA might treat sex this way. It seems that the MPAA is risk averse - its goal is to avoid criticism. It seems clear that the loudest voices would be / are conservative christian groups whose main concern is with what they consider aberrant sexual behavior (usually intimacy between same sex couples or sexual positions that deviate from missionary). In fact, the bias in favor of religious groups is clear when the viewer learns that the MPAA includes representatives from the Catholic and Episcopalian churches on their appeals baord.*
To the extent that this analysis is accurate, it is concerning both because religious groups representing views that are likely to be in the minority have an undue influence on our movie choices (coming close to censoring) and because it isn't clear to the public that the rating agencies have this bias.
The solution would be a rating system that is much more transparent - which means it would need to be less simple - and separated from the studios. HBO uses its own rating system, which is actually both more simple and more complicated than the MPAA. Because it is independent of the MPAA, it can air TV shows like the L-Word, which would otherwise likely receive an NC-17 rating. There is another rating system though that accomplishes this, and Netflix is using it: Common Sense Media. It is far more descriptive about what is contained in the movie (and tv shows and music videos). Granted, this wouldn't work for the lazy parent, but seems like a much more transparent, consistent, and independent system.
*Another explanation could be that our society overall tolerates violence more than sex and the ratings reflect that. The movie does a good job of making this explanation seem less likely.
Shrink Government and Help the Poor?
There is an article in the NY Times about Republican Congressional candidate Tim Scott who is likely to become the first black Republican elected to Congress from the Deep South in over one hundred years. While that is somewhat interesting, I am more interested in his overall philosophy.
Tim Scott seems to be of the class of Republicans that want to help those less fortunate but don't think the government should do it. Here is a quote from the article that really got me thinking:
What I don't understand though about these conservatives that are actually compassionate is how they can stand being in a party where a significant portion believe that government should be doing less not because local community groups need to do more but because they want to keep their own money and not help the undeserving poor.
These conservatives that do want the poor to be helped need to understand, and I am surprised that they do not, that when they work together with other conservatives to shrink the size of government, there will be nothing close to sufficient money to help those in need. They are joining a party to shrink government without considering what happens to the people that need support.
It would make more sense to me if these people joined with Democrats, who also largely feel the desire to help the poor, and try to influence the party to raise the same amount of money but give more to local groups and less to big unresponsive government agencies.
Tim Scott seems to be of the class of Republicans that want to help those less fortunate but don't think the government should do it. Here is a quote from the article that really got me thinking:
"If you really believe in something and that the government shouldn’t do it, you better be busy," he said.First, let me say that I can understand the feeling that the government isn't always the best at providing services. While this feeling is exaggerated, there are good reasons to feel this way. I might agree that local non-profits, if adequately funded, could provide better services for those in need than government social service agencies.
What I don't understand though about these conservatives that are actually compassionate is how they can stand being in a party where a significant portion believe that government should be doing less not because local community groups need to do more but because they want to keep their own money and not help the undeserving poor.
These conservatives that do want the poor to be helped need to understand, and I am surprised that they do not, that when they work together with other conservatives to shrink the size of government, there will be nothing close to sufficient money to help those in need. They are joining a party to shrink government without considering what happens to the people that need support.
It would make more sense to me if these people joined with Democrats, who also largely feel the desire to help the poor, and try to influence the party to raise the same amount of money but give more to local groups and less to big unresponsive government agencies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)