Monday, January 08, 2007
Censure
I am tempted to write a long raving post about President Bush and his abuse of signing statements. I could talk about opening US Mail without a warrent or the appalling addition to the anti-torture legislation that was passed almost unanimously by Congress. But I just don't have the energy or the desire to get that riled up. If you aren't disgusted by it, then you aren't very well informed. It's too bad Congress doesn't have the will to do anything about it. I have heard people say there is little they can do - that is bunk. They could censure him - that would send a clear message.
Judgement Day
Tomorrow we find out whether Mark McGwire will go to the Baseball Hall of Fame on his first ballot. Based on what we have been hearing, he will be overwhelmingly denied. But there have been a number of good articles lately. Here are some of my favorite quotes:
From Jayson Stark at ESPN:
This issue is going to be with us for a long time. As Boswell said, the choice boils down to imperfect justice or voting everyone in and acknowledging the era they played in (I think we have to admit that with current testing we aren't necessarily out of the steroids era.) Neither answer is very satisfying, and so Hall of Fame induction ceremonies will also feel the same way, not very satisfying. To paraphrase Thomas Boswell, we reap what we sow. It may sound trite, but I think it captures the situation perfectly.
From Jayson Stark at ESPN:
It was baseball that allowed all of this to happen. In a sport with no rules, no testing and no punishment for using the hottest substances of the day, this was no tiny problem, involving a few obvious home run trotters. This was the culture inside the game, just as amphetamines were part of the culture in the '60s and '70s and '80s (and beyond).From Thomas Boswell:
[Edit]
And now here it is, Hall of Fame election time -- and cleaning up this glop is supposed to be our problem? Sorry, the only way to be consistent about this generation is to apply the Gaylord Perry standard -- and evaluate what the sport allowed to go down on the field. Either the '90s happened or they didn't. And we all saw them happen.
We saw hitters on steroids face pitchers on steroids, as hundreds of players all around them used the same stuff, looking for the same edge. But we've never heard most of their names. So I feel more comfortable voting for players like McGwire than I do trying to pick and choose who did what, and when, and why.
From a distance, baseball's problem is a comedy of its own making. The game's punishment -- massive confusion about the meaning of its sacred statistics and suspicion surrounding its stars -- seems to suit the crime perfectly. The game reaped what it sowed. However, to more than a thousand of my writing colleagues who still have their Cooperstown ballots, this is no joke. They study, debate and take their votes seriously. I feel bad for them. Any vote on McGwire (583 career homers) now or on Sosa (588 homers) in a few years seems inherently flawed.And my favorite (mostly because of how snarky it is towards the press - a group that ignores its complicity in all of this), Bill Simmons:
One response is to throw up your hands and say, "Let 'em all into Cooperstown." Just ignore the steroid era. Since the sport itself, as well as an adoring media, were complicit, give everybody clemency. For me, that's no answer. Imperfect justice is better than no justice at all. Every juiced ballplayer knew he was cheating.
Normally, I enjoy the week the Baseball Hall of Fame inductees are announced. Not this year. With Mark McGwire's inclusion on the 2007 ballot, we have officially entered the Let's Blackball the Potential-Steroids-Guy Era.The fact is, this is a hard decision, which is why I have written about it so many times. MLB turned a blind eye - but so did the press and so did the fans. We wanted to believe in baseball so badly that we told ourselves all the incredible feats were natural. This is why I have a hard time acting sanctimonious about this - unfortunately many in the press don't have any trouble.
Some writers won't vote for McGwire because he probably used steroids -- keep in mind there's never been proof that he did, other than a visible bottle of andro and those 135 pounds of muscle he added from 1990 to 2002 -- which would be fine if they weren't so pious about it. Not content with simply dismissing McGwire's candidacy and moving on, they need to climb on their high horses and rip the guy to shreds. Of course, many of them would appear on any radio or TV show for 50 bucks and a free sandwich. We're supposed to believe they would refuse the chance to take a drug that would enable them to do their job twice as well and make 10 times as much money? Yeah, right.
[Edit]
When a painful strike canceled the 1994 World Series and nearly killed the sport, two events got people caring again: Cal Ripken's breaking Lou Gehrig's consecutive-games record in 1995, and McGwire's and Sosa's battling for Maris' record three years later. Watch the end of "61*" sometime, or reread Mike Lupica's gushing book, "Summer of '98." (Note: Lupica now argues that Big Mac doesn't belong in the Hall. He never says anything about returning the profits from his book, however.) The home run chase meant something back then. And by the way, when it was going on, we all chose to overlook the fact that McGwire was a can of green paint away from being the Incredible Hulk and that Sosa looked like he was developing a second jaw. Let's not forget that.
This issue is going to be with us for a long time. As Boswell said, the choice boils down to imperfect justice or voting everyone in and acknowledging the era they played in (I think we have to admit that with current testing we aren't necessarily out of the steroids era.) Neither answer is very satisfying, and so Hall of Fame induction ceremonies will also feel the same way, not very satisfying. To paraphrase Thomas Boswell, we reap what we sow. It may sound trite, but I think it captures the situation perfectly.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Looking Back, and Forward
Today, the first blog that I wrote for officially closed down and took me off its list of members. Granted, I haven't posted there since the summer, it is still a little bit said. As I was saying goodbye to Restless Mania though, I remembered that I wanted to write about why I blog and what I think blogging is.
First, I want to talk about what I think blogging is. If you hear any journalist talking about it, you will undoubtedly hear her or him say that blogging is poor quality and miserable to read. I get the feeling that many journalists think blogging will replace traditional news media if they don't point out that it lacks the same standards. Any journalist who says this is clearly missing the point and should be ridiculed for being so out of touch.
The fact is, blogging covers a very broad range of the writing spectrum. True, there are some, like the Smoking Gun or Deadspin, that are attempting to give modern journalism a little competition. Their standards for what they print are a little below mainstream journalism, but based on their success they are serving a need in the market.
Many other blogs serve mainly as political commentary, and here is where the variation really becomes obvious. The popular blogs, like Daily Kos for example, serve as a fresh voice in politics. For whatever reason, they have attracted large audiences; maybe it is the frequency that they post, or the ability for the reader to engage the writer and other readers, or maybe it is just that their message resonates. But these blogs certainly cannot be dismissed.
At the other end of this spectrum are blogs like mine. I, like many others I assume, write not because I think I am better than the journalists that dismiss me, but because I want to engage in dialogue. By looking around the blogosphere, you will see so many people engaged in this giant conversation. It is as beautiful and real as any debate you might encounter at a cafe, around the dinner table, or in the lunchroom.
I read one criticism from a journalist that said blogging is usually people just writing down what they think right then at that moment. The argument was that the writing and thought process was too sloppy to be taken seriously (I admit that I rarely take the time anymore to review or edit my posts). I completely disagree because I don't think blogs need to be perfect. When I debate with friends and family, my arguments are not always perfect. But that is why I debate in the first place - so that someone can point out the problems in my logic while ignoring how well I am speaking.
Blogging works in the same way. By publishing what I think and feel on important issues at that very moment, I am inviting criticism and critique. I do this on purpose because I think I need it. Socrates thought of himself as a gadfly, someone to stir people up and make them really think about their beliefs. I write because I hope my ideas can do that to other people, but also because I want other people to do that to me.
I have to admit that I have been disappointed that more people don't call me out on issues. I thrived on the debates that I had on Restless Mania and wish I could have that back. I have to understand though that not everyone devotes the time to this that I do. So I will continue to write, leaving my words out there to be challenged at some later date by someone who sees flaws in the reasoning I laid out at that moment. And hopefully, someday soon, journalists will realize the beauty of all of the conversations taking place in the blogosphere and encourage others to engage instead of dismissing the unpolished nature of the writing.
First, I want to talk about what I think blogging is. If you hear any journalist talking about it, you will undoubtedly hear her or him say that blogging is poor quality and miserable to read. I get the feeling that many journalists think blogging will replace traditional news media if they don't point out that it lacks the same standards. Any journalist who says this is clearly missing the point and should be ridiculed for being so out of touch.
The fact is, blogging covers a very broad range of the writing spectrum. True, there are some, like the Smoking Gun or Deadspin, that are attempting to give modern journalism a little competition. Their standards for what they print are a little below mainstream journalism, but based on their success they are serving a need in the market.
Many other blogs serve mainly as political commentary, and here is where the variation really becomes obvious. The popular blogs, like Daily Kos for example, serve as a fresh voice in politics. For whatever reason, they have attracted large audiences; maybe it is the frequency that they post, or the ability for the reader to engage the writer and other readers, or maybe it is just that their message resonates. But these blogs certainly cannot be dismissed.
At the other end of this spectrum are blogs like mine. I, like many others I assume, write not because I think I am better than the journalists that dismiss me, but because I want to engage in dialogue. By looking around the blogosphere, you will see so many people engaged in this giant conversation. It is as beautiful and real as any debate you might encounter at a cafe, around the dinner table, or in the lunchroom.
I read one criticism from a journalist that said blogging is usually people just writing down what they think right then at that moment. The argument was that the writing and thought process was too sloppy to be taken seriously (I admit that I rarely take the time anymore to review or edit my posts). I completely disagree because I don't think blogs need to be perfect. When I debate with friends and family, my arguments are not always perfect. But that is why I debate in the first place - so that someone can point out the problems in my logic while ignoring how well I am speaking.
Blogging works in the same way. By publishing what I think and feel on important issues at that very moment, I am inviting criticism and critique. I do this on purpose because I think I need it. Socrates thought of himself as a gadfly, someone to stir people up and make them really think about their beliefs. I write because I hope my ideas can do that to other people, but also because I want other people to do that to me.
I have to admit that I have been disappointed that more people don't call me out on issues. I thrived on the debates that I had on Restless Mania and wish I could have that back. I have to understand though that not everyone devotes the time to this that I do. So I will continue to write, leaving my words out there to be challenged at some later date by someone who sees flaws in the reasoning I laid out at that moment. And hopefully, someday soon, journalists will realize the beauty of all of the conversations taking place in the blogosphere and encourage others to engage instead of dismissing the unpolished nature of the writing.
Always a Reason for Tax Cuts
There is a very convincing editorial in the NY Times regarding Republican efforts to link a minimum wage increase to small business tax cuts. Apparently the cost of the tax cuts is far greater than the increased wages that would go out to employees. Basically, that means the government would be better off paying the difference between current minimum wage and the new minimum wage to all workers.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
On Iran
I think that one of our biggest problems in the run up to the war in Iraq was that far too few people knew enough about the country to understand the consequences of our actions. I am afraid we will face the same problem as the situation in Iran heats up. There is an article in the NY Times that does a good job of dispelling some of the misunderstandings and talking about steps we should be taking.
First of all, President Ahmadinejad is not the next Hitler. This statement grossly overestimates his power in the country and the power of his country.
It also justifies their militaristic policies. Iran legitimately thinks we might make a military attack against them, and I think Bush wants it that way (his gunboat diplomacy is absurd). As long as Iran, as well as North Korea, can say that we are a threat to invade, their insistence on seeking nuclear weapons is somewhat reasonable both to their citizens and to a lesser extent the international community. I believe they would be more willing to concede on nuclear talks if we could convince them that we will not attack them (this would be much easier if we could convince them that we don't take them seriously). And in case you aren't sure an attack on Iran should be ruled out:
I don't want to give the impression that we should completely ignore Iran and their nuclear ambitions, but we need to show in public that we don't give them a second thought, while telling them in private that we will not be bullied. And then we need to point out the fact that their economy is tanking and they are doing nothing about it.
On negotiating involvement in Iraq, there appears to be some disagreement. Some analysts believe that Iran wants Iraq to succeed as much as we do. Others believe that the country has insulated itself enough and can protect against a surge of refugees and therefore cares little about Iraq imploding. My belief is that they think Shiites will come out on top in a civil war, and therefore don't have a big interest in stability. With this being the case, I don't know how much progress we can make. But what is clear is that we won't know until we talk to them, and we definitely need to do a better job of talking to them in a way that doesn't make them feel stronger.
First of all, President Ahmadinejad is not the next Hitler. This statement grossly overestimates his power in the country and the power of his country.
There has been a strange reversal in American perceptions, Mr. Nasr said. When the somewhat moderate Ayatollah Khatami was president, talking to him was dismissed as wasting time because the supreme leader was the real power. Now that Mr. Ahmadinejad inhabits the same office, with the supreme leader still holding the same key powers, Mr. Ahmadinejad is being portrayed as the crux.Given this knowledge, we need to deal with Iran differently. Our biggest mistake is treating the country like a legitimate security threat and devoting time to making threats against them. This not only makes them feel stronger because we are paying attention to them, but it also gives the impression that they really are (and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela) taking on the United States and the West. This only makes the leaders more popular.
It also justifies their militaristic policies. Iran legitimately thinks we might make a military attack against them, and I think Bush wants it that way (his gunboat diplomacy is absurd). As long as Iran, as well as North Korea, can say that we are a threat to invade, their insistence on seeking nuclear weapons is somewhat reasonable both to their citizens and to a lesser extent the international community. I believe they would be more willing to concede on nuclear talks if we could convince them that we will not attack them (this would be much easier if we could convince them that we don't take them seriously). And in case you aren't sure an attack on Iran should be ruled out:
But Iranian analysts interviewed in America mostly view a military strike as the surest means to cement the regime in power. Some question the wisdom of negotiating now, arguing that the West has so demonized Mr. Ahmadinejad and Iran as threats to peace that the Islamic Republic will believe in its own superpower ratings and not feel pressed to make concessions.But of course Bush is not bright enough to understand how to deal with people. He knows how to talk strong, but not when to talk strong.
I don't want to give the impression that we should completely ignore Iran and their nuclear ambitions, but we need to show in public that we don't give them a second thought, while telling them in private that we will not be bullied. And then we need to point out the fact that their economy is tanking and they are doing nothing about it.
On negotiating involvement in Iraq, there appears to be some disagreement. Some analysts believe that Iran wants Iraq to succeed as much as we do. Others believe that the country has insulated itself enough and can protect against a surge of refugees and therefore cares little about Iraq imploding. My belief is that they think Shiites will come out on top in a civil war, and therefore don't have a big interest in stability. With this being the case, I don't know how much progress we can make. But what is clear is that we won't know until we talk to them, and we definitely need to do a better job of talking to them in a way that doesn't make them feel stronger.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
More on Education
This article on middle school education got me thinking again about my beliefs on education in general. What the NY Times piece highlights is a lack of development in middle school education policies. We have ideas in other grade levels that I think are very strong (early intervention in elementary schools in the form of extended day and year programs and Advanced Placement, IB and other ways to increase rigor in high schools), but very little for middle school improvement.
The article also reminded me that right now I am at a point where I am really questioning some of the things I have supported before in education policy. I think this makes sense given that we now have some tools to evaluate NCLB and some conservative policies. For example, while I thought I supported more accountability for performance, I don't think I agree with how it is implemented or even talked about.
Also, while I agree that teacher quality is an issue, I don't think NCLB does a good job of dealing with it. Unfortunately, I think the unions are a big problem, and no president, governor, or mayor (with two exceptions) can do much about that. I strongly believe that unions do a major disservice by standing in the way of significant reforms like merit pay, ending or changing seniority in placement, and tenure. Even here though I wonder how much good it will do; will this will really improve education all around, or just help get better teachers in lower performing schools (which is very important, but not the only end of our efforts).
This has been a quick and very cursory post, but I wanted to highlight the fact that some of my excitement for education improvements has decreased (both nationally and in watching NYC experiments). I can say though that I will be doing a lot more thinking about this in the future.
The article also reminded me that right now I am at a point where I am really questioning some of the things I have supported before in education policy. I think this makes sense given that we now have some tools to evaluate NCLB and some conservative policies. For example, while I thought I supported more accountability for performance, I don't think I agree with how it is implemented or even talked about.
Also, while I agree that teacher quality is an issue, I don't think NCLB does a good job of dealing with it. Unfortunately, I think the unions are a big problem, and no president, governor, or mayor (with two exceptions) can do much about that. I strongly believe that unions do a major disservice by standing in the way of significant reforms like merit pay, ending or changing seniority in placement, and tenure. Even here though I wonder how much good it will do; will this will really improve education all around, or just help get better teachers in lower performing schools (which is very important, but not the only end of our efforts).
This has been a quick and very cursory post, but I wanted to highlight the fact that some of my excitement for education improvements has decreased (both nationally and in watching NYC experiments). I can say though that I will be doing a lot more thinking about this in the future.
Message of Humility
I am reading Barak Obama's book The Audacity of Hope. So far I really like it. Just like Dreams from My Father, the prose in this book is strong. But beyond that, I find myself really agreeing with his message. What really seems to resonate is something I think is lacking in current political discourse - humility.
It is hard to describe what I mean by this without sounding trite (although I can't stress enough that he manages to do it). Basically though, there is an understanding that he doesn't know everything, and we (liberals) don't know everything (that conservatives don't know everything is taken for granted). I find too often that people are so sure they are right that they will never even open up enough to really hear other arguments. In addition, they are so convinced of their rightness that they think people with opposite views are evil, weak or just stupid. It might be naive of me to think he could really change the current discourse, but sometimes one person can make a big difference. Either way, I like his message and I hope he sticks to his guns with the coming elections.
It is hard to describe what I mean by this without sounding trite (although I can't stress enough that he manages to do it). Basically though, there is an understanding that he doesn't know everything, and we (liberals) don't know everything (that conservatives don't know everything is taken for granted). I find too often that people are so sure they are right that they will never even open up enough to really hear other arguments. In addition, they are so convinced of their rightness that they think people with opposite views are evil, weak or just stupid. It might be naive of me to think he could really change the current discourse, but sometimes one person can make a big difference. Either way, I like his message and I hope he sticks to his guns with the coming elections.
I Might be King
It must be great to be President Bush. From day one he has ruled as if he has had a major mandate - despite losing the popular vote in 2000, and surviving a relatively close election in 2004. Granted, I would do the same thing if no one (re: Congress) did anything to stop me. But at some point he has to realize this isn't going to continue.
The best part about Bush's Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal is that it tries to sound like he is willing to meet in the middle when all of his talking points are strong conservative policies like no government intervention to help those in need, no change in foreign policy, and no repeal of his tax cuts. So basically, despite the fact that his approval ratings are in the toilet and a Democratic Congress was elected largely as a rejection of his administration, he still wants to continue with business as usual. Brilliant.
The best part about Bush's Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal is that it tries to sound like he is willing to meet in the middle when all of his talking points are strong conservative policies like no government intervention to help those in need, no change in foreign policy, and no repeal of his tax cuts. So basically, despite the fact that his approval ratings are in the toilet and a Democratic Congress was elected largely as a rejection of his administration, he still wants to continue with business as usual. Brilliant.
Must Have Been a Slow Day
I wonder if this reporter knows how boring and unoriginal this article is. Seriously, the issue of Barak Obama's admitted drug use in Dreams from My Father has already been talked about. I just hate this type of article in general (covering elections like they are a horse race, with no regard for issues), but especially when they are rehashing an old issue.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
The Sky Isn't Falling?
I was afraid this would happen. Now that Democrats are in charge, some voices on the left are saying that the deficit isn't actually a big deal and that we should continue to spend like crazy if it means expanding social programs. My frustration with this isn't that I think we need to cut social programs. But it really bothers me that Democrats were saying Republicans were spending too much (which they were), but now that we are in power, we will learn how to make excuses for a lack of restraint.
I don't know for sure if Paul Krugman of the NY Times was one of those voices, but I have a feeling that he was. But there were people like him saying that our deficits will soon spell doomesday for our economy, and now seem to think that all will be okay as long as we expand every single program we support.
I don't know for sure if Paul Krugman of the NY Times was one of those voices, but I have a feeling that he was. But there were people like him saying that our deficits will soon spell doomesday for our economy, and now seem to think that all will be okay as long as we expand every single program we support.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
A Totally New War
I am sure that a large part of this article is outright fear-mongering. Even if that is the case, there is still information in there that is deeply concerning. The analysts that commented in the article admit that they have expected that westerners would become soilders for Al Qaeda. Their passports in England or even the US will make them very valuable to Muslim extremist groups.
When reading this article, I couldn't help wondering if this new war we are facing is completely different than anything we have faced. I know this sounds like a conclusion that everyone else has already come to, but maybe not in the way I mean it. To some respect, I think we still believe that we can use some of the same methods we used during the Cold War, including similar spying techniques. Most people know that this is a new war that feeds in basically lawless and stateless areas. It is a gorilla war that we can't choose whether or not we want to participate. So in understanding that, will any of our previous techinques work?
Right now it looks like the two biggest training areas are Iraq, where people are getting front-line training, and the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The lawless area in Afghanistan is a direct result of our haste to jump into Iraq without completely securing Afghanistan. But in Pakistan the situation is a very different problem, and one we might face more in the future. The government is supposedly an ally of ours but they lack the capacity to control all of their territory. There is also the threat that major crackdowns in those regions could lead to major revolts and possibly the rise of an anti-American government.
This situation is not going to be unique in our future. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, and others do not control all of their country even if they would like to help us in our war against Al Qaeda. So here is the driving question - how do we deal with governments that want to cooperate but are limited in their ability? I admit that I am drawn to the Cold War for help; I am tempted to suggest that we support our own brand of non-governmental militant groups to battle the extremists. But that didn't seem to work too well in the past.
When I read an article like this one in Newsweek, I get an overwhelming feeling that we are going to need to be much more creative in how we meet this threat. The problem is that governments aren't meant to be creative or flexible. The necessity for consensus can slow evolution. My hope though is that somehow the smart voices will rise above the rest and that progress will be made. If that doesn't happen though, we might well end up with more presidents that believe they need the authority to act unilaterally - without input from the UN or even Congress. And that might be better for creative policy-making and change, but I just don't trust leaving that much power in one person. Either way, this is going to be a big issue for a long time and I think everyone should be taking it seriously and learning as much as they can so they can participate intelligently.
When reading this article, I couldn't help wondering if this new war we are facing is completely different than anything we have faced. I know this sounds like a conclusion that everyone else has already come to, but maybe not in the way I mean it. To some respect, I think we still believe that we can use some of the same methods we used during the Cold War, including similar spying techniques. Most people know that this is a new war that feeds in basically lawless and stateless areas. It is a gorilla war that we can't choose whether or not we want to participate. So in understanding that, will any of our previous techinques work?
Right now it looks like the two biggest training areas are Iraq, where people are getting front-line training, and the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The lawless area in Afghanistan is a direct result of our haste to jump into Iraq without completely securing Afghanistan. But in Pakistan the situation is a very different problem, and one we might face more in the future. The government is supposedly an ally of ours but they lack the capacity to control all of their territory. There is also the threat that major crackdowns in those regions could lead to major revolts and possibly the rise of an anti-American government.
This situation is not going to be unique in our future. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, and others do not control all of their country even if they would like to help us in our war against Al Qaeda. So here is the driving question - how do we deal with governments that want to cooperate but are limited in their ability? I admit that I am drawn to the Cold War for help; I am tempted to suggest that we support our own brand of non-governmental militant groups to battle the extremists. But that didn't seem to work too well in the past.
When I read an article like this one in Newsweek, I get an overwhelming feeling that we are going to need to be much more creative in how we meet this threat. The problem is that governments aren't meant to be creative or flexible. The necessity for consensus can slow evolution. My hope though is that somehow the smart voices will rise above the rest and that progress will be made. If that doesn't happen though, we might well end up with more presidents that believe they need the authority to act unilaterally - without input from the UN or even Congress. And that might be better for creative policy-making and change, but I just don't trust leaving that much power in one person. Either way, this is going to be a big issue for a long time and I think everyone should be taking it seriously and learning as much as they can so they can participate intelligently.
Being Unreasonable
My good friend The Beard sent me a link to Samantha Power's commencement address at Swarthmore College in 2002. The address as a whole is really good, and sums up the main points of her book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. But what really got me was her closing:
The truth is that I know the way the world works, but I very strongly believe that I can make a difference to change it (and I am sure the same is true of my more liberal friends). So while I understand, for example, that America's foreign policy decisions are based on our interests and that most Americans want to take care of our own country first, that doesn't mean I find that acceptable. Genocide, mass murder, and mass famine are just as important, if not more so, than issues like food insecurity in America. If the rest of America doesn't agree with me, than I just need to argue louder. Yes, I am an unreasonable idealist, and that is why I strive to adapt the world to me.
George Bernard Shaw once wrote, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."Often when I debate issues with my family, I can tell by their tone that they think I am a crazy idealist who just doesn't understand the way the world works. To be fair, I must admit that I have probably implied, if not outright accused, that some of my more liberal friends are guilty of the same thing I am trying to defend myself against.
I wish you, Swarthmore's graduating class of 2002, all the best in the journey that lies ahead. And I pray that you join the ranks of the unreasonable.
The truth is that I know the way the world works, but I very strongly believe that I can make a difference to change it (and I am sure the same is true of my more liberal friends). So while I understand, for example, that America's foreign policy decisions are based on our interests and that most Americans want to take care of our own country first, that doesn't mean I find that acceptable. Genocide, mass murder, and mass famine are just as important, if not more so, than issues like food insecurity in America. If the rest of America doesn't agree with me, than I just need to argue louder. Yes, I am an unreasonable idealist, and that is why I strive to adapt the world to me.
Turkey on the Balance
This article ($) from the New York Times sums up the situation in Turkey pretty well. They are situated in such a way that they could either look to the west and adopt government policies based on a European / American model (in regards to human rights, open economy, transparency, etc) and serve as a beacon of light for the rest of the Middle East, or they could instead look to the east and base their practices on countries like Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia.
What has kept them looking west and making real progress was the carrot of potential membership in the European Union. Now that this is no longer likely in the near future, it seems like there might be less that keeps them looking west.
In the future it will be hard to convince any Muslim country that there are benefits to reform when Turkey couldn't get into the EU despite the changes it has made. This can only continue to make Muslims feel like the West will never really treat them as equals. I think if the EU was wise, it would accept Turkey while continuing to push for further reforms. We need to break the cycle and show through our deeds that we respect Muslims and their faith, even if that means making some compromises along the way.
What has kept them looking west and making real progress was the carrot of potential membership in the European Union. Now that this is no longer likely in the near future, it seems like there might be less that keeps them looking west.
To try to win membership [to the EU], the Turkish government enacted a series of rigorous reforms to bring the country in line with European standards, including some unprecedented in the Muslim world, like a law against marital rape.A few quotes from moderately influential Europeans (including an obviously anti-Muslim Pope) isn't necessarily proof that their religion is what has kept Turkey out. Just based on the quote above (especially the part about insulting Turkishness being a crime) it appears that Turkey has a ways to go before its government is up to the West's exacting standards. But it is hard to say that religion isn't even a factor.
But the admission talks have stalled. And while the official reason involves the longstanding Greek-Turkish dispute over Cyprus, most Turks say they believe the real reason is a deep suspicion of their country's religion.
Indeed, in 2002, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president, said Turkey's admission to the union would mean "the end of Europe." Nicholas Sarkozy, the French presidential hopeful, has made his opposition to Turkish membership a campaign issue. Even the pope, when he was still a cardinal in Germany, said publicly that he did not think Turkey fit into Europe because it was Muslim. That talk has begun to grate on Turks.
[Edit]
Despite growing pains, a neglected Kurdish minority in the south, a thin skin for any reference to the Armenian genocide, and failure to scrap a law that makes insulting Turkishness a crime, Turkey stands out as lively democracy in a larger Middle East riddled with restrictions, and its acceptance by the West is a test case for others, officials said.
Muslim countries, Mr. Tan points out, are watching.
"Turkey is a beacon for those countries," he said. "Don't forget, if we fail, then the whole dream will fail."
In the future it will be hard to convince any Muslim country that there are benefits to reform when Turkey couldn't get into the EU despite the changes it has made. This can only continue to make Muslims feel like the West will never really treat them as equals. I think if the EU was wise, it would accept Turkey while continuing to push for further reforms. We need to break the cycle and show through our deeds that we respect Muslims and their faith, even if that means making some compromises along the way.
Intolerance and Religion
I had an interesting conversation with a friend about religion recently. The conversation got started because he was describing the book he is reading that is highly critical of religion in America. In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I haven’t read the book and my knowledge of it comes from an advertisement I saw about it and my friend’s description of it.
The book seems to be in the same vein as other books out there trying to completely discredit modern religion in America. These are probably responses to the recent strength of the religious right in America as well as possibly the rise of Muslim extremism around the world. Many of these writers attempt to prove that God doesn’t exist and that religion is fake and illogical. I have to say that I find these books and the arguments they try to make as obnoxious and, frankly, intolerant as the far-right religious groups that they are presumably attacking. I hate the assumption that those who don’t believe are uneducated, illogical and unaware of all of the evidence that there is no God. I consider myself very well educated, but I cannot shake the feeling that there is more than what is seen.
Analogies to teacups revolving around the sun aside, any attempt to talk about religion must start with the obvious truth that we can neither prove that God exists, nor that God doesn’t exist. Since we know this, any belief therefore is based on faith. Each person must make a personal decision, based on the evidence they know of, to decide if they think there is something else out there and what form that something else takes.
Often times when religion is discussed, people try to use statistics to describe how religious America really is. Based on what I know a majority believes in a God of some kind, and that percentage of Americans decreases when you ask about belief in the Creation and the literal nature of the Virgin birth. As I understand it, the author that my friend is reading seems to think that people who don’t believe everything in the Bible cannot really be considered true believers because it is illogical to only believe in certain parts. I think taking this position ignores a huge population and also demonstrates an ignorance of what makes religion so powerful.
In our life we are surrounded by things we cannot possibly understand. There are horrors that defy imagination, and beauties that we can’t comprehend. Facing that, some people choose to believe that it is merely the result of randomness outside of our control. Life is unpredictable and at times cruel and there is nothing we can do about it. But others cannot overcome the feeling that there is something more than this, that there is a force that we don’t understand but that is nonetheless impacting our lives. Whether it is an omnipotent being that demands we worship it and follow all of its rules, or a force or emotion that ties us all and can provide guidance, many feel there is something in our universe that is working for good.
In the end, our lives will always be surrounded by things that we can neither prove are true nor untrue. In those situations, people will come to their own conclusions. In a tolerant society, we would respect everyone’s position and not believe that anyone is more right. My hope is that we do one day live in such a society. Until then, I accept that I will be forced to watch as the extremely religious attack me for not being religious enough, and those that feel their logic and reasoning make them above belief in things unseen will mock me for having a faith in something else.
The book seems to be in the same vein as other books out there trying to completely discredit modern religion in America. These are probably responses to the recent strength of the religious right in America as well as possibly the rise of Muslim extremism around the world. Many of these writers attempt to prove that God doesn’t exist and that religion is fake and illogical. I have to say that I find these books and the arguments they try to make as obnoxious and, frankly, intolerant as the far-right religious groups that they are presumably attacking. I hate the assumption that those who don’t believe are uneducated, illogical and unaware of all of the evidence that there is no God. I consider myself very well educated, but I cannot shake the feeling that there is more than what is seen.
Analogies to teacups revolving around the sun aside, any attempt to talk about religion must start with the obvious truth that we can neither prove that God exists, nor that God doesn’t exist. Since we know this, any belief therefore is based on faith. Each person must make a personal decision, based on the evidence they know of, to decide if they think there is something else out there and what form that something else takes.
Often times when religion is discussed, people try to use statistics to describe how religious America really is. Based on what I know a majority believes in a God of some kind, and that percentage of Americans decreases when you ask about belief in the Creation and the literal nature of the Virgin birth. As I understand it, the author that my friend is reading seems to think that people who don’t believe everything in the Bible cannot really be considered true believers because it is illogical to only believe in certain parts. I think taking this position ignores a huge population and also demonstrates an ignorance of what makes religion so powerful.
In our life we are surrounded by things we cannot possibly understand. There are horrors that defy imagination, and beauties that we can’t comprehend. Facing that, some people choose to believe that it is merely the result of randomness outside of our control. Life is unpredictable and at times cruel and there is nothing we can do about it. But others cannot overcome the feeling that there is something more than this, that there is a force that we don’t understand but that is nonetheless impacting our lives. Whether it is an omnipotent being that demands we worship it and follow all of its rules, or a force or emotion that ties us all and can provide guidance, many feel there is something in our universe that is working for good.
In the end, our lives will always be surrounded by things that we can neither prove are true nor untrue. In those situations, people will come to their own conclusions. In a tolerant society, we would respect everyone’s position and not believe that anyone is more right. My hope is that we do one day live in such a society. Until then, I accept that I will be forced to watch as the extremely religious attack me for not being religious enough, and those that feel their logic and reasoning make them above belief in things unseen will mock me for having a faith in something else.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Big Mac Tries to Start Over
Ever since I first started posting to a blog, I have been trying to get my head around the steroids scandal in baseball, and how that affects my feelings on my once childhood hero, Mark McGwire. If anyone was to read everything I have written about it, you would not find a lot of consistency, but instead a spectrum of thoughts and feelings that change based on new developments. I have to admit from the start that it is an extremely difficult issue for me. Deep down, I know McGwire to be a good person who was very talented at baseball and a hard worker. He had a few bad years, due in part to nagging injuries, but he stayed focused and made a major comeback, culminating in the magical season of 1998. It was that season that I, and many other fans, forgave baseball completely for the strike of 1994.
Like many people, I did all I could to give McGwire the benefit of the doubt and trust that he never used steroids. But it became apparent that there was too much evidence, culminating in his testimony before Congress in which he refused to answer questions about his past.
I think it was that incident that pushed me over the edge. I felt that if he only admitted to what he did, I could forgive him. Instead, he chooses to hide from his past in what I used to think was a hope that people would soon forget that and only remember his performance.
A new article at ESPN has softened me a little bit. The article tries to shed some light on his current life and state of mind. The way I interpret it is that McGwire isn’t hoping that we forget about his misdeeds. Instead, he merely wants to leave that part of his life behind completely. Some people who used to know him speculate that he is so hurt by the whole situation that he doesn’t know how to deal with it, and wants to just forget about it and start over.
I still maintain that much of the blame lies with Major League Baseball. They refused from the beginning to do anything significant to deter the use of illegal and dangerous performance enhancing drugs (I also think the players’ union is as guilty, if not more so). There is tremendous pressure to use these drugs because, as Jose Canseco has said, they make mediocre players good, good players great, and great players exceptional.
In the world of professional sports, athletes are often isolated and forced to make decisions without any guidance. In that case, it makes sense that someone like McGwire, Canseco, or Barry Bonds, would look at the rules on the books and decide that MLB tacitly condones the use of steroids. It is understandable therefore that someone like McGwire would be crushed to watch MLB do a complete 180 and act like they had no idea and have been against it from the beginning. The owners have gotten rich off the resurgence of baseball, but have thrown McGwire et al under the bus (in my opinion, McGwire’s story isn’t the most tragic, especially compared to someone like Ken Camenitti who had serious problems and needed guidance).
The point of this post is that I can understand how McGwire might feel completely betrayed by what has happened. In that case, it makes sense that he wants to leave the pain of that experience behind him and start over with his new family and invest himself in his golf game.
But that doesn’t mean that I completely forgive him. I do think a reasonable person should have known what they were doing was not in the spirit of the game. More importantly though, when someone makes a mistake, they should come clean and take responsibility for their part of it. If he did that, and then completely disappeared off the face of the earth, I would definitely understand. The fact is that there are countless other people who could make the same mistake he did, and his silence is doing nothing to prevent them from doing so. I can only hope that maybe he will break his silence this year, once he finds out that he has been denied the Hall of Fame on his first ballot. But I am not holding my breath.
Like many people, I did all I could to give McGwire the benefit of the doubt and trust that he never used steroids. But it became apparent that there was too much evidence, culminating in his testimony before Congress in which he refused to answer questions about his past.
I think it was that incident that pushed me over the edge. I felt that if he only admitted to what he did, I could forgive him. Instead, he chooses to hide from his past in what I used to think was a hope that people would soon forget that and only remember his performance.
A new article at ESPN has softened me a little bit. The article tries to shed some light on his current life and state of mind. The way I interpret it is that McGwire isn’t hoping that we forget about his misdeeds. Instead, he merely wants to leave that part of his life behind completely. Some people who used to know him speculate that he is so hurt by the whole situation that he doesn’t know how to deal with it, and wants to just forget about it and start over.
I still maintain that much of the blame lies with Major League Baseball. They refused from the beginning to do anything significant to deter the use of illegal and dangerous performance enhancing drugs (I also think the players’ union is as guilty, if not more so). There is tremendous pressure to use these drugs because, as Jose Canseco has said, they make mediocre players good, good players great, and great players exceptional.
In the world of professional sports, athletes are often isolated and forced to make decisions without any guidance. In that case, it makes sense that someone like McGwire, Canseco, or Barry Bonds, would look at the rules on the books and decide that MLB tacitly condones the use of steroids. It is understandable therefore that someone like McGwire would be crushed to watch MLB do a complete 180 and act like they had no idea and have been against it from the beginning. The owners have gotten rich off the resurgence of baseball, but have thrown McGwire et al under the bus (in my opinion, McGwire’s story isn’t the most tragic, especially compared to someone like Ken Camenitti who had serious problems and needed guidance).
The point of this post is that I can understand how McGwire might feel completely betrayed by what has happened. In that case, it makes sense that he wants to leave the pain of that experience behind him and start over with his new family and invest himself in his golf game.
But that doesn’t mean that I completely forgive him. I do think a reasonable person should have known what they were doing was not in the spirit of the game. More importantly though, when someone makes a mistake, they should come clean and take responsibility for their part of it. If he did that, and then completely disappeared off the face of the earth, I would definitely understand. The fact is that there are countless other people who could make the same mistake he did, and his silence is doing nothing to prevent them from doing so. I can only hope that maybe he will break his silence this year, once he finds out that he has been denied the Hall of Fame on his first ballot. But I am not holding my breath.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Hotel Rwanda; Fast Forward
I read a really sad article today in the Wall Street Journal (12/4/06, front page). Since I don't subscribe to the online version, and I doubt anyone who reads this does either (except maybe Old $), I won't bother trying to link to it. The main point of the article was that Paul Rusesabagina, the hero of Hotel Rwanda, is apparently no longer popular in Rwanda and it might even be dangerous for him to return. He has been making the most of his fame by doing public speaking tours and living comfortably here in the US. Before I continue though, I should add a disclaimer that we don't know for sure if what the article insinuates is actually true. The danger might be hyped and his unpopularity might be due to the appearance that he has ditched Rwanda for the US.
For now though I will take the article on face value, and the article says that Paul Rusesabagina is unpopular because he has made statements that are critical of the Tutsi-lead government in Rwanda. He has claimed that the government has only given Hutus token positions and has suppressed dissent. The later claim is believable considering a statement denouncing Rusesabagina from Rwanda's President. There also could be a rivalry since Rusesabagina has hinted at a desire to run for President.
But there are some larger issues that seem to be lurking behind the scenes. Whenever there is a genocide, we tend to want the victims to be completely innocent. In some cases they were (Jews during the Holocaust), but in others the ethnic groups were in open rebellion (the Kurds in Iraq and Muslims in Bosnia). This in no way excuses the genocides. But it does mean we need to be open to the fact that the once victims might one-day be oppressors (and might have been in the past as was the case with the Tutsis). We need to be as vigilant in condemning them as would be anyone else.
Unfortunately, the article also gives the appearance that civil war might descend on Rwanda again in the future. In many of the genocides, people who didn’t want to act dismissed the situations as generations-long civil wars that we cannot stop. Those favoring intervention will argue back that it is not a mere civil war, but an attempt from the top of one government to exterminate an ethnic / racial / religious group. The truth though tends to be that both sides are kind of right. No matter how much we wish that Tutsis and Hutus would learn the differences between them are largely false and created by their colonial power to create division, I have to accept that it will take time. Until then, further flair-ups are a possibility.
If Rwanda were to flair up again, it would probably make some people feel justified that we didn’t intervene. They would say that we will never be able to stop the fighting. While that may be true, the fact remains that we still need to intervene to stop genocidal governments, even if we decide not to intervene in civil wars (although I would prefer to intervene all the time if at all possible).
For now though I will take the article on face value, and the article says that Paul Rusesabagina is unpopular because he has made statements that are critical of the Tutsi-lead government in Rwanda. He has claimed that the government has only given Hutus token positions and has suppressed dissent. The later claim is believable considering a statement denouncing Rusesabagina from Rwanda's President. There also could be a rivalry since Rusesabagina has hinted at a desire to run for President.
But there are some larger issues that seem to be lurking behind the scenes. Whenever there is a genocide, we tend to want the victims to be completely innocent. In some cases they were (Jews during the Holocaust), but in others the ethnic groups were in open rebellion (the Kurds in Iraq and Muslims in Bosnia). This in no way excuses the genocides. But it does mean we need to be open to the fact that the once victims might one-day be oppressors (and might have been in the past as was the case with the Tutsis). We need to be as vigilant in condemning them as would be anyone else.
Unfortunately, the article also gives the appearance that civil war might descend on Rwanda again in the future. In many of the genocides, people who didn’t want to act dismissed the situations as generations-long civil wars that we cannot stop. Those favoring intervention will argue back that it is not a mere civil war, but an attempt from the top of one government to exterminate an ethnic / racial / religious group. The truth though tends to be that both sides are kind of right. No matter how much we wish that Tutsis and Hutus would learn the differences between them are largely false and created by their colonial power to create division, I have to accept that it will take time. Until then, further flair-ups are a possibility.
If Rwanda were to flair up again, it would probably make some people feel justified that we didn’t intervene. They would say that we will never be able to stop the fighting. While that may be true, the fact remains that we still need to intervene to stop genocidal governments, even if we decide not to intervene in civil wars (although I would prefer to intervene all the time if at all possible).
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Sweat Shops - Redux
I had an intense debate with The Beard a while ago about sweat shops. My basic position was that there was nothing we could do to improve the working conditions in manufacturing jobs in the developing world. The reason wages are so low and conditions so bad is because there is an oversupply of labor. My argument is that the economic circumstances will resist our efforts at reform. Our goal therefore should be to do as much as we can to build up their economies while will drive up wages and allow for improved conditions.
My underlying assumption though does cause me problems. I do feel strongly about poor labor conditions in the developing world, but I also feel like some efforts to intervene will be useless (or even counterproductive – meaning driving jobs away). I have a lot of difficulty reconciling these two points in my mind. I want to say that I see these same issues at play in other policies like fair trade coffee and domestic price supports for agriculture (which I oppose for different reasons).
The issue here is what do we do about a situation that we think we are powerless to change? My position of waiting for the economies to grow allows for the suffering of the workers to continue for the foreseeable future. The Beard on the other hand, even if he accepted that the economic principles at play impede progress, would likely still advocate for some reform rather than accepting the current situation.
As I consider myself a moral being, I should not be okay, accepting the workers’ fate, even as I realize that dangerous working conditions for low wages are everywhere in the developing world (notably in agriculture and mining).
I realize now that the Nicholas Kristof column that inspired our debate, and my post supporting that column, were both insensitive to the horrible working conditions of the workers. What I should have said is that we want to somehow force better conditions, without driving the labor away. The workers need the money, and the countries need that boost to the economy.
But I also want to distance myself from the well-meaning but poorly thought-out proposals, like the ones that make comparisons between wage increases and price increases of the final product. A proposal like this one ignores the fact that the downward pressure on wages isn’t coming from consumers always needing cheaper Banana Republic shirts, but instead from the over supply of labor in the developing world and the need for bigger profit margins by the companies to remain competitive.
The bottom line is that I should not tolerate terrible working conditions. But I think we need to be more creative and think of solutions that keep in mind the serious economic constraints we work under.
My underlying assumption though does cause me problems. I do feel strongly about poor labor conditions in the developing world, but I also feel like some efforts to intervene will be useless (or even counterproductive – meaning driving jobs away). I have a lot of difficulty reconciling these two points in my mind. I want to say that I see these same issues at play in other policies like fair trade coffee and domestic price supports for agriculture (which I oppose for different reasons).
The issue here is what do we do about a situation that we think we are powerless to change? My position of waiting for the economies to grow allows for the suffering of the workers to continue for the foreseeable future. The Beard on the other hand, even if he accepted that the economic principles at play impede progress, would likely still advocate for some reform rather than accepting the current situation.
As I consider myself a moral being, I should not be okay, accepting the workers’ fate, even as I realize that dangerous working conditions for low wages are everywhere in the developing world (notably in agriculture and mining).
I realize now that the Nicholas Kristof column that inspired our debate, and my post supporting that column, were both insensitive to the horrible working conditions of the workers. What I should have said is that we want to somehow force better conditions, without driving the labor away. The workers need the money, and the countries need that boost to the economy.
But I also want to distance myself from the well-meaning but poorly thought-out proposals, like the ones that make comparisons between wage increases and price increases of the final product. A proposal like this one ignores the fact that the downward pressure on wages isn’t coming from consumers always needing cheaper Banana Republic shirts, but instead from the over supply of labor in the developing world and the need for bigger profit margins by the companies to remain competitive.
The bottom line is that I should not tolerate terrible working conditions. But I think we need to be more creative and think of solutions that keep in mind the serious economic constraints we work under.
If it Moves, Tax it
I got another one of those emails that tries to show that government is too big through a few short and clever jokes. Although I did laugh at them because of the stereotype they are using, I do think that sometimes jokes like that allow people to oversimplify issues and prevent them from thinking through their beliefs.
The big government attacks from fiscal conservatives (besides being hypocritical) are more often aimed at a few specific programs. They aren’t talking about the military, police, or even prisons; instead they are talking more often about social programs like welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and sometimes even education spending.
In my mind though, the size of the government isn’t the issue. What matters is whether or not we want to provide a basic level of support for every person in this country. I never really understand why this is so controversial. If we are to consider ourselves an advanced and humane society, we should be willing, first and foremost, to protect everyone in our society.
The most common response to this is that the government shouldn’t be the one to do this. I will never understand this argument because it rests on the assumption that private and non-profit groups will be able to provide all the resources necessary to care for those in need through the generous donations of private citizens. Somehow I find it hard to believe that the people who aren’t willing to share their money with the government for these purposes will have a change of heart and give what is required.
If everyone agreed that we do need to take care of everyone, the next step is to decide what a basic level of services should be. I feel that this is a productive argument. Is minimum wage enough to live off? When should health care benefits get cut off (right now, there is a disincentive to getting a job because if you are paid a certain amount, you no longer receive Medicaid). How much public assistance is enough to take care of a family? This is where the argument should be.
I have to say before I close that setting a time-limit on welfare is a strange concept to me. I don’t know what the research is yet, but I can’t see how we will stop giving people the money they need for food and shelter because they have been receiving money for more than five years. This was an experiment though that many people wanted to try, so I guess for this we will have to wait and see the effects.
The bottom line though is that I want to see that everyone in this country is taken care of. And towards that end, I don’t care how big or small the government is (which is obviously relative) as long as we can accomplish that much.
The big government attacks from fiscal conservatives (besides being hypocritical) are more often aimed at a few specific programs. They aren’t talking about the military, police, or even prisons; instead they are talking more often about social programs like welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and sometimes even education spending.
In my mind though, the size of the government isn’t the issue. What matters is whether or not we want to provide a basic level of support for every person in this country. I never really understand why this is so controversial. If we are to consider ourselves an advanced and humane society, we should be willing, first and foremost, to protect everyone in our society.
The most common response to this is that the government shouldn’t be the one to do this. I will never understand this argument because it rests on the assumption that private and non-profit groups will be able to provide all the resources necessary to care for those in need through the generous donations of private citizens. Somehow I find it hard to believe that the people who aren’t willing to share their money with the government for these purposes will have a change of heart and give what is required.
If everyone agreed that we do need to take care of everyone, the next step is to decide what a basic level of services should be. I feel that this is a productive argument. Is minimum wage enough to live off? When should health care benefits get cut off (right now, there is a disincentive to getting a job because if you are paid a certain amount, you no longer receive Medicaid). How much public assistance is enough to take care of a family? This is where the argument should be.
I have to say before I close that setting a time-limit on welfare is a strange concept to me. I don’t know what the research is yet, but I can’t see how we will stop giving people the money they need for food and shelter because they have been receiving money for more than five years. This was an experiment though that many people wanted to try, so I guess for this we will have to wait and see the effects.
The bottom line though is that I want to see that everyone in this country is taken care of. And towards that end, I don’t care how big or small the government is (which is obviously relative) as long as we can accomplish that much.
Half-Way Through
I have had to stop in the middle of reading non-fiction books before. I didn’t make it straight through John Adams by David McCullough or His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis. But this time I am stopping for a different reason. It isn’t that I have temporarily lost interest in A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide like I did with the others. This time I have to stop because it is affecting my mood. I find that I can only read the book in small doses because of how enraged it makes me. So I will start again with Rwanda after a short break.
If there was only one thing that I could impart on people after reading through half of this book, it would the following: that there are many options of intervening to prevent genocides that are short of a full-scale ground invasion. Too often our leaders supported doing nothing simply because we were unwilling to perform the most drastic option of a full-scale invasion. During the Holocaust we could have bombed the train lines that were carrying prisoners to the concentration camps. In Iraq, we could have enforced a no-fly zone over the north to protect the Kurds, like we did after the Gulf War. In Rwanda, at the very least we could have jammed the radio signals that were issuing the killing orders. In Bosnia we could have ended the arms embargo against the Muslims in Bosnia and we could have launched air strikes against the encampments that were shelling Sarajevo. And in Darfur, we can also enforce a no-fly zone so that the Janjaweed cannot get air support from the Sudanese military.
But in all of the situations we could have at least spoken out against it, and done so without using confusing language that portrays the situation as a centuries-long civil war between groups that will never get along and trying to make both sides of the conflict equal partners in the atrocities. In all of these situations, we could have demonstrated leadership instead of refusing to act because there wasn’t already a pre-formed consensus to act.
If you are willing, there are other things that are important that I have learned from the book. To my extreme dismay, I found that there are very few lawmakers who are free of guilt in our inaction in the face of genocide. While I knew President Clinton ignored Rwanda, I didn’t realize he also refused to do anything significant in Bosnia. Also, I used to respect Colin Powell because I thought he was the only one in the Bush II administration that was advocating for intervention in Darfur. I based this on his insistence to use the word “Genocide”. I have to admit that I don’t know his actual position on Darfur now, but I do know that he advocated against intervention to protect the Kurds in Iraq before the Gulf War and also against intervening in Bosnia both during the Bush I and Clinton presidencies. I should admit though that I was pleasantly surprised by a number of politicians because of their forceful advocacy for intervention, including Senator Bob Dole.
What has made me particularly upset so far are the quotes from various administration officials in many different presidencies and how they talked around the truth in the same way that Bush II administration officials do over issues like Iraq. For example, Warren Christopher during a number of Congressional testimonies, referred to the situation in Bosnia as “tantamount to genocide.” It angers me so much to watch government officials try as hard as they can to avoid saying what is obvious because of what that entails.
Another thing I have learned is the importance of paying attention to early reports and projections of deaths even though they may lack the level of legitimacy that we seek in other circumstances. In most of these situations, people refused to act, or even pay attention, because they didn’t believe refugee reports or rough estimates of deaths. In retrospect, many of the stories out of Cambodia, Iraq and Bosnia gave a pretty accurate picture of the situation. I also have to recognize that while I tend to discount anecdotal evidence, I cannot let this influence me to ignore something like this in the future.
In the end, the only way this book will be useful is if it encourages action in the next genocide. Although forcing people to feel guilty for their lack of concern over the genocides, that feeling is meaningless if it doesn’t change behavior the next time around. But this is where the book has really changed my outlook and view of politics. I feel so much more cynical now because I get the feeling that we will never actually get involved unless it is in our interest. My resolve has doubled to pay attention to international events and speak out against tolerating these situations, but in the end I do feel like my efforts will be useless. When I tried to talk to my family about genocides, some of them said that we shouldn’t intervene and should take care of our own country first (for the record, two very smart women said we can do both). If I can’t convince my own family that 800,000 dead in Rwanda or two million in Cambodia is completely intolerable, than I am left with no hope that the rest of the world will ever come around.
It is time for another book so that I don’t completely lose faith in humanity and retreat into myself. For those of you who are tired of my moral crusades, rest assured that you will get a brief reprieve.
If there was only one thing that I could impart on people after reading through half of this book, it would the following: that there are many options of intervening to prevent genocides that are short of a full-scale ground invasion. Too often our leaders supported doing nothing simply because we were unwilling to perform the most drastic option of a full-scale invasion. During the Holocaust we could have bombed the train lines that were carrying prisoners to the concentration camps. In Iraq, we could have enforced a no-fly zone over the north to protect the Kurds, like we did after the Gulf War. In Rwanda, at the very least we could have jammed the radio signals that were issuing the killing orders. In Bosnia we could have ended the arms embargo against the Muslims in Bosnia and we could have launched air strikes against the encampments that were shelling Sarajevo. And in Darfur, we can also enforce a no-fly zone so that the Janjaweed cannot get air support from the Sudanese military.
But in all of the situations we could have at least spoken out against it, and done so without using confusing language that portrays the situation as a centuries-long civil war between groups that will never get along and trying to make both sides of the conflict equal partners in the atrocities. In all of these situations, we could have demonstrated leadership instead of refusing to act because there wasn’t already a pre-formed consensus to act.
If you are willing, there are other things that are important that I have learned from the book. To my extreme dismay, I found that there are very few lawmakers who are free of guilt in our inaction in the face of genocide. While I knew President Clinton ignored Rwanda, I didn’t realize he also refused to do anything significant in Bosnia. Also, I used to respect Colin Powell because I thought he was the only one in the Bush II administration that was advocating for intervention in Darfur. I based this on his insistence to use the word “Genocide”. I have to admit that I don’t know his actual position on Darfur now, but I do know that he advocated against intervention to protect the Kurds in Iraq before the Gulf War and also against intervening in Bosnia both during the Bush I and Clinton presidencies. I should admit though that I was pleasantly surprised by a number of politicians because of their forceful advocacy for intervention, including Senator Bob Dole.
What has made me particularly upset so far are the quotes from various administration officials in many different presidencies and how they talked around the truth in the same way that Bush II administration officials do over issues like Iraq. For example, Warren Christopher during a number of Congressional testimonies, referred to the situation in Bosnia as “tantamount to genocide.” It angers me so much to watch government officials try as hard as they can to avoid saying what is obvious because of what that entails.
Another thing I have learned is the importance of paying attention to early reports and projections of deaths even though they may lack the level of legitimacy that we seek in other circumstances. In most of these situations, people refused to act, or even pay attention, because they didn’t believe refugee reports or rough estimates of deaths. In retrospect, many of the stories out of Cambodia, Iraq and Bosnia gave a pretty accurate picture of the situation. I also have to recognize that while I tend to discount anecdotal evidence, I cannot let this influence me to ignore something like this in the future.
In the end, the only way this book will be useful is if it encourages action in the next genocide. Although forcing people to feel guilty for their lack of concern over the genocides, that feeling is meaningless if it doesn’t change behavior the next time around. But this is where the book has really changed my outlook and view of politics. I feel so much more cynical now because I get the feeling that we will never actually get involved unless it is in our interest. My resolve has doubled to pay attention to international events and speak out against tolerating these situations, but in the end I do feel like my efforts will be useless. When I tried to talk to my family about genocides, some of them said that we shouldn’t intervene and should take care of our own country first (for the record, two very smart women said we can do both). If I can’t convince my own family that 800,000 dead in Rwanda or two million in Cambodia is completely intolerable, than I am left with no hope that the rest of the world will ever come around.
It is time for another book so that I don’t completely lose faith in humanity and retreat into myself. For those of you who are tired of my moral crusades, rest assured that you will get a brief reprieve.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Deal with the Devil?
This is an interesting story from Afghanistan. I will be very interested to see if this deal with Taliban works out. The fact that the area is peaceful now allows me some optimism, but I doubt that anything will keep the Taliban from sometime soon fighting for power again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)