Did anyone stay up late last night and watch Rudy's speech at the Convention? No? I missed it, too. That's why I was just listening to it at the NY Times website. It was wonderful and smart and clear. It was a powerful speech because it was so personal. Rudy lived it. He didn't have to be at the Convention speaking. He's not running for anything and no one claims he will be anytime in the near future. He came, I think, to thank the President for his support in those very dark days after 9/11 and to re-affirm that, in his view, this President is the best hope for maintaining national security. You don't have to see it Rudy's way, although I more or less do, but you have to admit it was a powerful speech.

You can find the text and video links here.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 11:04 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems to me that I write so much about Africa that I ought to have it as a category. But it is such a fascinating topic. Zimbabwe is a country of great interest to me and I have written about it's slow motion train wreck of a system of government and civil society at length.

One of the biggest reasons for the decline in Zimbabwe's standard of living and hard currency reserves and general economic malaise is the manner in which the government has handled the redistribution of land held primarily by white farmers before. This land was the source of the main exports -- coffee; flowers; and tobacco. To raise these crops for international markets required a high level of sophisticated technical expertise. The people the government resettled on these farms had no such technical knowledge and, to cut this short, the economy has been devastated with the effects reaching beyond the export to the internal chemical industry (pesticides not needed any longer for farms not growing anything) to the heavy machinery industry (who has money now to buy farm equipment or to have existing equipment serviced?). The effects ripple and are bad.

Kenya is now faced with demands for the redistribution of land which was settled during colonial times and according to treaties of dubious character. Kenya, however, has taken lessons from Zimbabwe and has gone the other direction. According to the article in the NY Times* this morning, the Kenyan government is forcibly resisting the Masai squatting and land invasions. They are arresting and relocating the squatters.

Kenyan officials have no intention of following Mr. Mugabe's example. Uprooting the ranchers, government officials said, would be disastrous for the economy, which relies heavily on Western assistance and on tourism, a major source of hard currency.

On top of that, acceding to the Masai might encourage similar demands by the scores of other ethnic groups in Kenya, many of which have historic grievances of their own, officials added.

The government has adopted a cautious approach to land reform. A new constitution that is being drafted proposes that the long leases granted to some wealthy ranchers, some of which exceed 950 years, be reduced to 99 years. When those leases expire, Mr. Kimunya said, it is possible that the land may be reallocated.

A small round of applause for the cautious Kenyans and their sensible approach. They may yet avoid the calamity that has befallen Zimbabwe.

* Should you go read this article, please ignore the exceptionally stupid whitewash -- "But while President Robert Mugabe backed - and even encouraged - the forced redistribution of land in Zimbabwe as a way of righting colonial wrongs" -- of the land redistribution as Mugabe's one great chance as an historical reformer. Mugabe was trying to hold onto power and he did it through land redistribution. That is the reason, no matter what protestations to the contrary you may see in the press. This kind of off handed treatment of Mugabe just drives me nuts.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 07:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 3 kb.

Eagle eyed readers of this blog may recall that I wrote, last week, about the blockade of Katmandu by the Maoist rebels. That entry garnered no comments so I don't really know if anyone, besides me, is interested in the topic. But, nevertheless, there is a follow up. The rebels have announced that they have lifted the blockade after appeals from humanitarian groups. As you may recall, the capital was running out of food and cooking fuel. The rebels have not, however, moderated their demands for the release of rebels held prisoner by the government.

As I said before, if the rebels hold the rope and can tighten it into a noose around the capital at will, this rebellion might be all but over.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 07:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

In the area of things that I find outrageous is this portion of a job announcement I found from the University of Toronto for a classics professor:

The University of Toronto is strongly committed to diversity within its community. The University especially welcomes applications from visible minority group members, women, Aboriginal persons, persons with disabilities, members of sexual minority groups and others who may contribute to the further diversification of ideas. All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; however, Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority.

I am particularly bothered by, inter alia, the implicit assumption that, ipso facto, a member of a minority group will necessarily "contribute to the further diversification of ideas" (like how I threw all that Latin in there?) just because of their minority status. I am also troubled by the assumption that "further diversification of ideas" is something that should be an end in and of itself, that is to the extent I even understand it. In any event, who is this "other" of whom they speak?

I have no great love or respect for diversity "studies" or "scholarship" (dig the scare quotes).

Here endeth the rant. Please continue with your normal activities while I sit here and mumble to myself.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 05:09 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

My dad just sent me this. I've been sort of trying to stay a little above the fray, but this just totally cracked me up and I wanted to share it here. Enjoy!

John Kerry: Priceless (View image)

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:51 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Thanks for the image! That headshot was perfect for my nefarious usage.

Posted by: Jim at August 19, 2004 11:49 AM (IOwam)

2 Happy to be of service, Jim.

Posted by: rp at August 19, 2004 12:01 PM (LlPKh)

3 Tell your dad thanks-I have a big grin on my face now.

Posted by: Helen at August 19, 2004 01:36 PM (mjc0R)

4 this is me - also staying above the fray.... not smiling... carry on - nothing to see ....

Posted by: kbear at August 19, 2004 01:58 PM (IAJcf)

5 Perfect.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 19, 2004 07:46 PM (JALO3)

6 In case anyone hasn't seen this yet: http://www.jibjab.com/default.asp Heh...I don't like either candidate, so this was right up my alley!

Posted by: Amber at August 19, 2004 07:57 PM (zQE5D)

7 Happy to have amused, y'all.

Posted by: RP at August 20, 2004 05:28 PM (LlPKh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Do any of you keep up with the insurgency in Nepal? It is one of my particular interests. If you don't let me give you a little background. There is a maoist insurgency, patterned after the Shining Path insurgency in Peru, operating in Nepal since the mid 1990's. Their aim, of course, is to bring down the monarchy in Nepal and replace it with a government patterned on the teachings of Mao, probably because that's been such a success everywhere else it has been tried.

The Shining Path is not a good model for anyone to follow, as the Council on Foreign Relations reports:

Shining Path, established in the late 1960s by the former university professor Abimael Guzman, is a militant Maoist group that seeks to install a peasant revolutionary authority in Peru. The group took up arms in 1980, and its ranks once numbered in the thousands. Experts consider it one of the worldÂ’s most ruthless insurgencies; Shining Path often hacked its victims to death with machetes. The group, which now has only several hundred members remaining, operates mainly in jungle areas.

While this conflict in Nepal receives sporadic coverage in the American media, today was an exception. There was an article in the NY Times this morning that made me think that the insurgency in Nepal is, for all intents and purposes, over and the rebels have won. The upshot of the article is that the rebels have called for a blockade of the capital, Katmandu. All traffic has been prohibited from entering the capital. And you know what? The drivers are listening and obeying. The rebels have isolated the capital with a single proclamation. Not one gun or bomb was needed, they are so feared in Nepal.

Immediate consequence:

Planes - which are too expensive for most people in this impoverished nation - and roads are the only way to travel in the Katmandu Valley, and its 1.5 million people depend on trucks to bring in fuel, food and other goods. Many store owners said they would run out of vegetables and other food if the blockade lasted for more than a few days.

Iswor Pokhrel, the minister for industries, commerce and supplies, said the city had a few days' supply of kerosene for cooking. Officials at the Nepal Oil Corporation, the country's sole petroleum distributor, said its supply of fuel for cars and buses would last about two weeks.

See why I think the insurgency is basically over but for the actual handover? The government has lost the ability to provide food and fuel for the capital. The people fear the rebels more than the they trust that the government will be able to protect them. It is starting to look like nothing more than a strong breeze will knock this government over.

Or, since this was reported in the NY Times, it's all bunch of shite. Still, the Times has to get it right sometimes, right?

Posted by: Random Penseur at 08:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 3 kb.

I am not going to be updating this theme on a regular basis because it would never end. But this one, from an article I read at Little Green Footballs, just jumped off the page at me. It was contained in this Yahoo news article about Rep. Lantos who was very critical about the failure of the Egyptian government to shut down the tunnels the Palestinians are using to smuggle weapons in. Here was the bit that got my blood pressure moving:

[Lantos] added: "I am strongly and irrevocably opposed to arming terrorists," referring to Palestinian militant groups.

Holy shit. We now need an explanation of what a terrorist is? A terrorist is not a militant. We don't need the reporter to translate this. It was clear to us all. Or it would have been before this reporter and his colleagues watered down the meaning of the word until no one knows what anyone is talking about any more.

Pardon me, I have go throw up now.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:31 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

I get a decent amount of junk mail at the office. Often, solicitations from publishers who want me to buy expensive treatises. Today's solicitation was, all appearances to the contrary, not a joke. I was offered the opportunity to buy:

Digest of Commercial Laws of the World

NOW WITH NEW COVERAGE OF NORTH KOREA AND IRAN!

They have laws? For international commercial transactions? Really? If I was doing a transaction there, I would be specifying ICC arbitration in Geneva or Paris with a choice of law clause that was somewhere other than Iran or North Korea.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 12:32 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

[Warning: The following was composed primarily between the hours of 2 and 2:30 this morning and I have decided to publish it before I have any coffee.]

No, debasement is tradtionally something you do to currency. In Roman times, if I recall my Roman Law class from law school correctly, to debase currency meant melting a pure metal coin down, adding lead to the melted bit and reminting it in order to make more coins. Lead was a base metal. It had the effect of devaluing the entire currency and causing people to lose confidence in the monetary system. Under Roman Law, I seem to recall it was punishable by death.

Debasement is also something that the clever alchemists at Reuters and the A.P. and other "news agencies" (dig the scare quotes) are doing to the English language. How so? Let's take some examples, one at a time.

Instead of saying terrorist, we hear: rebel; militant; militia; or, my personal favorite, activist.

Terrorist means or meant (all definitions adapted from Dictionary.com): a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.

Rebel means or meant: To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority. To resist or defy an authority or a generally accepted convention.

Militant means or meant: A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin mlitns, mlitant- present participle of mlitre, to serve as a soldier. See militate.]

Militia means or meant:An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Activist means or meant: advocating or engaged in activism, n : a militant reformer.

These words, all perfectly good words with their own distinct meanings, are being debased, being melted down in a large Reuters kettle and, weighted down with lead, being reminted and contorted into the shape of the word terrorist. Soon, if not already, they will be read to be mere synonyms of the word, terrorist. And then our language will be rendered poorer and the readers will, if they have not already, begin to lose confidence in the whole system of reporting "news" (sorry about the scare quotes again, I can't help it). Why? Well, if activist is a word you might normally associate with someone trying to unionize apple pickers and then you start seeing it turn up in connection with a fellow who's activities include, say, firing an AK-47 at a school bus full of children, your view of that activity is warped by your perception of what an activist really does, or did before Reuters got ahold of the word. See it enough times and your brain, which is more sensible, will start to substitute the word terrorist for activist or, maybe, you will start to lose the meaning of the word activist which you had fixed in your brain. Everything just sort of melts down. And eventually, you distrust the messenger just as much as the message and you are not sure what anything means any more in any context.

I won't advocate a death sentence for these terribly earnest editors who, in their haste to avoid making some kind of value judgment about the activities of our hypothetical "activist", as the Romans might have, but I am open to suggestions for an appropriate punishment for those who continue to debase and contort this beautiful language and deprive it of all absolute meaning until everything is relative and not one word means anything until they tell you what they want it to mean.

One final thought, maybe we should just call the terrorists, freedom fighters, since by and large, they are fighting freedom all over the globe.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 07:21 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 634 words, total size 4 kb.

1 these are not the things i think about at 2 am i find it very interesting however, that you do.

Posted by: kbear at August 17, 2004 08:42 AM (IAJcf)

2 I wholeheartedly agree with you, RP. I share your linguistic as well as journalistic/political concerns. On the linguistic front, I have had similar thoughts regarding, for instance, substituting host for hostess (the whole gender-neutral thing is depriving us of an entire category of words!) and impact (as a verb) for affect. Really, I could rant ad nauseum on this topic! Thanks for sharing.

Posted by: GrammarQueen at August 17, 2004 08:49 AM (gDEwS)

3 You're doted with an uncanny power of analysis at two o'clock in the morning. I have a hard time thinking of anything other than the mortgage and car payments, while I toss and turn. Perhaps, in lieu of the death penalty (and as if it were actually up to us!), we could strip the culprits of their press credentials and give them a sound hand-slapping on network TV. That should keep them in line! ;-)

Posted by: Mick at August 17, 2004 09:08 AM (zY+L9)

4 Yup. I find myself writing blogs in my head at 2 am, if I am up. I'm not sure if that makes us dedicated, or very sad

Posted by: Helen at August 17, 2004 10:00 AM (mjc0R)

5 It's very sad. You should wait until 4:00 AM like me. ;-)

Posted by: Jim at August 17, 2004 01:48 PM (IOwam)

6 Well, Helen, Jim, that may explain why we get along so well. GrammarQueen, feel free to spill it out. I'd be curious to read your thoughts on that topic. Kbear and Mick, I just couldn't help myself. I lay there in bed and this post just sort of wrote itself while I couldn't sleep. I think I need a new pillow.

Posted by: RP at August 17, 2004 05:21 PM (LlPKh)

7 What was once called a lie is now called spin.

Posted by: stolypin at August 17, 2004 11:20 PM (RxOy+)

8 Ivan, you should also add the use of the words elections and democracy as applied to places like North Korea.

Posted by: RP at August 18, 2004 08:53 AM (LlPKh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Thanks to Emma, who found it at Ace, for this link to MoveOnPlease.org, an excellent satirical send up of the neo-stalinist, MoveOn, by the bright young things at National Lampoon.

And there was much laughter.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 07:50 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The best part (for me)? The disclaimer. "(Calm down, it's not real.)" Love it, love it, love it! Thanks for the linkage, too.

Posted by: Emma at August 15, 2004 05:28 PM (NOZuy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I came across the following job posting today:

UNITED STATES SENATE EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION ATTORNEY
The Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment (SCCE) is seeking two Employment Law litigators to defend the offices of United States Senators and officers in Title VII, ADEA, ADA and other employment cases. The SCCE is an in-house defense team of lawyers. Unique opportunity to combine employment law and constitutional law and to develop the jurisprudence with respect to the Congressional Accountability Act. Responsibilities also include advising Senate offices of their employment law obligations. Must have experience defending employers against employment discrimination claims, knowledge of Title VII, ADEA, ADA and FMLA. Excellent research and writing skills required. Strong academic credentials required; main law review membership preferred. Fax resume and law school transcript to: 202/228-3603. No telephone inquiries. Equal opportunity employer. Position open until filled.

Can you imagine how hard it would be to defend some of these Senators when they've been accused of, say, sexual harassment?

Posted by: Random Penseur at 05:15 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Regular visitors will have noticed that I am fascinated by Zimbabwe. It is sort of like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You just can't look away. That same elusive creature, the regular reader, might also have noticed that I am also very concerned about the impact of AIDS in the developing nations of the world. Well, today, the NY Times brought both of these topics together in an article about AIDS in Zimbabwe. As is my habit, I extract for you here those bits from the article which caught my attention. But first, a quick review of the thrust of the article.

The article is a snap shot of the effects of bad governance on AIDS. Briefly, people in Zimbabwe are suffering from AIDS at an enormously high rate but international organizations are reluctant to assist Zimbabwe because one, the present government will likely divert or steal the aid money and two, manipulate the aid for political ends. No one trusts the government, no one wants to throw money into that pit of despair.

Here are some of the statistics that stood out:

*In Zimbabwe, where 1.8 million people are H.I.V. positive and 360,000 need life prolonging antiretroviral drugs, virtually the only ones who get them are the 5,000 who can afford them. Relief workers here estimate that fewer than 1,000 Zimbabweans receive antiretroviral drugs free through government or charitable programs, with little hope of expanding that number.

*Zimbabwe, where roughly one in four adults is infected with H.I.V. and more than 2,500 people a week die of AIDS.

*The plight of this nation of more than 11 million people is evident at Harare Central Hospital, where workers say just 23 patients are receiving antiretroviral treatment and no more can be started until next year because of lack on money. It is obvious at the Parirenyatwa city hospital, where, local news reports say, the morgue reeks of bodies of AIDS victims whose relatives cannot afford to bury them. And it can be seen at one seven-year-old cemetery south of Harare, where more than 14,000 people have already been buried just 18 inches apart, and workers say they dig about 25 graves each day.

It is a hell of a situation. The only question left to ask is: when do you think that entire society will disintegrate?

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:02 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 394 words, total size 2 kb.

The right to vote is a central incident of citizenship, that and the right to serve on a jury. There is a movement afoot to grant the right to vote in local elections, but you know it won't stop there, to non-citizens. I could not be more opposed.

The NY Times covered this issue this morning, in a typical NY Times friendly way.

The arguments advanced in support of this position in the article fall into three groups: one, they pay taxes; two, history permitted it; and three, diversity requires it. These arguments are all garbage.

Argument One:

"It will happen,'' said Tamrat Medhin, a civic activist from Ethiopia who lives here. "Don't you believe that if people are working in the community and paying taxes, don't you agree that they deserve the opportunity to vote?''

Calling for "democracy for all," immigrants are increasingly pressing for the right to vote in municipal elections. In Washington, the proposed bill, introduced in July, would allow permanent residents to vote for the mayor and members of the school board and City Council.

Actually, no, I don't believe that. Simply put, I believe that voting is a right best restricted to: those who have agreed to be bound by our shared system of beliefs and interests; to those who have foresworn allegiance to a foreign monarch or state; those who are committed enough to this society that they choose freely to take an oath to defend it and support it and sustain it; and, finally, those who intend to stay here and live out there lives here as fellow citizens. I don't want and don't believe it is in the best interests of our society to have people vote on important issues who might just pack it in and go back to their native Ethiopia, for instance, when it comes to retirement. Are these people who may have no intention of residing here long term going to be able to be counted on to make hard decisions about local bonds and borrowing? Are they going to say, don't matter to me none, I'm not going to be here in 20 years when that bond comes due?

You want a voice, take the oath. Simple as that.

Argument Two:

They also note that the United States has a long history of allowing noncitizens to vote. Twenty-two states and federal territories at various times allowed noncitizens to vote - even as blacks and women were barred from the ballot box - in the 1800's and 1900's.

Concerns about the radicalism of immigrants arriving from southern and Eastern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries led states to restrict such voting rights. By 1928, voting at every level had been restricted to United States citizens. Today, some argue, those rights should be restored to noncitizens.

"They're paying taxes, they're working, they're contributing to our prosperity,'' said Jim Graham, the councilman who introduced the bill here. "And yet they're not able to exercise the franchise. "This is part of our history. A lot of people don't know what the history of this nation is in terms of immigrant voting; they don't understand even that localities can determine this issue. It's a very healthy discussion.''

Jimbo, you ain't reaching far enough back in terms of history to understand the importance of the decision of restricting the franchise to those who vote. Let's reach back a little farther and consider the public debates held during the period when the Constitution was adopted, from 1774 and on.

The debate, as best as I can recall it, centered on the issue of property ownership. One side wanted to restrict the right to vote to those citizens who held a certain amount of property. It was felt that these citizens would likely be less inclined to approve flighty measures and more inclined to support the long term good of society because of their stake in it. The other side disagreed. The other side, obviously, won. However, it took years and at no time was it thought that the right to vote should be extended to those who have no formal stake in society. I will have to go back and re-read some of the debates, it's been 20 years since I looked at this, but they were fascinating.

If you go back far enough, it was clear that the right to vote was meant to be given only to citizens.

Moreover, let's consider, at least anecdotally, the change in character of immigrants. Immigrants who came to this country in the period Jimbo is talking about came to stay, to make new lives in a better place. They were not going back. First, travel was difficult and expensive. Second, the places they left were not very free or nice. All that has changed. My impression, and I don't have the time to do any research to back this up, is that the character of immigration has changed from those looking to make a life long change to those looking to stay for several years and then return, richer, to their countries of origin to retire, aided by greater ease of travel, among other things. So, why would it be desirable to give these economic, short-term immigrants the right to vote? I could see how a long time immigrant might have the stake in society we would want to see, but a short termer who may lack the long term horizon and point of view? This is not your grandfather's immigrant.

In my view, history does not provide the justification they are looking for.

Argument Three:

"A lot of communities are not represented by representatives who reflect the diversity in their communities and are responsive to their needs,'' said Ron Hayduk, a professor of political science at the Borough of Manhattan Community College and an advocate for immigrant voting rights. "It raises basic fundamental questions about democracy.''

Ron, you are wrong on so many levels. First, diversity is not a constitutionally enshrined right. It is not a requirement that a representative "reflect the diversity" of his or her constituents. It is asinine to suggest that it is a requirement. You want a voice in the selection of your representative? Take the oath. Otherwise, assume that your representative will represent your community's concerns as a whole. If not, form a lobbying group or a neighborhood association and go to the representative. Tocqueville stresses this as one of the great strengths of American democracy. Second, Ron, we have a republic and not a direct democracy. The difference is that in a republic we are one step removed from the legislative process by way of legislators who we elect as opposed to all citizens directly voting on every law. Third, basic and fundamental are kind of the same thing. Just cause you say it twice, doesn't make it so.

The right to vote is a precious thing. It is a bright-line test, too. Are you a citizen? Were you born a citizen or did you take the oath? If not, no vote. Can you imagine the administrative nightmare it will be to figure out who among the non-citizens should be permitted to register to vote? I shudder at the thought. No, this whole proposal is misguided.

You want to vote? Join me in my citizenship, there's plenty of room.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:58 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1231 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Hmmmm...I think we disagree here, dearie. When I lived in Sweden, as a tax-paying resident, I was allowed to vote. Not in their massive national elections, but in the usual community type things. Raise taxes to pay for a bridge? Pay a toll? Vote for the Euro? And the thing is, I wasn't a Swedish citizen, but as a Swedish resident, with a home and a job and a vested interest, I voted for what I felt was best for Sweden. I wasn't trying to sabotage the government or trash the culture, and I imagine most who would vote aren't interested in it-they have a vested interest, too. Getting citizenship and taking an oath-in any country-isn't easy. It requires years of residence. Proof of income. Proof of being a "normal citizen" (pay your utilities. Speak the language. I voted in Swedish for Swedish issues. Nothing wrong with that). I think it's the same for the U.S. People live in an area, pay their taxes, maybe want to be a citizen but can't and yet they have a voice. By allowing people to vote, you are showing that you respect their opinion and are aware that they too want what's best for the country. It takes a lot to vote-even for the citizens!-so someone that WANTS to vote clearly has interest, likely has read up, and wants to support their new country. Exclude them from the presidential election, if need be, but by all means, local elections affect them too. Let their voice be heard. I did, when I voted to support the best for Sweden and the Swedes. Let's trust others.

Posted by: Helen at August 09, 2004 10:13 AM (R4iEo)

2 Well, that's ok if we disagree. That's healthy and I never started this blog to only attract people to agree with me. But, the thing is, it isn't about trusting others. It's about a privilege that others have died for, both to obtain and to defend. It's about the "other", as you put it, taking an affirmative step in our direction to join our community. To become part of us. As I said, there's plenty of room, but not for transients. Finally, I don't know how relevant your Swedish experience is. Sweden is part of the EU which has been moving Europe generally in the direction of making national voting less relevant as, one, more of the important decisions are taken in Brussels or Strasbourg, and two, the freedom of movement of people allows for transnational voting of some kind or another. We don't have that to the same extent. There are so many differences that it becomes harder to compare the two systems. As always, I appreciate your thoughtful comments, Helen, even where we disagree.

Posted by: RP at August 09, 2004 10:31 AM (LlPKh)

3 Ah, but you can't define a transient, can you? I never planned on being one-I planned on living there indefinitely, on being a citizen, on remaining there ad infinitum. It was only that life threw a monkey wrench in my works, so I couldn't get that chance. I can agree that national elections should be sacred, and for the citizens. But I still maintain that local elections should serve the people that the constituency is comprised of, for the good of the community. I too respect that people died for the right to vote in my country-but it was over 250 years ago, and oddly all of my family came along to the U.S. a long time after that. You know I love ya' anyway. You're my big blog brother, after all. I have to

Posted by: Helen at August 09, 2004 11:07 AM (R4iEo)

4 Actually, when I was talking about people dying I was not thinking of 250 years ago. I was thinking of the most powerful oral argument I ever heard. It was about 10 years ago, in the Second Circuit appellate court from a pro se litigant on an appeal from a voter registration requirement from the State of Connecticut. The litigant argued the case himself. He told the panel, by way of introduction, that when he was in the US Army, he came off the line after fighting in the Battle of the Bulge to discover that his absentee ballot was lost and he would not be able to vote in that election. He said that he stood there, cold and tired, and he vowed that he would never let anyone abridge his right to vote again. You could have heard a pin drop in the courtroom. That is what I'm talking about by people defending my right as a citizen to vote. As for local elections, I'm still opposed. There are issues of critical importance, sometimes even national implications, that are decided. It has been said that all politics are local in the US. And you know I love you.

Posted by: RP at August 09, 2004 11:18 AM (LlPKh)

5 It's an interesting argument, I must admit. I can see both sides of the coin. I knew several mexicans in California who crossed the border to the US every year, worked for six months and then returned to Mexico to collect unemployment. They milked the system for all its worth. But I've also known many hard working individuals who contribute vastly to the well being of their communities, and they can't seem to get approved for citizenship. Their only mistake is not having been born here. I would have to give such a measure some serious thought before choosing sides.

Posted by: Mick at August 09, 2004 12:45 PM (VhRca)

6 Actually, Mexicans present an interesting challenge. As you may know, their government has permitted them, recently, to retain their Mexican citizenship if they become US citizens and is encouraging them to take dual nationality. I think that the aim is clear -- to be able to influence US domestic politics. And I can't blame them in the slightest, no matter how much I might resent the intrustion into our system.

Posted by: rp at August 09, 2004 01:41 PM (LlPKh)

7 I fundamentally agree with you, RP, but I also feel that Helen's point about permanent residents' being able to vote in local/community elections is reasonable and fair. The problem it creates, of course, is a slippery slope: where do you draw the line between local and national elections? Should one really not "do the right thing" because of possible slippery-slope'iness?

Posted by: GrammarQueen at August 09, 2004 04:35 PM (gDEwS)

8 I have to agree with Mick and Helen. Though the decision is not be taken lightly, it is one the merits serious consideration. How many citizens have taken an oath to defend, support and sustain the U.S.? While it's true there are those immigrants that work for a few months and then leave, there are many, many more who come to the U.S. to stay. They come to work, have children and stay to live out their lives working and living in the U.S. And really, how many of the citizens that can vote don't? Why not let those who have a vested interest and the will to vote, vote? Sure, you don't want non-citizens voting on who a Senator or President should be, but I strongly believe they have a right to be able to say who is going to protect or lead or plan out their future livelihood. I also think that the fastest growing group in the military are the children of immigrants, many of whom are still trying to become legal residents.

Posted by: Jester at August 09, 2004 10:45 PM (yS8Mo)

9 As much as I see your point, I have to delurk to say I agree with Mick and Helen. I'm thinking specifically of school elections. Parents who pay school taxes ought to have a voice in school budget and school board elections. The children, who may be citizens, after all, should have their interests represented.

Posted by: Terri at August 10, 2004 04:54 AM (SIz+V)

10 First off... you keep saying "take the oath" but I don't think it's that simple. I have the idea that it is fairly difficult to get American citizenship as well as the fact that some people don't want to give up their original nationality. For example, I'm not allowed to vote in any elections here, local or national. But I do follow the politics to a certain point, because I'm sort of active in student rights and such. To be able to vote, I'd have to give up my American passport and get a Dutch one... I have to find a way to get a dual nationality! Anyway... you make such a cut and clear case of this - I think there are more issues than you've named, like the one that I named above. On the other hand, I agree with you that residents shouldn't vote, only citizens. It makes sense...

Posted by: Hannah at August 12, 2004 01:58 AM (MMJNM)

11 It's a difficult issue, I agree.

Posted by: RP at August 13, 2004 04:46 PM (LlPKh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I think about AIDS a lot. I have no personal connection to this disease. I know no one who has it or has died from it, to the best of my knowledge. So, that's not why I care. No, generally, I am concerned about the impact AIDS has on developing societies. I am fascinated by how this modern day plague is devastating the African Continent, how social norms appear to be in the process of being rewritten as a result, how prevention and treatment are advanced and thwarted, how Asia is responding in general and China in particular, and how this might effect the world beyond the borders of those countries and continents most particularly affected. Whole generations are being more than decimated and the impact of such a reordering of population norms may not be felt for years.

However, I never really thought much about the impact on US society in the same way, since it seems like the US has AIDS under much better control. I guess I was wrong, at least with respect to the black community here. And, if it concerns such an important segment of our society as a whole, it ought to concern everyone.

The NY Times today had an article on the spread of AIDS in the black community in small, Southern cities: Links Between Prison and AIDS Affecting Blacks Inside and Out. Again, as is my wont, I'll extract some of the statistics that caused my mouth to drop open on the train today:

*Blacks now account for more than half of all new H.I.V. infections, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Black women account for 72 percent of all new cases among women. During the decades that the AIDS epidemic has spread, the number of people incarcerated has also soared, to nearly 2.1 million, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Of that total, more than 40 percent are black.

*In North Carolina, African-Americans make up more than 70 percent of all existing H.I.V. and AIDS cases, and about 60 percent of the state's roughly 35,000 prisoners.

*The prevalence of confirmed AIDS cases in prisons is three times as high as it is in the general population, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. H.I.V. cases are harder to count, because only 19 states conduct mandatory H.I.V. testing of inmates. But many researchers believe the number of prisoners with H.I.V. to be far higher than the 1.9 percent most recently documented by the justice agency.

I'll put the rest of my observations below in the extended entry section. more...

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:36 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1166 words, total size 7 kb.