November 30, 2004
AIDS and Africa, again
I have written on AIDS and Africa, before, and discussed the horrifying impact of this syndrome on that continent. But, there were a couple of articles this weekend in the NY Times that brought it all back again. A team of reporters spent 5 weeks in Lavumisa, Swaziland, a small town in South Africa. They interviewed scores of residents. The reporters also recorded their observations. The
story is hard to put down. But, primarily, it is a newspaper article. This means it has heart rending human suffering details with hard facts about the impact on the society. I am interested in the facts, here, although I read the human suffering details in the article and found them quite moving. No, my interest is primarily in the huge dislocative effects on society writ large. The disease is destroying society and in Africa and turning the clock back on decades of social and economic progress. As the article asks:
Epidemics typically single out the aged and young - the weak, not those at society's core. So what happens to a society when its fulcrum - its mothers and fathers, teachers, nurses, farm workers, bookkeepers, cooks, clerks - die in their prime?
No one will be able to forecast with any great degree of certainty how this will play out, but we can extract some nuggets from the article just the same, which I do in the extended entry:
more...
Posted by: Random Penseur at
08:40 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1796 words, total size 11 kb.
1
This is almost too hard to fathom. If you have a virtual certainty of dying from screwing around, isn't that enough incentive to stop screwing around? I can't understand the mindset of people who continue on such a course of self destruction.
Posted by: Jim at November 30, 2004 04:25 PM (tyQ8y)
2
No matter how often you post on Africa, I still find it worth reading...so keep at it.
Posted by: Jester at November 30, 2004 09:52 PM (yS8Mo)
3
Thanks for this article extract. I understand your angryness about the bold part you highlighted in the end, although, I don't share it. I think you make the hidden assumption that societies' norms and values, hence, culture, down there is similar to the one we enjoy (freedom of choice, free self-expression and so on).
It's the culture down there that favors the spread of AIDS. It's a sexual disease and people are reluctant to talk about it. Look at the "nipplegate" scandal one year ago and you see that even in very "advanced" economies and societies, some topics are taboo.
Posted by: Johann at March 14, 2005 11:57 PM (FtWuc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 29, 2004
Ukraine
The place to go to follow the election crisis in Ukraine is to King's blog:
SCSU Scholars. King worked in Ukraine and brings a terrific focus to the crisis. Very good stuff, indeed.
Posted by: Random Penseur at
10:31 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.
Zimbabwe: New Oppressive Measures
I never lack for material on Zimbabwe. I know it may not be a matter of great interest to many of my visitors (I can tell by the lack of comments), but it is of great interest to me. Mugabe, the dictator-in-chief of Zimbabwe, has introduced new legislation to curb critics by providing for jail time of up to 20 years if you "publish or communicate a falsehood".
The latest law, which comes among a rush of new Bills, ahead of elections next March, makes it an offence to publish or communicate "to any other person a statement which is wholly or materially false with the intention of realising that there is a real risk of inciting or promoting public disorder or public violence or endangering public safety or, adversely affecting the defence and economic interests of Zimbabwe: or undermining public confidence in a law enforcement agency, the Prison Service or the Defence Forces of Zimbabwe; or interfering with, disrupting or interrupting any essential service," that person "shall be guilty of publishing or communicating a false statement prejudicial to the State and liable to a fine up to or exceeding level 14 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 20 years or both."
Critics have condemned the slack phrasing of the bill. "The question of what is a falsehood will depend on which judge hears the case," said Beatrice Mtetwa, a human rights lawyer.
Mr Coltart said one clause in the new bill also makes it an offence for any citizen, either in Zimbabwe or outside the country to make an "abusive, indecent or obscene statement" about President Robert Mugabe, "even if it is a true statement", he said.
Let's be clear about how bad this law is.
David Coltart, legal secretary of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, said: "The section relating to crimes against the state in this bill embodies the most fascist legislation this country has known, far worse than the most draconian laws passed by the Smith regime. The sentence of up to 20 years amounts to a death sentence in Zimbabwe's prisons."
Source
I assume that stories like this, about children forced into prostitution, will be called "falsehoods". Put the situation into context:
Food shortages in Bulawayo have claimed the lives of more than 160 people in the past year, according to Japhet Ndabeni-Ncube, the city's mayor and a member of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change.
Although the government announced a "record harvest" in May and ordered the World Food Programme to stop distributing aid, a Zimbabwe parliamentary committee gave warning this month that the country would run out of food before April.
Mr Mugabe's seizures of white-owned farms have led to the collapse of a once-thriving agricultural economy. Zimbabwe used to be able to export food to drought-stricken neighbours in southern Africa. Now, the plight of its people is worsened by the spread of Aids - at least one in three of Zimbabwe's population is HIV positive. Despite the terrible risks, Linguile and hundreds of other girls who sell their bodies are prepared to have unprotected sex to make more money.
Posted by: Random Penseur at
09:35 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 526 words, total size 3 kb.
1
One of the things I really like about your blog, RP, is that you always provide me with something to be outraged about. Since I don't often have time to read the paper, I miss out on a lot of these terrible developments. So thanks for keeping me informed on a small portion of the disasters & mishaps that occur in our world!
Posted by: GrammarQueen at November 30, 2004 01:34 PM (gDEwS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 17, 2004
Zimbabwe, yet again
I know that most of the world is uncaring about Zimbabwe. It is certainly not a hot topic among the blogs. However, and knowing even that it will not particularly draw a lot of comments, I feel compelled by my sense of outrage to write about
recent events in Zimbabwe where Mugabe has suspended the country's constitution.
Mugabe is tightening his grip on this poor country. He has "suspended Zimbabwe's constitution to drive a batch of repressive new laws through parliament".
The key provisions will ban any foreign funded human rights organizations from operating in the country, will prohibit any foreign-funded organisation from providing any kind of voter education (cause it is easier to repress people if they are kept stupid), will create a "Zimbabwe Electoral Commission", composed of 5 commissionsers all appointed by Mugabe, to run elections, and, for the first time, members of the Zimbabwe National Army, the police and prison services will be permitted to serve as election officials.
This is a recipe for disaster and for further consolidation of power. I feel quite bad for the people of Zimbabwe.
Posted by: Random Penseur at
12:09 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.
October 29, 2004
Why Universities Scare Me
This
article at Front Page Mag. details the adventures of a journalist who infiltrated the "no press allowed" workshop sessions at the recent Duke University sponsored hate fest known as the Palestinian Solidarity Movement and smuggled in a tape recorder. Go and read it. It is, well, horrifying. It is also very long and very detailed.
Posted by: Random Penseur at
09:56 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I read a fair amount of it -- it's long -- and it is somewhat disturbing. It's worth pointing out, though, that there's nothing new to US academic elites supporting wacky and self-destructive agendas -- look at the support received by Alger Hiss, for instance, or the appeal that various forms of "fellow traveling" in the 1930s had for upper and upper-middle class WASPs. I'm not especially pleased to see the Presbyterians involved, either, but the "respectable Protestant" wing, Presbyterians, Methodists, and UCC haven't had a whole lot to bring people in to church for many years, so it's not surprising that they go off the deep end. That will continue. The more encouraging news, it seems to me, is that the populist-Jacksonian tradition has been moving over to the Republican side and is communicating its impatience with well-bred crazies. I have a feeling the upcoming election may reflect this more than people expect.
Posted by: John Bruce at October 29, 2004 03:48 PM (Orixf)
2
Gee, John, I have you are right about a, let's call it, a backlash of common sense. I am spectical but hopeful. This article really disturbed me.
Posted by: RP at October 30, 2004 12:26 PM (LlPKh)
3
I scanned the article and was disturbed by its content. Nonetheless, thanks for posting it. I was surprised that the dept. of Homeland Security wasn't beating down the doors.
Posted by: Azalea at October 30, 2004 04:47 PM (hRxUm)
4
Add that to what's going on in Columbia U. and, well in the schools across the nation. I really was upset by the going into inner-city schools. Is this currently happening or is it a project for the future? I was confused on the issue, or maybe simply hoping it hasn't occured yet. Where are the principals?
I'm sending the URL to a list I'm on. I hope people wake up and quickly.
Posted by: Rachel Ann at October 31, 2004 03:40 PM (aD0/j)
5
I had to link. I couldn't not. Good work.
Posted by: Rachel Ann at October 31, 2004 03:57 PM (aD0/j)
6
These
remarks by Teresa H. Kerry's son Chris on the campaign trail have been noted on Instapundit and elsewhere, including reference to implicit anti-Semitism -- when Heinz gets done calling W a cokehead, he outlines his problems with W treating "Israel as the 51st state". I think Heinz normally lives in Sweden, by the way, and is slumming to tell the rest of us how to vote. I would not underestimate the level of snobbiness and anti-Semitism among the university "elites", but again, I think there have always been countervailing forces against it.
Posted by: John Bruce at October 31, 2004 04:17 PM (/3UoZ)
Posted by: Simon at November 01, 2004 04:02 AM (FUPxT)
8
John, I saw the Heinz remarks. For a long time now, I have believed that there is no place for a Jew in the Democratic Party. I keep looking for those countervailing forces and I am not cheered.
Thanks for the link, Rachel Anne.
Simon, I gather you must have read it. It is quite scary stuff, I think.
Posted by: RP at November 01, 2004 08:43 AM (LlPKh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 07, 2004
Spain and Columbus Day
The Spaniards have disinvited the United States to their Columbus Day celebration, according to the guys at
Diplomad, in favor instead of inviting French troops to take part. Their take on it was pretty damn funny.
Posted by: Random Penseur at
09:51 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.
Uganda -- pity the children
I write, from time to time, about Africa. Indeed, I ought to give it its very own category, I suppose. From a safe distance removed, it is impossible not to find Africa compelling and fascinating, scary and sad.
The NY Times has written this morning about Uganda and the boy king. This is a far from gripping article about the 12 year old boy who sits the throne in Uganda. His name is King Oyo. It is a typical puff piece about young royalty thrust onto the throne at 3 1/2 and how he wishes he could be just like every other normal kid. He runs with his dogs and goes to school and his mother tries to resist the attempts of Parliament to remove him as king. *Yawn* The piece does note that Uganda is very poor but after we make our expected obesiance to that inconvenient fact, we move on the the leopard covered chairs and the business class plane trips.
Now, if you are the typical American reader (whatever that means) you will have turned the page in your NY Times, secure in the fact that Uganda, while poor, is a happy place where everyone loves their boy king. You can now turn your attention to the more interesting sports section.
But wait a second. What if you happened to read the NY Sun last night on the train home? Maybe you'd have a different take on Uganda. Maybe you'd be forced to ask yourself if the NY Times has even the barest beginnings of a glimmer of a clue about Uganda.
Uganda is a basket case. The Sun reproduced an article from the Telegraph, entitled, Broken Lives of the Twlight Children. Don't follow this link unless you need a good cry, ok? This is seriously horrible stuff.
Uganda's children are not all playing with dogs and running around with leopard skins. Some of them, over 20,000 children, have been kidnapped, tortured, raped, and forced to become soldiers in the "Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), Africa's most brutal rebel group led by a self-styled prophet called Joseph Kony." Here is some information about the LRA.
Since the onset of his campaign 18 years ago, the LRA has kidnapped 20,000 children, brainwashing and enslaving them for use as soldiers and sexual playthings. More than 10,000 have disappeared in the last two years.
Kony targets children, devoting his messianic energies towards the abduction, indoctrination and often murder of as many as possible.
The catastrophe inflicted is almost without parallel. At least 1.6 million people - virtually the entire rural population - have fled their villages for squalid refugee camps. The number of refugees has trebled since 2002 and exceeds the 1.2 million in Sudan's war-torn Darfur.
The conflict has being going on for 18 years. Where is the much vaunted United Nations in this? More people have been displaced here than in Darfur, which is getting a lot of press and attention. The UN is nowhere, instead suggesting that other NGO's do a little more.
[T]he UN has passed five resolutions in as many years on the protection of children in armed conflicts, including specific calls for action in Uganda, but the rate of abductions is higher than ever. "While the extreme abuses of children in northern Uganda are well documented and widely known, the international community has failed to find an effective way to protect them," it adds.
It says the 18-year conflict has cost the country £725 million. More than 20,000 children have been abducted by the LRA, made to kill their parents and forced into bondage as child soldiers, sex slaves and weapons porters.
Two million people are living in squalid and cramped camps for the homeless and malnutrition among displaced children is up to 21 per cent in some areas. "Many international appeals were made to the UN and world leaders, Ugandan children addressed the UN. "Each time their stories shocked audiences, each time they went home with hope. Their hopes turned to despair," the report says.
Denis McNamara, the UN special adviser on displacement, rejected charges that the UN has offered "too little, too late" suggesting instead that groups such as World Vision should increase their own staff in the countryside.
Once again, the UN rides to the rescue. By the way, I've left out a lot of the gruesome details, like about the boy who was forced to kill his own family by setting fire to their hut. It pains me to even write that last sentence. Go see for yourself, if you can.
The article in the Telegraph starts by telling you about a child named Simple who walks six miles into town to sleep on the concrete outside by the hospital to avoid being taken by Kony's army. The little girl is 12 years old. Can you imagine what it must be like to have to send your child out of your house for her own protection? And then not know if she was safe until she came back the next day?
And King Oyo wants to be just like a normal kid. He doesn't mean the kids who have to sneak into town to sleep, does he?
Posted by: Random Penseur at
09:42 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 876 words, total size 5 kb.
1
It's awful, Random. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!
Posted by: Mick at October 08, 2004 10:04 AM (VhRca)
2
How many times has the media been writing about the atrocities in Northern Uganda?? This issue has been in the media for a long time. Not much is being done to help the people there. Why is the positive news in Africa considered boring? News about Africa doesnt have to be negative. The `begging bowl´images of children are hardly representative of life there. No wonder people in the west still ask Afircans questions like,`Oh...you live in real house! I always thought people in Africa live in huts and wear loin cloths!!!
Posted by: Anna at June 27, 2005 04:42 AM (Ya8G3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 06, 2004
The Debates: V.P. Edition
Well, I am keeping with my practice of giving my views on this before looking at any newspaper or other blog. My view is that Cheney won last night and I'm not sure that it was particularly close. Remember, if I'm changing presidents in the middle of a war, I need a good reason. Edwards did not give me a good reason last night, although I really liked what he had to say about Israel. To my surprise, I thought Cheney was a stronger supporter of gay marriage than Edwards was. Cheney seemed to have a better handle on the facts and figures and if he was wrong, well, he at least sounded confident and in command. Who would I like to see one heart beat away from the oval office? Last night, it would have to be Cheney.
By the way, I am going to go check out the factcheck.org or .com site he spoke about in relation to Haliburton.
Advantage: Cheney.
Posted by: Random Penseur at
07:45 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: standing naked at October 06, 2004 10:03 AM (IAJcf)
2
It's factcheck.org. He gave it as .com but that's wrong. In fact, Soros snagged the .com and has it forwarding to an anti-Bush site.
Posted by: Jim at October 06, 2004 11:25 AM (GCA5m)
3
Edwards shocked me with his stance on Gay marriage. But that wasn't a prime issue to me....
I thought they both did well in the debate. I thought it was a tie, with Edwards sounding exuberant and lively, appealing to the ones who want change and Cheney showing great control, doing his Roosevelt, elderly statesman best, appealing to those who want status-quo.
You say "one-heartbeat" away? I say, he should BE the heartbeat, rather than Bush. Cheney appears much more in command, much more authoritative than Bush does. He always has.
Whenever I look at a Presidential candidate, I ask myself, if I were on the battleground, preparing to charge a hill, bearing my rifle, scared to death, which man would I want to throw his arm up and say, "C'mon, troops, follow me!" Who would I believe had the best ability to get me and my comrades out alive?
I have to say, out of the four men I've seen so far, Bush would be my last choice. He does not inspire me. I worry about him. I don't worry about the others so much. I must be missing something the rest of you see in him, because so many seem to have that kind of faith in him and I just...don't. *shrugs*
Posted by: Amber at October 06, 2004 12:15 PM (zQE5D)
Posted by: Jocosa at December 21, 2004 05:19 PM (qw2qh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 05, 2004
Australian Politics
Before I got involved with blogging -- both reading and writing -- I knew next to nothing about Australian politics. Now I am just slightly farther along on the continuim after reading people like
Yobbo,
Simon,
Michael, and
Chrenkoff. First of all, what the hell do they feed these people in Australia in order to produce such articulate political commentators? Where can I get some of that and it better not be
Vegemite?
Now, you may think to yourself, "Self, why should I care?" You should care because Australia is a critical ally and partner in Iraq and in the WoT (War on Terror) generally. It is headed, at the moment, by John Howard and he is in quite a fight with Mark Latham, head of the Labour Party. I'd turn here for more of an explanation: Decision Time, an excellent piece.
I admit that I am finding the Australian campaigns to be much more interesting, or at least more entertaining, than the American one. The reason? We're not getting quotes like this one in our campaign (Mark Latham on John Howard):
Mr Howard and his government are just yes-men to the United States. There they are, a conga line of suckholes on the conservative side of Australian politics. The backbench sucks up to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister sucks up to George W. [...] In my book they are not Australian at all. They are just the little tories—the little tory suckholes.
I am not informed enough to have an opinion, unlike the blogger I took the above quote from, but I must admit I wish we had a more colorful campaign going on over here.
Posted by: Random Penseur at
12:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.
October 01, 2004
Ghurkas: An Update
I saw this
misleading little blurb, buried in the middle of the NY Times this morning and wanted to highlight it:
BRITAIN: GURKHAS GAIN CITIZENSHIP Gurkhas, who have served with the British Army for nearly 200 years, won a court battle to settle in Britain and become citizens. The soldiers, recruited in Nepal, are continuing to demand equality in pay and conditions with their British Army counterparts. The right to settle in Britain is restricted to those who left the army after July 1, 1997, when the Gurkhas were rebased from Hong Kong to Britain. The Home Office estimates 230 soldiers and about 800 dependants will settle in Britain each year. Gurkhas have served in the army since 1815 when a peace agreement was reached by the British East India Company after it suffered heavy casualties during an invasion of Nepal. From a peak of 112,000 in World War II, their numbers have dwindled to about 3,400.
Why is it misleading? Because the Ghurkas who served in Hong Kong, while they may be permitted to settle in Great Britain, are excluded from citizenship (link has lots of pop ups so I reproduce relevant bits below).
Former Nepalese-born Gurkha soldiers who helped defend Hong Kong under British rule are fuming at London's decision to exclude them from a new law giving the crack fighters British citizenship, a spokesman said Thursday.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday that serving and retired fighters of the army's famous Ghurka Brigade would be allowed to settle in Britain.
But the law applies only to those demobilised after July 1, 1997, the day Britain disbanded its Hong Kong regiment and returned the city to Chinese control.
"The law has been stacked against Hong Kong's Gurkhas, they have been deliberately left out," said Hem Thapa, an agent at Gurkha International, an employment agency that finds work for former Gurkhas who still live here.
"Those who went back to Nepal will definitely be making some noise about this -- many were definitely counting on Britain offering them citizenship."
Why can't the Brits treat these men properly?
UPDATE: Predictably, and I should have looked before posting the above, Simon has a great post on this subject.
Posted by: Random Penseur at
07:28 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 2 kb.
1
It is an absolute disgrace and just makes Great Britain look not so Great.
Posted by: Simon at October 03, 2004 11:46 AM (FdZCB)
2
It is anabsoultley unfair.
Posted by: Gyan Rai at January 31, 2005 01:57 AM (i959t)
3
These great soldiers are more British than the British. I served with the 48 Ghurka Infantry Brigade (56 Field Sqn Royal Engineers) in Hong Kong in the 50's and am in agreement that these fine soldiers should be given British Citizenship.
Posted by: Bill Purcell at November 08, 2005 03:31 PM (Icrem)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Debates
I stayed up past my bedtime last night with my wife to watch the debate. I was not impressed overly much although, on the whole, I liked Bush better. I am keeping in open mind, despite the oft quoted danger of having my brain fall out, but I know that I am going to need a reason to change presidents in the middle of a war and I was anxious for John Kerry to give me that reason. He didn't. You see, I'm still not really sure what he stands for. I know what he's against -- Bush. But what is he for? Lehrer asked him several times to give specifics about how he would handle things differently from Bush. I actually moved physically to the edge of my seat when he was asked this question because I didn't want to miss a single word. I sat back disappointed when he concluded his answer. There was no substance to the reply, it was just another attack on Bush. Kerry referred us to his website for the "details". Go see it yourself. I did, last night. I looked up the homeland security platform and walked away with no greater understanding than I had after the debate. Basically, it says on the website that they'll identify sensitive targets and do a better job guarding them. That doesn't make me feel safer.
Advantage last night: Bush.
Posted by: Random Penseur at
07:20 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 1 kb.
1
i checked out Kerry's website too.
felt the same way.
been reading all kinds of stuff since the debate.
mmm...going to be a tough one i think.
Posted by: standing naked at October 02, 2004 08:24 AM (IAJcf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 30, 2004
A thought about the debates tonight
I am seriously looking forward to the Presidential debates tonight if, for no other reason, than because I am finally going to get to see the candidates square off against each other with no help from spin squads, partisan p.r. flacks, and web hit-men. No intermediaries to explain the positions. I am hoping for pure, unadulterated content straight from the horse's mouth. I want a hard hitting, no punches pulled debate. I do not want mealy mouthed equivocation or cheap shots. I want to know what each candidate's position is with no filter in place.
I am bound to be disappointed but a boy can dream, can't he?
Posted by: Random Penseur at
09:13 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Hey RP, my Granny used to say dream big in case it comes true. You very well may be surprised. Or at least entertained.
Posted by: Wicked H at September 30, 2004 11:07 AM (iqFar)
2
I agree wholeheartedly, I may even watch part of it for the pure entertainment factor. I want to see if either side can stand on their own 2 feet without guys coming in slipping them cheat sheets. For GWB I can imagine something like this "Pakistan - Pak ih stan" "Iraq - ih rack".
I heard a good quote from Bill Clinton the other day on PBS, it went something like this: "Debates show people and yourself what you truly believe in. If you are just acting, and don't believe in what you say, you have to be a really good actor to keep in character for a whole debate" (I'm paraphrasing immensely because I can't find the quote and I didn't write it down at the time).
It should be a good show, I'll bring the popcorn.
Posted by: Oorgo at September 30, 2004 11:39 AM (lM0qs)
3
I don't know if I have much hopes for these particular debates; they are so very controlled. Bush got his way in several things, including apparently temp control Apparently Kerry is not extrememly heat tolerant and sweats when the temp rises over 79 F or something like that. Bush also asked that he not be put to close to Kerry as Kerry towers over him.
Nitpicking and silly stuff and from what I am hearing the debates are tightly controlled.
Posted by: Rachel Ann at September 30, 2004 01:39 PM (0Haxf)
4
R.P., because even grown boys can cry with discouragement and disappointment, I wanted to let you know that politicians have a talent for speaking in such an oblique way that no concrete interpretations can be extracted from the words.
I'll be watching the debate too. And I'm strongly considering setting my sound to MUTE as in this way, I might find out more about the real person under the political masks. (just kidding, of course).
Posted by: Roberta at September 30, 2004 02:57 PM (nqIQK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 22, 2004
Coerced to Vote
Can you be coerced to vote? Should voting be a requirement for an
English Lit. class? One professor
seems to think so over at Drew University in New Jersey. Appalled by the low voter turnout among college students, Prof. Skaggs has made it a course requirement that her students enter the voting booth. Of course, once they go in they don't have to vote and non-U.S. citizens are exempt from the requirement. This requirement has provoked, according to the article, a lot of controversy. Care to guess where I come out?
Not in favor. I believe it is contrary to our system of government to require a vote. It is clear that sometimes a decision not to vote is a protest and is as much an expression of free speech as a decision to vote. In other words, we have the option of abstaining if we don't like either candidate and we want to send a message that a candidate may win, but that candidate lacks the popular mandate necessary to bend Congress to his or her will. That can be a powerful and important message and you send it by staying home from the polls. I think that this professor, will coming from crunchy good motives, lacks an appreciation of this aspect of our system.
What do you think?
Posted by: Random Penseur at
08:00 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I agree with you, in essence. However, I believe that the civil duty of a person wishing to abstain from voting would be better served by tendering a blank vote.
Posted by: Mick at September 22, 2004 09:35 AM (VhRca)
2
I tend to disagree, although it's hard to vote for someone you don't entirely stand behind, you have to vote for the lesser of the evils (depending on the country you live in that could be many). In Canada at the last election I think voter turnout was around 59%, mostly because no one liked any of the candidates. The apathy has been continually getting worse over the last few terms. If you don't vote, you are allowing your fellow citizens to speak for you, and are you guaranteed they will make the right choice?
Posted by: Oorgo at September 22, 2004 11:02 AM (lM0qs)
3
Sorry, I meant to say civic duty, of course.
Posted by: Mick at September 22, 2004 12:29 PM (VhRca)
4
Not in favor.
Reminds me of the Lit teacher I had in high school who, for extra credit on tests, would pose questions on Bible verses.
We went round and round on that one.
I won.
I also got an "A". Mwheh.
Posted by: Margi at September 23, 2004 12:11 AM (MAdsZ)
5
It's compulsary for everyone in Australia and that seems to work. It comes down to whether voting is a right or obligation. I prefer to think it's the latter.
Posted by: Simon at September 23, 2004 06:59 AM (GWTmv)
6
Personally I think anybody who doesn't vote is an ass, regardless of the reason. There is no "Presidential" vote. It's a vote for the President, Senators, Congressmen, Judges, Assemblymen, Directors of Agriculture, School Superintendants, etc, ad infinitum.
And yet, I support the right not to vote.
Sometimes it's hard living with the dichotomy of Jim.
Posted by: Jim at September 23, 2004 09:45 PM (GCA5m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 09, 2004
Jakarta Bombing
I want simply to refer everyone to Simon's site today,
Simon World to go check out the analysis and collection of links he has posted regarding the bombing of the Australian embassy in Jakarta. If, for some reason, you lack the time, let me post this photograph here because, at the end of the day, it tells you all you need to know:

Their flag looks quite proud, still.
My deepest condolences to the Australians and to the Indonesians.
Posted by: Random Penseur at
08:49 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Devastating!!! Will it never end???
Posted by: Mick at September 09, 2004 01:11 PM (VhRca)
2
Thank you for posting this - and for so often being a source of information on the lives of those effected by terrorism.
Posted by: Elizabeth at September 09, 2004 08:27 PM (gwzoL)
3
Penseur,I just saw the same photo in Malaysia's version of the Daily Mail.
For some reason, it hit me harder when reading it on your site. Perhaps because of your human, rather than "factual", slant.
Posted by: emily at September 12, 2004 05:54 AM (lE/DR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 31, 2004
Rudy Giuliani
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.
1
RP, he did a good job. He was funny and charming (not two words generally associated with him). He also did a better job going after Kerry than I ever thought possible. The fact that he could pull it off with a bit of humor took a lot of the downside off the attack. It was effective as can be.
However, he jumped-the-shark when he started comparing Bush to Churchill. I think he did it twice.
I know he is trying to ingratiate himself with GOP activists - who are far more conservative than he is - but I just had to laugh at this obsequious linkage. (And I'm not a Bush-basher by the way - just chagrinned by the comparison).
Cheers, Ivan
Posted by: stolypin at August 31, 2004 04:09 PM (A27TY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 25, 2004
Zimbabwe v. Kenya, a different approach to land
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.
Nepal, continued
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.
1
There is interest, definitely. Just not much in the way of constructive commentary. ;-)
Posted by: Jim at August 25, 2004 10:52 AM (IOwam)
2
I've read a few times about the Nepalese
Ghurkas serving as private security in
Iraq. Presumably these are retired folks,
but I don't know much about Ghurkas, which I
thought were Nepalese British Military.
Any thoughts?
Posted by: tex at August 25, 2004 07:03 PM (u0G1n)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 20, 2004
One Quick Thought
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.
1
I like how the University specifies "visible minority group members." I can imagine the interview where the Chair of the department has to tell an African-Canadian applicant that he is not black enough, or a transgenderd applicant to try again after a few more months of hormone therapy.
The rest of the job announcement:
Candidates that are members of more than one of the above categories are strongly encouraged to apply, irrespective of past scholarship in the field of Classics. Amputees with strong accents are particluarly prized.
Posted by: David at August 20, 2004 05:46 PM (M2Rrs)
2
Not "visibly" black enough was my thought. I liked how you finished the announcement!
Posted by: RP at August 20, 2004 05:59 PM (LlPKh)
3
visible...??
yes - this is too much.
nice latin.
Posted by: kbear at August 20, 2004 11:36 PM (IAJcf)
4
I'm bothered by the need they found to express their desire for "visible minority group members." As if the understood assumption would naturally be that they are undesired. In fact, I find the announcement somewhat offensive, considering the points that you and David have already been made.
Posted by: Mick at August 21, 2004 10:38 AM (VhRca)
5
As a non-visible and fully assimilated minority I find that job posting offensive. Actually it's reverse racism! It's obvious that they themselves need a little diversification in their thinking and experience. As a former adjunct prof. at a public university, some of my anglo collegues were more than qualified to contribute to the discussion of literary diaspora.
A specific skin color, limp, or sexual experience DOES NOT make one more qualified or better able to diversify an environment! This just pissed me the hell off!
Posted by: Michele at August 22, 2004 11:23 PM (beN4P)
6
Michele, I could not have put it better myself.
Posted by: RP at August 23, 2004 09:03 AM (LlPKh)
7
Minority report:
As a member of several of the minority groups mentioned I respectfully disagree. As a former classics student, my perspective on certain pieces of ancient lit be it Latin or Greek was different from the rest of my classmates. Call it what you want to, being respectful of different opinions is one of the strenghts of this country which I hope will survive this period of labeling dissent as "unpatriotic."
You had to read majority and minority reports to graduate from law school, I would hope that your firm would encourage diversity in its hiring practices. Nothing like being a Southerner in a NY Yankee law firm!
Posted by: Azalea at August 23, 2004 07:07 PM (hRxUm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 19, 2004
John Kerry: Priceless
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.
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
Nepal
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.
84kb generated in CPU 0.1264, elapsed 0.1664 seconds.
75 queries taking 0.1416 seconds, 219 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.