Zero presidential oversight

This week there were revelations about how both the president and vice president of the United States have managed to remain clear of any sort of accountability or oversight.

First Vice President Cheney's story:

For four years, Vice President Dick Cheney has resisted routine oversight of his office’s handling of classified information, and when the National Archives unit that monitors classification in the executive branch objected, the vice president’s office suggested abolishing the oversight unit, according to documents released yesterday by a Democratic congressman.
...
Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, disclosed Mr. Cheney’s effort to shut down the oversight office. Mr. Waxman, who has had a leading role in the stepped-up efforts by Democrats to investigate the Bush administration, outlined the matter in an eight-page letter sent Thursday to the vice president and posted, along with other documentation, on the committee’s Web site.

Officials at the National Archives and the Justice Department confirmed the basic chronology of events cited in Mr. Waxman’s letter.

The letter said that after repeatedly refusing to comply with a routine annual request from the archives for data on his staff’s classification of internal documents, the vice president’s office in 2004 blocked an on-site inspection of records that other agencies of the executive branch regularly go through.
...
“I know the vice president wants to operate with unprecedented secrecy,” Mr. Waxman said in an interview. “But this is absurd. This order is designed to keep classified information safe. His argument is really that he’s not part of the executive branch, so he doesn’t have to comply.”

Bush too has declared himself exempt:

The White House says the president's own order on classified data does not apply to his office or the vice president's.
...
The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick Cheney's office, President Bush's office is not allowing an independent federal watchdog to oversee its handling of classified national security information.

An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 — amending an existing order — requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.

Changing the rules — even the ones you wrote — by distorting them. That's the White House's message. So does that mean it's OK if/when Congress ignores it's own laws?

bush, cheney

Why Bush doesn't need to veto often

Signing statements — legal clauses the president can put on legislation exempting his office from the law — have come to the public eye more and more thanks to the Bush administration. This has been a source of worry and helplessness for those of us who do not always see eye to eye with the White House; and it makes Congress look even more impotent to the power of the executive.

The New York Times ran an editorial on Friday about this disgrace:

President Bush is notorious for issuing statements taking exception to hundreds of bills as he signs them. This week, we learned that in a shocking number of cases, the Bush administration has refused to enact those laws. Congress should use its powers to insist that its laws are obeyed.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, investigated 19 provisions to which Mr. Bush objected. It found that six of them, or nearly a third, have not been implemented as the law requires. The G.A.O. did not investigate some of the most infamous signing statements, like the challenge to a ban on torture. But the ones it looked into are disturbing enough.

In one case, Congress directed the Pentagon in its 2007 budget request to account separately for the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a perfectly appropriate request, but Mr. Bush issued a signing statement critical of the rule, and the Pentagon withheld the information. In two other cases, federal agencies ignored laws requiring them to get permission from Congressional committees before taking particular actions.

The Bush administration’s disregard for these laws is part of its extraordinary theory of the “unitary executive.” The administration asserts that the president has the sole authority to supervise and direct executive officers, and that Congress and the courts cannot interfere. This theory, which has no support in American history or the Constitution, is a formula for autocracy.

Other presidents have issued signing statements, but none has issued as many, or done so with the same contemptuous attitude toward the co-equal branches of government. The G.A.O. report makes clear that Mr. Bush’s signing statements were virtually written instructions to executive agencies to flout acts of Congress. Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, has said that the report shows that Mr. Bush “is constantly grabbing for more power” and trying to push Congress “to the sidelines.”

Members of Congress have a variety of methods available to make the administration obey the law. They should call the agency heads up to Capitol Hill to explain their intransigence. And they should use the power of the purse, the authority the founders wisely vested in the people’s branch, as a check on a runaway executive branch.

When the Bush presidency ends, there will be a great deal of damage to repair, much of it to the Constitutional system. Congress should begin now to restore the principle that even the president and those who work for him are not above the law.

Kudos to America's best newspaper for the great editorial. I couldn't have written it better myself, which explains why I posted it — I couldn't resist.

EU treaty discord over for now

Finally, last night European Union members agreed at the last minute on the EU treaty they had been bickering about for two days at the EU summit (see post).

EU DEAL: MAIN ISSUES
Double majority voting delayed until 2014
Long-term EU president
High Representative for foreign affairs
Fewer national veto powers
More powers for the European Parliament

After much deliberation at the two-day European Union summit, an agreement on a treaty outlining the rules for the 27-member body has been reached. Many were skeptical of whether the EU's members would be able to get over their specific reservations to varying areas of the treaty. This is big news for the EU.

The final stumbling block — Poland's reservations about the voting system — was resolved. The solution was to put that decision off until 2014, as noted in the deal outline above.

Germany, the chair of the now-ended summit, wants a replacement for the rejected 2005 constitution. However, whatever its replacement is, there has been a decision to not use the word "constitution" (oh the language of politics...).

One of the focuses of the summit and deal was the European Union's foreign policy. Often an EU delegate is sent to represent EU nations; as we saw in the case of the G8 summit earlier this month, the EU had a delegate in addition to the G8 countries. European foreign policy interests, it is believed, are best represented by the EU, but how exactly this diplomacy between a multi-national body and individual nations runs best is still being worked out.

The CIA: coming clean

The CIA is to declassify years of documents confirming many of it's shady and illegal Cold War practices. Topics like this — knowing, or rather not knowing, what a supposedly free and democratic country as the United States was and still is doing against any measure of human rights, freedoms, and more — get me a bit fired up.

The Washington Post reported:

The CIA will declassify hundreds of pages of long-secret records detailing some of the intelligence agency's worst illegal abuses -- the so-called "family jewels" documenting a quarter-century of overseas assassination attempts, domestic spying, kidnapping and infiltration of leftist groups from the 1950s to the 1970s, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday.

The documents, to be publicly released next week, also include accounts of break-ins and theft, the agency's opening of private mail to and from China and the Soviet Union, wiretaps and surveillance of journalists, and a series of "unwitting" tests on U.S. civilians, including the use of drugs.

"Most of it is unflattering, but it is CIA's history," Hayden said in a speech to a conference of foreign policy historians. The documents have been sought for decades by historians, journalists and conspiracy theorists and have been the subject of many fruitless Freedom of Information Act requests.
...
The CIA documents scheduled for release next week, Hayden said yesterday, "provide a glimpse of a very different time and a very different agency."
...
Hayden's speech and some questions that followed evoked more recent criticism of the intelligence community, which has been accused of illegal wiretapping, infiltration of antiwar groups, and kidnapping and torturing of terrorism suspects.

The BBC went further into what exactly these papers will reveal.

The papers, to be released next week, will detail assassination plots, domestic spying and wiretapping, kidnapping and human experiments.

Many of the incidents are already known, but the documents are expected to give more comprehensive accounts.
...
Among the incidents that were said to "present legal questions" were:

* the confinement of a Soviet defector in the mid-1960s
* assassination plots of foreign leaders, including Cuba's Fidel Castro
* wiretapping and surveillance of journalists
* behaviour modification experiments on "unwitting" US citizens
* surveillance of dissident groups between 1967 and 1971
* opening from 1953 to 1973 of letters to and from the Soviet Union; from 1969 to 1972 of mail to and from China

These actions are not those of an agency of a free, liberal democratic government. While not turning into a paranoid, "everyone's out to get me"-ist, a citizen should always remain aware of what his or her government is doing to prevent the removal of their own liberties. Those of us who live in America, Germany, India, and other democratic countries should protect our freedom by using the powers democratic governance gives us; those who live in unfree states should also do what they can for freedoms. Moreover, fake wars are no excuse for taking away the freedom of citizens or of others outside of the country. Doing so is counter-intuitive and, as I said before, not the actions of a free state.

People like former secretary of state and still-foreign policy leader Henry Kissinger want skeletons like these to remain in the dark closets of the CIA, so to speak. He has fought any investigation into America's intelligence agency's misdeeds. Perhaps the reason he fights against the ugly truth is because he himself was a proponent of despicable policy, like bombing civilians in Cambodia or overthrowing democratically-elected world leaders and killing many for the sake of posturing. Why stoop to the enemy's level? Who did Kissinger turn to to commit these misdeeds? The CIA. These are no conspiracy theories.

In 1975, CIA Director William Colby told then-President Gerald Ford that his summary of the CIA's activity had descriptions of "things [the CIA] shouldn't have done". A day later on 4 January, Secretary of State Kissinger told Ford that divulging these documents — in effect telling a nation the truth about all the horrible things its government has been doing — would result in a political disaster, like a new Watergate. Further withholding information of illegal and shady deeds from the public for your own political security is pretty sad on the part of Kissinger and the Ford administration.

While it's good that the CIA is finally doing this (a bit late though), I wonder how exactly some of these — need I emphasize it more — horrible acts are, as Hayden calls them, "crown jewels". Moreover they are reminders of a time which I for one hope America never returns too. The Cold War was much worse than the current GWOT in how the government acted and how people's freedoms were suppressed — but that's no excuse for the Bush administration's condemnable "war on terror" actions either.

Many of the misdeeds listed above were similar to what the unfree, authoritarian Soviet government agencies were doing, just as Bush is in some ways using similar scare tactics as the terrorists he is fighting against. See a pattern? An enemy develops, government takes advantage of people's fear, government gains power and engages in illegal and bad activities for its own power and for whatever other reasons in its 'war'.

Nowadays the CIA is actually weak. It has lost the badge of authority it carried as it painted a picture of the Red Army marching across American soil and performed commonly operations like the ones listed above. Now the Defense Department has far more power; the CIA is underfunded and the intelligence community often thrust aside — even when it is right, like in the case of 9/11 and the failure in Iraq; and more directly under the president's political authority, the FBI is more notorious for restrictions of domestic civil liberties.

For a bit more on the foreign policy of America during and before the Cold War, see my Monroe Doctrine essay. The National Security Archive has a page on these "family jewels".

The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots, and human experimentation led to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s, according to declassified documents posted today on the Web by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.

Let's just hope that chapter in the American intelligence community's history has come to a close, or is to end at least with the next president. I highly recommend checking out the archive page linked above; it also documents all the CIA's broken promises of declassification — making Hayden's announcement look less and less like a positive step forward and more like something that should have happened long ago.

Competition troubles at the EU summit

One of the things holding Europe back from reaping more financial successes are the restrictive anti-competition laws and practices. Outside firm A is proposing to buy European firm B, the courts or government step in, deal falls through. Though necessary at times — such as to prevent monopolies and safeguard finances — meddling protectionist measures like these muck up the free market. We are seeing this time and time again, especially as more foreign funds attempt to buy up both successful and failing European firms.

Another issue, is bankruptcy laws in Europe. In America more liberal business bankruptcy laws have allowed new start-up firms like, say, Google and Digg to flourish in the tech entrepreneurial hotbed of Silicon Valley. Perhaps the reason Europe does not have a Silicon Valley of its own is because of its less friendly, more restrictive bankruptcy laws. The lack of new start-ups and fresh ideas indeed feeds into the lack of competition. And competition is a fuel the market economy needs.

This is related to the European Union summit going on right now in that competition and the free markets has been a major issue. Which leads us to Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, who received the backing of The Economist because of his reformist economical stance. The free marketers' candidate appears to have reservations about, well, free markets at this EU summit.

HAS Nicolas Sarkozy really dealt a nasty blow to the free-market foundations of Europe? The question has caused much confusion at a European Union summit unfolding in Brussels. It emerged on Thursday June 21st that France’s new president had succeeded in removing “free and undistorted competition” from a list of the EU’s core objectives at the top of a new “reform treaty” being thrashed to replace the defunct constitution.
...
During his campaign to become president he presented rival public faces: the pro-business reformer alongside the populist defender of French national interests. The elections won, it is still not clear which of these is the true Mr Sarkozy.

The EU treaty is at the top of this summit's agenda, and is why it is receiving so much attention. Whenever most countries agree, there seems to always be one or two that have their own (selfish) reservations. And yes, for the sake of sovereignty and answering to the voting public, it is important for a country to stand up for what's best for it, but some cases aren't as clear. Sometimes diplomats and leaders should ask themselves, 'Is it worth it to fight for this when there are so many other things I may need to stand up for my country?'

There is, however, good news. Apparently Sarkozy has been convinced to let some things go in his one-man battle against the competition law in the EU treaty. Sarkozy may have gotten "free and undistorted competition" taken out from the treaty's preamble, but

sources in Brussels say a legally binding protocol will be added that protects existing competition law.

So all this fuss over just a superficial word change?

With Mr Sarkozy's change also remaining in place, he will be able to tell the French voters he has defended French jobs.
...
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has already said that there are 13 references to free market competition in existing EU treaties, so the EU's powers over competition would not be changed.

Leaders of the 27 EU states are meeting in Brussels to agree the main parameters for a new EU treaty.

A future conference would then decide the final text.

The treaty is designed to replace the planned European Constitution, which was rejected by both French and Dutch voters two years ago.

France's economy is far too bogged down by regulation and government intervention. The public sector often makes the private sector look tiny. Contrary to the wishes of the old left, such a gigantic public sector isn't good for the workers either: notice how there always seems to be a giant worker's protest going on in France? Even though its government-run health system is arguably better than the United States' — and it's free — French doctors get paid one-third of what their American counterparts take home. The government cannot afford much more. While I am in favor of state-run national health services in many cases, France needs to open up and privatize many areas of its economy.

Next bump in the path to a new EU treaty: Poland doesn't want Germany to have too much power. I can sympathize to an extent, since Poland is still being bullied (e.g. energy wise) by Germany and Russia, but playing war card isn't an acceptable move. The trouble is over a voting system of the EU; Poland wants more votes to compensate for lives lost in the Second World War. This Poland versus Germany battle looks to continue, as the United Kingdom throws it's hat into the ring too — questionably at that.

In addition,

draft treaty submitted for debate at the summit makes several concessions to EU member states that had opposed key parts of the planned constitution.

Proposed changes include:

* Removing any mention of the word "constitution"
* Providing countries with a chance to opt out of EU policies in the area of policing and criminal law
* New voting system to approve decisions
* Full-time president of European Council instead of current system where members take six-month turns
* New foreign affairs head and a smaller commission

Correspondents say failure to reach a deal on the treaty would plunge the EU into a fresh crisis as deep as the one that followed the rejection of the constitution two years ago.
...
A draft treaty submitted for debate at the summit makes several concessions to EU member states that had opposed key parts of the planned constitution.

Proposed changes include:

* Removing any mention of the word "constitution"
* Providing countries with a chance to opt out of EU policies in the area of policing and criminal law
* New voting system to approve decisions
* Full-time president of European Council instead of current system where members take six-month turns
* New foreign affairs head and a smaller commission

Correspondents say failure to reach a deal on the treaty would plunge the EU into a fresh crisis as deep as the one that followed the rejection of the constitution two years ago.

Britain has also been the target of some complaint. It has backed out of various areas, seeking special treatment, and the negotiating "has been shambolic, according to one insider", says BBC's Europe editor Mark Mardell.

The summit, at two days long, will end today and the future of the EU and the constitution, or whatever they aim to call it, is at stake. Many quarrels deal with political language, and some are bringing up issues of long ago to their advantage.
To see some countries' stances and what they will attempt to exempt themselves from, and more, see here. The agreement of 27 diverse nations — with political rifts between many of them — is a tough goal. However, the European Union treaty must be tackled before people loose yet more hope.

wis.dm leads to time lost

I have not blogged today for the same reason I have done few other things I also do: I am addicted.

When I first heard about the website called Wis.dm, I saw it as just another Q&A site. I was wrong. I am now addicted to wis.dm.

You can see my profile here.

It's time for a self-intervention. I had to do the same thing last year after I had a Wikipedia editing and writing addiction hangover from the summer into the fall.

In the past I've had forum addictions too. This is serious stuff. I just looked at the clock and noticed I've spend hours upon hours arguably wasting time on the internet.

I will be blogging more tomorrow!

The deja vu veto

Every once in a while, one sees something in the news and thinks, 'Haven't I seen this before?'. That's what happened when I saw the story of President Bush's second veto on the BBC News front page.

Today, Bush wasted his third ever veto on something very similar to the thing he vetoed a few years ago: stem cells.

US President George W Bush has vetoed a bill that would have eased restrictions on federally-funded stem-cell research.

He also issued an executive order encouraging scientists to focus on ways to conduct research without using stem cells from human embryos.

Mr Bush said advances must be pursued in a way "that respects human dignity and upholds our moral values".

The Democratic-led Congress is expected to try to override the veto but is unlikely to get enough votes.

Last time Congress had nearly enough votes for an override — which requires 2/3 of both the House and Senate. Now that it is majority-Democrat, the legislature might — although party politics sometimes keep loyalties cemented in votes — have a shot at overriding the executive. Unlike with Iraq, voter risk for Democrats on challenging Bush is low, too. The bill flew easily through Congress up to this point, but can an override happen?

...the issue may provide the opportunity for the first of a wave of veto showdowns during President Bush's last 18 months in office. "The congressional Republican leadership protected the President for his first six years and kept measures that he would veto from ever getting to the White House," says Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "That time is over."

Because his breed of extreme Christianity views anything to do with stem cells as 'immoral', Bush has courted the religious right lobby once again by restricting stem cell research and funding of such research. Back in August 2001 Bush imposed a ban on federally-funded stem cell research.

As a reminder, this is one of the few major issues the majority of the American public actually has a good opinion about. Most Americans are pro-stem cell research, and why shouldn't they be unless they think the little 'snowflakes' — unborn embryos often frozen that are due to be discarded anyways — are some form of unborn life (hint: the unborn part cancels out the living part, they're potential at best but are bound to be destroyed anyways unless used to make babies or, more likely in this case, disposed of or researched).

Can there be life that doesn't in fact live? Is the only way we can fight to defend our freedom to take it away? Those questions would be answered "yes" by many Bush supporters who weld great power with their narrow-minded views of policy on a number of 'moral' and security issues.

Log of Bush vetoes — none of which are positive in my eyes even when he had the opportunity to veto poor legislation that he vowed to nix in the first place! 'The Decider' has threatened to use his veto tens of times, he's very good at instilling fear for his own political aims (think "war on terror").

Veto 1
Date: 20 July 2006
Subject: Funding for and restrictions on stem cell research
Public opinion: For the bill
Status: Long dead

Veto 2*
Date: 1 May 2007
Subject: War funding bill with Iraq troop withdrawal amendment
Public opinion: Mixed, on Iraq
Status: Successor still in the works

Veto 3
Date: 20 June 2007
Subject: Another stem cell bill easing regulations on government funding
Public opinion: Affirmative of the legislation's proposals
Status: Just vetoed... possibility for congressional override if partisanship doesn't rule supreme

Thus George Bush's war on science with misguided morals continues. Considering how important science is to the modern world — especially the prospect of breakthrough in biology and medicine (see The Economist's cover this week) — this administration is moving America backwards, not forwards.

technorati tags: stem-cells, bush, veto, congress, white-house, science, united+states, politics, george+w+bush+vetoes, public+opinion, iraq, funding, bill, legislation

Sir Rushdie the infidel

A religious row over the knighthood of a controversial writer turns political, on an international scale.

Salmon Rushdie — I mean Sir Salmon Rushdie — has a history of flaring the tempers of more hard-line Islamists (can you say death threats? like the fatwa against the British-Indian novelist by Iran), as well as the Muslim world as a whole. The Iraqi foreign minister has condemned the honoring of Rushdie, whose novels, namely the popular Satanic Verses, often attack Islam (it's fiction!). His knighthood has also sparked large, widespread protests in Pakistan and Malaysia, among other nations. This has even turned into a (minor) diplomatic crisis for the UK.

Whenever any certain group feels it has been attacked at all by a book, a movie, or other works of art — e.g. Catholics and albinos for The Da Vinci Code; Muslims for Rushdie's books; Italian-Americans for The Sopranos — they blame it on mere works of fiction and get all up in arms about it. "Your [type of fiction] makes our people look bad. It is blasphemy to us [group of people]. We will [action taken by aforementioned peeved group]." Get over it people.

Cross-posted with modification; originally from In Perspective's sister blog, In Perspectives.

Sarkozy's UMP a winner in France

So ends France's series of 2007 elections...
France's new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, had a modest win in the French polls over the weekend.

His conservative UMP party won the most seats in France's parliament, but did not live up to the high expectations placed upon it for this election. Europe seems to be continuing its turn to the moderate right, just as South and Latin America see a more populist left transformation.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP party says it will press ahead with wide-ranging reforms, after winning a majority in parliamentary elections.

Although the centre-right UMP failed to secure a predicted landslide, it said it had a mandate to implement change.

Its plans include tighter immigration laws, tax cuts and longer jail terms.

Since it is a pain to write out all the election numbers, here is what the seat composition of the French National Assembly looks like by party (source: BBC News):


Crunching the numbers
So the Socialists gained seats, going from 141 in 2002 to 185 in this past election. Its chief rival and the only party with more seats is the center-right UMP, which had a weakened majority compared to in 2002: UMP lost 43 seats. By my tally there are 577 total seats in the parliament, and approximately 349 belong to right-leaning parties, 226 to left-leaning ones, and 2 others to spare. The two biggest parties, UMP and the Socialists, have 499 seats combined. UMP has a 54.42% majority overall.

Royal couple split
On another note, Sarkozy's former Socialist challenger in the presidential election election earlier this year, Segolene Royal, has revealed she is splitting with the Socialist party leader Francois Hollande for personal reasons. They were partners for 25 years and have four children. Royal also announced she is running for the position of party chair, which Hollande currently occupies. Oddly enough, this further development of the rift on the left side of French politics ousted Sarkozy's election win from the top news story. Kind of like how the announcement of Apple's iPhone (ooh, shiny and cool!) overshadowed Bush's much-awaited Iraq troop "surge" speech?

Sarko hearts 'reform'
Hopefully Sarkozy will reform France's restricted economy. The public sector is far too large; government intervention makes growth hard; and the economy needs to be liberalized overall. The cabinet might now be shuffled and additional aspects of the new government ironed out.

As expected Sarkozy aligned himself with US President Bush at the G8 summit earlier this year — to an extent. He also worked with his fellow world leaders to push Bush into a wall on climate change, resulting in at least a half-hearted attempt at jabbing the issue. Apparently the French leader was also caught drunk at the G8.

States, failed and failing

The Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine have published the 2007 Failed States Index.

The index measures the vulnerability of failure for 177 of the states surveyed — i.e. the chance of outright collapse. As the index says,

The world’s weakest states aren’t just a danger to themselves. They can threaten the progress and stability of countries half a world away.

The index uses 12 socio-economic and political indicators to score the potential for failure for each nation.

Let's see who made the top-12 cut this year...
1. Sudan
2. Iraq
3. Somalia
4. Zimbabwe
5. Chad
6. Côte d'Ivoire
7. Democratic Republic of the Congo
8. Afghanistan
9. Guinea
10. Central African Republic
11. Haiti
12. Pakistan

Most of the states are in Africa (eight), and the rest are in the Middle East (three) — hold Haiti, a turmoil-stricken Caribbean nation.

Let's now take a look at these top 12 most faltering nation-states. Sudan is number one. Because of the state-encouraged ethnic genocide and fighting in its Darfur region, among other political reasons including international pressure, Sudan is a breeding ground for state collapse and instability.

Iraq is another obvious one: the sectarian civil war and the insurgency arising from the occupation, not to mention an unbelievably week government that even the strongest military force on the planet has a hard time keeping up. Iraq practically is a failed state.

Next is Somalia, which is more worse off governmentally than Iraq. The consensus a few years ago kept in line with the common wisdom about the Horn of Africa state: it is a failed one. Islamic rebels, traditional warlords, and foreign troops (Ethiopians supported by America) are all forces pushing this country on the brink of irreversible collapse. Its people aren't doing too well either. In the cases of both Somalia and Iraq, the worst fighting and actions posing the strongest threat to stability occur in the capitals, Mogadishu (I spelled it correctly on my first try!) and Baghdad, respectively.

Zimbabwe is high up on the list because of the humanitarian and economic disaster there. The inflation rate is tin the thousands and the thuggish leader Robert Mugabe shows no signs of giving up power, but even his own party is becoming discontented.

Chad is inheriting a lot of the problems of its neighbor Sudan. It also has problems of its own similar to the other failed or failing states in the index.

Côte d'Ivoire I do not know much about. From some research on the internet I have figured out the country also known as the Ivory Coast is experiencing civil war, or the aftermath of such a war. Elections have been put off time after time because of the fighting or the prospect of fighting. It has received little coverage by American media, like many other major world issues, including those talked about in the index and this blog post. Some consider the West African nation out of civil war, but the prospect of renewed fighting is daunting.

DPRC, or rather Congo has been recently stabilized by UN peacekeeping. It finally had elections last summer after years of bloody war.

Afghanistan is similar in many ways to Iraq, though not as dire: insurgency to foreign occupation, weak government, foreign and local Islamic extremist forces, etc.

Further down the list, Haiti has been in political mayhem for years now and UN peacekeepers are trying their best to maintain some form of stability.

Pakistan is facing the threat of an overthrow by extremists or other groups, and opposition to its dictatorial president Musharraf for allying himself with and against the people, with America, and with the militants. Not to mention the surprising inflammation caused my him dismissing a senior judge who disagreed with his regime's legal and political policies.

As we see, some instability is centered on certain regions (e.g. Darfur) or cities (e.g. Baghdad; Mogadishu; Port-au-Prince), whereas some is nation-wide (e.g. Zimbabwe).

Iraq and Somalia are probably the worst on the list, although none of the aforementioned 12 are by any means stellar in their state political security. If Palestine was a state — though it is looking like two right now — it would surely be near the top of the index due to its civil war and massive amounts of homegrown terrorism.

The Economist has made a map of the top 10 countries of the Failed State Index.



For more on happy topics like this one, see Conflict Meter.

Atheist or agnostic? Russell had it right...

From Wikipedia:

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

—Bertrand Russell, Collected Papers, vol. 11, p. 91

Personally I am religiously agnostic, a belief formed by my own accord when I was in my early teens, or perhaps a bit before that. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and others have all written interesting tomes on religion and atheism/agnosticism. Another nonbeliever who has jumped on the atheist bandwagon (i.e. well-known, controversial, book-writing) is Christopher Hitchens, though his latest book, "God is Not Great", is disappointing in its logic of blaming (organized) religion for all of the world's problems. Dawkins, a famous evolutionary biologist — finding his way into the spotlight with his breakthrough book "The Selfish Gene" — presents an empirical, scientific argument against the belief in god in "The God Delusion". Dennett is a philosopher; Harris is well known for his book "The End of Faith".

The secular skeptics of the organized religion that has shaped human civilization for centuries are out in full force; as are the more closed-minded religions fundamentalists and apologists using logic even the worst atheist wouldn't dare utilize. To some, however, atheism might be just as much about blind faith in or against the premise of a higher being (i.e. God) as Christianity, etc.

As a rule of thumb, it's good to keep an open and rational mind — but not too open. Stick to your ideological guns, but fill them with logical ammo too to bolster your side of the debate.

"Freedom isn't free"

I recently saw an old foe from long ago. It professed ignorance and a modern excuse for war: to fight for freedom. World War II was a fight for freedom against Nazi repression and invasion in Europe and Japanese imperial aggression in the Pacific; the current Iraq war and the 'war' against terrorism are not fights for America's freedom.

"Freedom isn't free" may sound like an interesting statement out of context. But when overlayed in front of a gun or the silhouette of a soldier, it is a statement of the United States' militancy — in spirit, politics, or action — and an unjustified fear of loosing freedoms at the hands of outsiders when the politicians in charge at home are doing a fine job. In the case of my recent encounter of the saying it was in the form of a bumper-sticker.

In the "war on terror", President George W. Bush and his group have proven to be formidable enemies to American civil liberties, not terrorist Osama bin Laden and his cronies. Freedoms have been quashed in the name of fighting international terrorism. Osama is surely a larger direct threat to US security, but Bush's poor policies at home and abroad have in effect made the United States less secure.

"Freedom isn't free" has become a major statement of Bush-supporters and the right wing in America, as well as the population at large in the patriotic wake of 9/11.

Is the US fighting for freedom in Iraq or Afghanistan? No. By detaining innocent and bad men in Gitmo and elsewhere, is America promoting freedom or even helping its own? No. Freedom might not be free, but it's no reason to give up freedoms in a supposed fight to save them. Not only is that self-defeating, it is caving into the same kind of pseudo-patriotism that has allowed this White House to pursue its "war on terror".

The same people who use the phrase "Freedom isn't free" to justify the gross abuse of power by the Bush administration are probably the same people who ultimately believe 'ignorance is bliss'. I guess by the logic of Bush's supporters — yes, he still has plenty — freedom isn't freedom because it isn't free ('How could something by nature free be free?'), and war is peace (Orwell's 1984 = best novel ever, or at least best political novel).

I understand America has many brave servicemen and women who are fighting for causes — just and unjust — putting their lives at stake in the deadly game of war. Looking at the mass military and civilian casualties of the excursions of the GWOT is not a pleasurable activity. But justifying those many deaths with a catchphrase that mixes misguided, post-disaster patriotism with twisted logic, especially considering phrases like "Freedom isn't free" are often used as an attack on those who do not particularly like the president (e.g. "Support our troops" being used by the GOP against those wishing for withdrawal from Iraq, or those opposed to the White House's war policy; fighting terror with terror or fear), is a poor way to honor the deaths of those people. The fight for defending freedom is actually hurting it. "Freedom isn't free" seems like a justification for such a fight, and is used in such a way. War isn't free either.

More on Gaza and Palestine

Abbas' new emergency government may have legitimacy in the eyes of outside powers, but what about with the people? Abbas needs to balance foreign support with not looking like a puppet of the west, which would only empower Hamas further.

On a different note, for all its malevolence (e.g. using terrorism, dismantling Gaza), Hamas can sometimes look OK, especially in the case of treating journalists fairly. The last thing a political organization wants is to look bad to the world.

Hamas has issued an ultimatum for the Palestinian group holding BBC reporter Alan Johnston or else it has said it will use force to free the reporter, who has been held for quite some while. Governments reacted with alarm, stating how this situation is a delicate one. At least Hamas isn't encouraging the killing of the journalist, right?

Why does Gaza matter?

For once in recent times an American publication has an important cover story. Newsweek's this week is on why Gaza affects America, and the world. In short the turbulence there may not only spread across Palestine, increasing attacks on Israel, but send waves of extremism and terror movements abroad — into, say, Iraq. (There's already enough blowback in Iraq.) In addition, the politics of the wider Middle East and the Arab states there is at hand.

No doubt there are various cells of international terror movements itching for more membership and support in the turbulent and ravaged Gaza. People feel helpless and angered. It's amazing what kinds of things people will support or do when they feel intense fear, hopelessness, and anger...

Gaza also matters to the Israeli lobby in the US that doesn't want its homeland shaken by explosions and neighboring disaster. However Israel is a green zone to Palestine's red.

There hasn't been much news on the disaster in Palestine since Abbas formed his new government. Israel has followed America in backing this Hamas-free emergency government. The EU has also allowed aid to resume after it was halted when Hamas was in power.

What to expect in the news this week

This is one of my favorite BBC News features: "The world this week".

Is the new Palestinian government 'illegal'?

The new Hamas-free Palestinian government has been sworn in. America is happy and might now let some aid trickle in to help the impoverished Palestinians; Israel is content too. Hopefully they will let the door open to new diplomacy with President Mahmoud Abbas' emergency Fatah government. Hamas still rules supreme in Gaza. See this post for background.

Reformist Salam Fayyad has been named prime minister.

Could it be we see an ill-formed three-state solution as a result of this major rift in Palestinian politics?

Palestine (Fatah) in the West Bank, Palestine (Hamas) in the Gaza Strip, and, of course, Israel.

Hamas maintains the new government is not only illegal, it's unneeded because Hamas itself doesn't recognize that its power was vanquished when Abbas dissolved the government following a large uprising by Hamas in the already-turbulent Gaza Strip.

Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hinted at the prospect of an international force in Gaza. If Abbas asked for peace keepers, that could be a possibility. I doubt he'd refuse like, say, the government of Sudan has over its genocide in Darfur. Abbas needs all the help he can get. He cannot appear too weak, nor can he look like just another tool of the West — especially of the 'evil' America and Israel.

Many are blaming the United States with an array of justified and unjustified arguments.

Oh and some rockets were fired at Israel by Islamist militants in Lebanon. Two Katyushas hit Kiryat Shmona, a northern Israeli town. (Thankfully there were no casualties.) Last summer all over again?

In related news, there have been more reports of Israel finally gearing up for diplomacy with Syria. They are not on the best terms mainly because the Israelis occupy Syria's Golan Heights. "Secret test diplomacy: the story of Israel and Syria" coming soon.

Abbas' power problem

Just got back from my vacation, and wow a lot of news has developed — especially in Palestine.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas dissolved the weak Hamas-Fatah unity government after increased fighting between militant Hamas and Fatah forces in which Hamas seized control of the virulent Gaza Strip. A state of emergency has been declared by Abbas. Hamas now effectively rules Gaza; Fatah still has control over the West Bank.

America has finally shown support for Abbas and proposed to end some embargoes that were put into place following Hamas' victory at the polls in January 2006, legitimizing it as a political, as well as militant, force (it controlled the parliament and led the governmental coalition until Abbas dismissed it a few days ago). US sanctions on Palestine will be lifted and international aid will be allowed in as soon as Abbas forms a new (emergency) government, without Hamas of course. The United States' lack of support for the weak and moderate Abbas has been partially blamed for the Hamas takeover in Gaza. Abbas was seen as weak, and in reality he is, which worsens the situation. Of course other Bush administration policies also made the Palestinian situation develop into this disaster. This latest takeover by Hamas — which the Arab League called a 'crime' — emphasized the failure of Bush's Mid-East policy.

In brief: there are virtually two governments in the Palestinian Authority: Abbas' new Fatah government to-be and Hamas' illegitimate, renegade rule. One could easily call it a civil war; or an intergovernmental war with one ruling party in control of some areas, the other in control of other areas.

Has the drawn out factional conflict in the already-embattled Palestine reached a point of no return? Can peace ever exist in a land so scarred by war and fighting? As with all other developing events, only time will tell. In this case, it'll require a lot more waiting.

The "gay bomb": a myth no more

I always thought the story of a weapon that modifies the sexuality of the enemy America's armed forces was/is interested in was the stuff of conspiracy theorists. I guess I was wrong.

It turns out that the conspiracy theories are indeed true: as recently as 1994 the United States military proposed or looked into a weapon that turned the enemy gay.

Make love not war may be the enduring slogan of anti-war campaigners but in 1994 the US air force produced its own variation on the philosophy.

What if it could release a chemical that would make an opposing army's soldiers think more about the physical attributes of their comrades in arms than the threat posed by the enemy? And thus the "gay bomb" was born. Far from being the product of conspiracy theorists, documents released to a biological weapons watchdog in Austin, Texas confirm that the US military did investigate the idea. It was included in a CD-Rom produced by the US military in 2000 and submitted to the National Academy of Sciences in 2002. The documents show that $7.5m was requested to develop the weapon.
...
Aaron Belkin, director of the University of California's Michael Palm Centre, which studies the issue of gays in the military, said: "The idea that you could submit someone to some aerosol spray and change their sexual behaviour is ludicrous."

The very notion of a "gay bomb" — and the idea that by messing with soldiers sex hormones one could cause them to constantly focus on each other, or have sex or whatever the military thought might happen, instead of fighting the enemy any less than heterosexual soldiers could (more on the issue of homosexuals in the military) — is absolutely mad. This sounds like the work of one of those eccentric Cold War projects — but no, the "gay bomb" popped into one numb-sculled researcher's head one year after Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy came into place (h/t FP Passport). The findings by the Berkely watchdog have been confirmed, then subsequently denied, by the Pentagon.

Rock music and American pop counterculture

From the early origins of rock and roll, to the age of rebellion, to modern fads...
Popular culture and entertainment have always served something people could copy — whether that thing is a lifestyle, a drink, or a hair style. The Beatles were idolized and modeled by Western youth in the 1960s. Fonzie in the American TV show Happy Days provided a role model for many of that generation. He was cool; people wanted to be like him. Jennifer Aniston's character's hairstyle in Friends was copied enough for it to earn its own place in American fashion: "The Rachel". American pop culture has served as a promoter of turning points in American culture.

Pop culture — the widespread appeal of modern or radical cultural elements in a society — seemed to flourish in the 1960s in the form of art, just as being a rebel (i.e. counterculture) seemed like the cool thing to do. It's important to note that like many phrases, pop culture has various definitions believed by various people. A pop culture reader, Common Culture, defines pop culture as

the shared knowledge and practices of a specific group at a specific time...pop culture both reflects and influences people's way of life...pop culture is transitory, subject to change, and often an initiator of change.

Rebellion is a common theme in modern pop culture, especially in regards to music. Punk and its early rock predecessors created a lifestyle in the style of its music. Art has always been a good measurement of a society's openness, its cultural diversity, and even its political feelings. Just as punk music rocked to the voices of angst and rebellion, and the more recent emo movement has played to the (intentionally) depressed, hip-hop and rap saw their beginnings in African Americans venting against the white foundation of the United States. Dr. Dre's (et al) "Fuck the Police", Public Enemy's "Fight the Power", and, in modern rap, "Ridin' [Dirty]" have served as an outlet against a real or perceived oppressor — it's time to stand up, to rebel.

Punk rock was brought to the US in great part by the many great rock bands of the United Kingdom. Bob Dylan's pop-folk became legendary and lasted decades; Elvis Presley's individual popularity saw the role of rock and roll music in pop culture exemplified with his country and blues "rockabilly" (1950s); The Beatles brought pop and rock in general to the United States from Britain (1960s); the Rolling Stones paved the way for more blues and rock and roll (1960s-'70s); David Bowie, the 'chameleon' of rock, was especially influential in the 1970s; the Sex Pistols rocked in a purely punk fashion (1970s); Pink Floyd ushered in progressive rock (1970s) and Led Zeppelin hard rock and heavy metal (1960s-'70s); Queen created an explosion in glam, arena, and hard/progressive rock (1970s-'80s); Nirvana's grunge rock brought in an era of its own in the '90s. Most of the aforementioned came from the UK, a common trend in the history of rock, especially punk.

Especially in their beginnings, movies also served as great pioneers in change of culture and opinion. Though Hollywood didn't used to be so 'liberal' as it is today, movies and television did break down a good many of taboos. But the real counterculture movement rested in the hands of the music industry, with many of the artists introducing pop rock, punk, etc., to our borders coming from Britain. The roots of rock rest in the US though, thanks in part to the great racism against blacks in the US. Such racism also later resulted in hip-hop and rap music from mostly-black urban inter-city areas. Jazz and blues were the predecessors to rock. Scott Joplin in 1899 published a very important composition, "The Maple Leaf Rag", that would come to usher in an age of jazz by boosting the genre of ragtime. Jazz became particularly prevalent in the 1920s and '30s. Ray Charles influenced soul, and thus rock, in the '50s. Motown and soul, which branched off from early jazz in a separate direction than rock, grew in the 1950s and '60s. The early rock and roll innovators bridged what was then experimental and classical music into pop rock.
As rock became more prevalent on American airwaves and in its culture, more bands came and more branches of rock were creates. There are some who believe that rock in general is a force to use to fight against 'the man', just as Public Enemy fought 'the power'. There have often been "rock against..." movements — like "Rock Against Bush" or "Rock Against Racism". Charity events like Live Aid use rock music for a reason: it is often seen as the music of change. It's also popular and culturally influential. And how much many punk rebels want others to think of them as a small, distant, underground minority, punk and related forms of rock have entered the veins of American music, with political and cultural venting galore, and mainstream appeal. Alternative rock, hard rock, progressive rock, psychedelic, and punk rock all express in their music a means of change from the status quo, a rebellion of sorts also seen in some urban music (e.g. rap, hip-hop).

1970s punk rock helped build alternative rock, which was more of a culmination of various rock genres, including electronic, folk, and jazz, and indie music. Alternative rock resulted in more forms of indie, as well as grunge, Britpop, and post-punk. Marginalized in the 1980s, alternative saw its true calling in the '90s and the beginning of the next millennium. All Music Guide states:

Alternative pop/rock is essentially a catch-all term for post-punk bands from the mid-'80s to the mid-'90s. There is a multitude of musical styles within alternative rock, from the sweet melodies of jangle-pop to the disturbing metallic grind of industrial, yet are all tied together by a similar aesthetic -- they all existed and operated outside [sic] of the mainstream.

What effects on the fabric of pop culture in the United States have rebellious music reaped? The 1960s and '70s saw the real formation of modern (post Second World War) counterculture. Counterculture is the political opposition of the current mainstream by a cultural group creating a movement for a period of time. There have been many times of counterculture prevalence, but possibly none so influential, rebellious, and liberal as the counterculture of the modern era. This counterculture was spread throughout developed nations (i.e. North America, Western Europe, New Zealand, Australia) by the rebel youth largely of the Baby Boom.

Hippies were the main group of US counterculture, as opposition to the Vietnam war grew, sex, drugs, and other moral issues became less taboo (within that cultural group), and the conservative politics and culture seemed too restricting, especially in terms of civil rights (segregation) and governmental powers during the Cold War. Briefly put, counterculture of that time period brought about change by those in wealthy, educated nations. Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, and non-musical figures like Andy Warhol, played large roles in this movement. Nowadays, hippies are almost nonexistent, emphasizing the place of pop-counterculture in specific period of time, and not a more evolving, drawn out phenomenon like general culture.
Just as counterculture is a wider movement, rebellion can be large or small in scale. Rebels or pseudo-rebels popped up during and after the counterculture that lasted from roughly 1965 to 1978 in the United States. Punks and indies are seen as the more mainstream survivors or evolution of the counterculture movement. Any sort of rebellious movement has fought conformity, the establishment, and the social status quo — e.g. embracing communism throughout the Cold War, opposing the Iraq war today. The main timeframe where counterculture wasn't a subculture was in its 20th century, post-WWII heyday.

There is no doubt there will be future punk manifestations in the now-postmodern art era. However, it is unlikely we will see another era of hippies, music revolutionaries, and a shift in nearly every form of Western art and culture anytime soon. Who will be the next Beatles, the next Warhol, or the next Sex Pistols? Pop culture will evolve just as art does in one sense and society in another. The anti-establishment voices in music and entertainment will continue to cry out — as long as there is an establishment or movement to fight against.

References

"Alternative rock." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

"Black History Month 2003: Timeline of Key Dates in African-American History". NPR. 2003.

"Counterculture." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Cousin Steve. "Timeline: Significant events in the history of Rock Music". 1998.

"Genre: Alternative/Indie-Rock." All Music Guide.

McKinney, Jessie. "Pop Culture Definition". Homepage. 13 Feb 2004.

Palmer, Robert. "Critic's Notebook; The Evolution of Rock, a Long and Winding Road". New York Times. 22 August 1985.

Petracca, Michael and Madeleine Sorapure. Common Culture. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2004.

"Punk ideologies." Wikipedia.

"Queen declared 'top British band'". BBC News.

Robb, John. "Popular culture: The Birth of Punk". The Independent. 5 Nov 2005.

Turnwall, Craig. "The apparent indeterminable classification of counterculture", an essay.

Van Dorston, A.S. "A History of Punk". Fast 'n' Bulbous Music Webzine.

What goes around, comes around

Israelis launch raids into Gaza, devastate neighborhoods, resulting in more recruitment and support for extremists; extremists attack Israel.

Palestinian militants have launched a raid into Israel from the Gaza Strip.

Fresh fighting has now erupted between rival Palestinian political and militant factions Hamas and Fatah, breaking a recent ceasefire. Will this also desecrate the weak governmental unity between these two powers?

I'm still in New York... I will be writing some about my trip soon.

Holy advice, and stupidity

No matter how much "awe" George W. Bush feels by meeting with "Sir" (another Bush gaffe: one is supposed to call the pope "His Holiness") Pope Benedict, I doubt he will take the Pontiff's sensible advice on Iraq given to him during their meeting today...

seek "regional and negotiated" solutions to Middle East conflicts like Iraq.
...
The two men see eye-to-eye on ethical issues like abortion and euthanasia but differ on the war in Iraq, which Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, tried hard to avert.

Of course, not all of the pope's views are kosher in my eyes.

The Vatican's antiquated view on contraception has caused countless millions to die of STDs. There are over 1 billion Roman Catholics; many of them are uneducated, in poor or developing countries, and follow what their church says. This no-condoms policy, which the United States under the Bush administration has largely shared, is not the solution to issues like HIV/AIDS.

Sexual abstinence and total marital fidelity cannot be expected of a handful of people, let alone millions. Even Pope John Paul II, less conservative than his successor, rejected condoms as a prevention of AIDS — a reckless act indeed. The Catholic church doesn't have to encourage condoms (and other contraceptives), but by condemning them the likelihood of transmission of diseases like AIDS is greatly increased.

technorati tags: AIDS, condoms, catholic-church, vatican, Bush, pope, pope+benedict, george-w-bush, italy, stds, iraq, middle+east

More confirmation of CIA secret prisons

Another development in the story of secret jails run by the American CIA in the "war on terror".

IHT:

Investigators have confirmed the existence of clandestine CIA prisons in Romania and Poland housing leading members of Al Qaeda, according to a report issued Friday by the Council of Europe, the European human rights monitoring agency.

Dick Marty, the Swiss senator who has been leading the inquiry, said in a recent interview that his conclusions were based on information from intelligence agents on both sides of the Atlantic, including members of the CIA counterterrorism center.

The report says the prisons operated from 2003 to 2005.
...
But the report contends, "What was previously just a set of allegations is now proven."
...
Apart from the statements of what his report describes as former and present intelligence agents, Marty quotes aviation records that he suggests provide detailed evidence of clandestine visits by CIA planes to Szymany, Poland. He also quotes the text of confidential military agreements signed between the United States and Romania that, he suggests, allowed the establishment of a CIA base in the country.
...
The report includes more specific conclusions than a study released in June last year that contended that at least 14 European countries had accepted secret transfers of terrorism suspects by the United States. That report listed a web of global landing points that it said had been used by the American authorities for their air network.

The report found Poland and Romania were sites for the secret prisons, which President Bush has confirmed the existence of last year. There have been conflicting European reports on these "black sites". Often detainees are transported via "extraordinary renditions"; European nations have acted more as terminals — or the origin of the prisoners — than bases for the prisons. Nonetheless, many laws — international and national — have no doubt been broken even with the programs that have been admitted.

The CIA denies this latest report, as do the Polish and Romanian governments.

G8 catches

The G8 climate change agreement of course had a catch.

No mandatory target was set for the cuts, but Mrs Merkel's preference for a 50% emissions cut by the year 2050 was included in the agreed statement.

So is the agreement pointless? Should the Europeans have pushed stubborn America harder to do its part in the attempt to slow down human-caused global warming? Probably — to both.

There were more catches in the results of the now-concluded G8 summit. There was an agreement on aid for fighting AIDS and other diseases in Africa — although the aid pledged in 2005 has still not been delivered on. Out of the $60 billion pledged, it was pointed out that only $3 billion of it is new aid. Half of that aid will be given by the United States.

I will write a couple more posts on the G8 meeting, but here are some more topics it either covered or failed to cover:

At the close of the summit, the G8 issued a number of statements on other topics, saying:

* It supported "further measures" against Iran if Tehran failed to stop its uranium enrichment programme

* It would back further action against Sudan if Khartoum failed to support international efforts to end the conflict in Darfur

* North Korea should stop testing nuclear-capable missiles and abandon all nuclear programmes

* It had failed to find a common position on the future status of Kosovo

Surprise G8 compromise

At last G8 leaders have reached an agreement on climate change. Only the US had differing views from the other powers on global warming.

According to an extract from the agreed text published on the G8 website, the leaders agreed to take "strong and early" action.

"Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions," the text says.

The American view seemed to switch between "Human-caused global warming isn't happening" and "Oh, that global warming — we don't want to do anything about it". The latter view was recently held by President Bush in his usual policy format of baseless rhetoric.

The disagreement over how to take action against climate change has been an issue since America fought the proposed climate change initiatives earlier last month. In addition to the usual issues, the strained relations between Russia and the West — including the US's hope for missile defense shields in Europe, and Russia's retaliation to such an idea — is also going to be a major factor at the G8 summit.

The Group of Eight developed nations, or G8, includes Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, France, Germany, and Japan. The summit in its 33rd year is hosted this year by Germany and lasts from 6 June to 8 June. It is one of the major yearly world meetings. This will be the last summit for Britain's Tony Blair (leaving office on 27 June) and Russia's Vladimir Putin. It is the first for newcomers Shinzo Abe of Japan and Nicolas Sarkozy of France. Angela Merkel, the leader of Germany, plays host and tries to mediate hot issues like global warming; Prodi of Italy tries to please his fellow G8 members while keeping his fragile center-left coalition together; George W. Bush isn't well liked and along with Tony Blair will throw light jabs at the provocative Putin. The EU is also represented there. See also the G8 website.

technorati tags: bush, climate+change, global+warming, g8, united+states, politics, international+relations, diplomacy, foreign+affairs,

Get out of jail free, like Paris Hilton!

Hey I'm a celebrity so the law doesn't apply to me! Not only do all too many think that, but it is true in many cases.

The story of Paris Hilton. She contributes nothing positive to society, yet gets out of prison early. She should have been in jail, which I'm sure was made cushy for her liking (and it was), for 45 days, which was then cut to 23 days. How many days did she end up spending? Three.

It's not often I talk about these useless celebrities who dominate the national headlines, pushing out more deserving topics like the G8, but it's amazing how American law caters so much to celebrities. The rich and the famous can evade the law in ways not acceptable to the justice system or public safety or fairness.

I will be in LA later this summer, and I don't want to be run over by a drunk and drugged Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan. And really the wider issue is that in the United States' large, refined legal system, a celebrity can just evade their right punishment.

Hilton drove drink. Thats a pretty damn serious offense and she has basically gotten away with it. It would have been even worse if she was granted a pardon; considering all the high-profile letters California courts were swarmed with, we should be glad that didn't happen.

As I said I usually don't care a bit about entertainment stories, but when it affects how American justice sees the criminals stories like the Hilton DUI arrest and imprisonment become more serious. Needless to say it has also received far to much press coverage.

Hilton will be under house arrest for the remaining 40 days of her sentence. Considering the size of her mansion that shouldn't be a problem.


NOTICE: This blog is Paris Hilton (and other unimportant persons) -free until another one of them finds a way to receive special treatment on such a level that the story is deemed worthy of a blog post.

8 June UPDATE: A screaming and crying Hilton has been ordered back to jail to finish out her 45 days by a judge. CNN and other US news organizations have complete coverage of the Paris Hilton story, as it is their top story. Apparently a spoiled rich socialite serving out the time in jail she was meant to serve is more important than the G8 summit, Iraq, and American immigration politics combined. Another fine moment for American (celebrity) journalism...

technorati tags: paris+hilton, hilton, paris, paris+jail

Net tax: coming to a computer near you?

In no way is a tax on the internet a good thing. Other than online shopping, I see no validity in such taxes. But that won't stop the American government from imposing web taxes as early as this fall. Two taxes are being proposed: a sales tax on online shopping, which already exists in some areas, and the more daunting access tax. So far there have been legal loopholes and complications for online retailers and shoppers. As recently as a few years ago sales taxes on web purchases were virtually nonexistent.

On 1 November the ban on taxing internet access (the Internet Tax Freedom Extension Act of 2007) in the United States expires. Later this year is when the real trouble may begin. Just like the net neutrality battle last year — with technology know-nothings in charge of regulating the internet like Alaska's Sen. Ted Stevens pushing for a two-tiered internet favoring the telcos' revenue stream — there is bound to be a net tax battle this year. They are similar in that these issues not only deal with the web itself, but the openness and freedom of it. That is the essence of the World Wide Web. An internet too tightly controlled by the government is not good; nor is one wrapped around the finger of the ISPs good.

Between the privacy violations by the government in the name of anti-terror and the tax and net neutrality issues — and the issue of who ultimately controls the web — there is a lot to be done on the growing issue of how the internet will continue. I think a net regulation body should be independent under the auspices of the United Nations, instead of a potential pawn of the US Department of Commerce — and the private ICANN before that. The WWW is exactly that: worldwide. Why not have it controlled by the UN — the worldwide body — instead of one nation? That question will have to be confronted at an official level someday soon.

Taxing me for the land I own or when I buy food is fine, but taxing my email is something I won't stand for.

Conflict Meter, map edition plus

My Conflict Meter, charting the ebbs and flows of major conflicts throughout the world, has been on hiatus for a little while now, but I think it's time to bring it back. Instead of the usual "Up" and "Down" lists, here is the Conflict Meter in map form with a few non-violent but politically serious nonetheless conflicts thrown in.

Key
Red: major current violent conflict
Yellow: less serious, continuing, dormant, or recent, conflict
Blue: previous violence or political conflict
Green: political conflict, usually nonviolent, sometimes crippling to state
Black: conflict with other nations in foreign relations
Note: the larger in number or darker in color the dots, the more severe the conflict

World Conflict Meter map


More info...

Countries with the most current violence (red):
Iraq
Somalia

Countries with the most conflict or controversy in international diplomacy (black):
United States (w/ almost everyone)
Russia (w/ West over missiles, democracy, etc.)
Iran (w/ international community over nukes; w/ US over Iraq)

Other countries with conflict in diplomacy, i.e. sanctions, scorn, etc., or regional relations (black):
Israel (w/ Arab neighbors over clashes)
North Korea (w/ international community over nuclear program)
Sudan (in re to Darfur genocide)
Zimbabwe
Burma

Countries with the most civil or political disruption (green plus red/yellow):
Iraq
Israel/Palestine
Somalia
Afghanistan
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
Colombia

Countries with the most low-grade violence (yellow) or nonviolent political conflict (green):
Venezuela
United States

Most violent region:
Middle East

Country with most undemocratic initiatives in recent times, edging towards international isolation:
Venezuela (e.g. closing down opposition TV station)

Countries with civil wars:
Iraq
Sri Lanka
[Israel/Palestine]

Countries not listed above with major recent internal political troubles:
Turkey (presidential election)
Ukraine (intergovernmental conflict)

Occupied countries with high rate of violence:
Iraq (by US and others)
Afghanistan (by NATO)
Somalia (by Ethiopia)
Palestine* (by Israel)

The politics of budgeting a pseudo-war

The "Global War on Terror" might now be financed directly by the US government. It has already cost well over $600 billion to the United States. The financing falls under so-called deficit spending. America's deficit is already gaping, in part due to the Keynesian economic policies of the current military industrial system, as this Harper's article talked about:

KEY JUDGMENTS
The United States remains, for the moment, the most powerful nation in history, but it faces a violent contradiction between its long republican tradition and its more recent imperial ambitions.

The fate of previous democratic empires suggests that such a conflict is unsustainable and will be resolved in one of two ways. Rome attempted to keep its empire and lost its democracy. Britain chose to remain democratic and in the process let go its empire. Intentionally or not, the people of the United States already are well embarked upon the course of non-democratic empire.

Several factors, however, indicate that this course will be a brief one, which most likely will end in economic and political collapse.

Military Keynesianism: The imperial project is expensive. The flow of the nation's wealth—from taxpayers and (increasingly) foreign lenders through the government to military contractors and (decreasingly) back to the taxpayers—has created a form of “military Keynesianism,” in which the domestic economy requires sustained military ambition in order to avoid recession or collapse.

The Unitary Presidency: Sustained military ambition is inherently anti-republican, in that it tends to concentrate power in the executive branch. In the United States, President George W. Bush subscribes to an esoteric interpretation of the Constitution called the theory of the unitary executive, which holds, in effect, that the president has the authority to ignore the separation of powers written into the Constitution, creating a feedback loop in which permanent war and the unitary presidency are mutually reinforcing.

Failed Checks on Executive Ambition: The U.S. legislature and judiciary appear to be incapable of restraining the president and therefore restraining imperial ambition. Direct opposition from the people, in the form of democratic action or violent uprising, is unlikely because the television and print media have by and large found it unprofitable to inform the public about the actions of the country's leaders. Nor is it likely that the military will attempt to take over the executive branch by way of a coup.

Bankruptcy and Collapse: Confronted by the limits of its own vast but nonetheless finite financial resources and lacking the political check on spending provided by a functioning democracy, the United States will within a very short time face financial or even political collapse at home and a significantly diminished ability to project force abroad.

The deficit continues to grow wider, from trade and massive government spending. While more taxes isn't necessarily a bad thing (a small cost to many equals a large amount of money for government expenditures, which many fail to comprehend a small tax hike would barely affect them) it is how the money is spend that ultimately matters. A more transparent, streamlined spending framework should be put in place, similar to that of the Nordic welfare system.

Instead of having so many bureaucratic hoops and loopholes, more checks are needed. At the same time money should be able to go directly to where it is needed. This is a daunting task for a government so large and powerful as the American government, but it is feasible in the long run. Like with any reform, however, it needs a starting point in order to get the ball rolling. Basing the economy on a military-industrial complex system is dangerous in more ways than one. It increases a nation's militarism, thus crumbling aspects of its democracy, and restricts the economic base of said nation. Open government and good economics often go hand in hand.

Weighing organized religion

Religion can help more on a local, individual scale; whereas it harms more on a wider, organized scale. A personal faith is more empowering on one than an alliance to a religious body or movement. When used in political ways, organized religion only injects another power flow.

Religion can help by giving people a sense of being and to help others, on the other hand it also is the cause of many wars and vices against those of differing belief systems. Faith needn’t need rules. Even with religion, a devout follower may not have the fervor to outreach and make positive religious influence on society — especially if their faith does not preach such altruism or good rules.

Rule of thumb: there is no need for moral politicians; only ethical ones. Morals are personal or religious; ethics are legal and, thus, carry a weight of rationality and objective sense morals cannot. Nonetheless, both morals and ethics — especially in a religious sense — are opinion.

Would we be better off without religion? Probably. Historically, religion And it is an unneeded byproduct of the human psyche. Though it does take much creativity and brainwashing skill to become a religious leader, or to even create a religion.

Religion is embedded in human civilization, and mostly it has done little good. Soon after the days of Christ religion became used as a tool of empires. It halted human progress and resulted in the deaths of many in the Middle Ages, when it was still a tool of the state. Slowly religion and politics parted ways but they continue to be useful together for those wishing to acquire power.

Before the time of widespread empires of religion, society did benefit from the spreading of knowledge religion provided, and the wider values it instilled. In ancient times religion spawned the growth of societies into states resulting in progressive peoples. As one blogger noted about the "benefit of organized religion from a social or anthropological perspective",

...it goes without saying that historically-speaking, religion has been a massive force for good in human civilization.  Jared Diamond, in his book Guns, Germs and Steel, notes that there’s plenty of anthropological evidence to suggest that it wasn’t until we saw the transition from mere tribes to chiefdoms that organized, socially-relevant religion came into existence.  Sure, Diamond notes, religion existed beforehand, but it was merely concerned with personal piety and had little social significance.  So, with Chiefdoms, for the first time we began to see the phenomenon of a distant ruler which necessitated a ’state’-sponsored religion.

In short, Diamond notes that the collective and cooperative peaceful existence of large numbers of people was made possible in the first instance by organized religion.  What is more, this large, organized and peaceful existence of a large number of people was what made agriculture, aqueducts, education, literacy and exploration all possible.

What is scary is how people can follow their religions leaders to a point which they would be willing to die for them, and kill other innocents in the process. The many wasteful wars fought over beliefs is another indicator of religion's dangerousness. However, people fight over land and items, and that isn't an argument alone for the abolishment of property. Right now — especially in more fundamentalist hotbeds like much of the Muslim world and parts of America — religion is used as a tool of political/religious leaders to radicalize the population and kill many while collecting more power. In the US it is used to slow down essential scientific (and societal) progress (e.g. stem cells) and acts as a powerful special interest (e.g. Christian right). In the Mid-East, religion is the prime ideal extremists use to complete their objectives.

Of course there would still be violence if there was no (organized) religion, or what we see as organized religion. But if not for religions like Christianity and Islam, the human civilization would be more developed and less distraught than it is in its current state. The vast majority of the world's people are religions. I respect a person's right to be religious; but that doesn't mean I have to respect their chosen beliefs. However I'm not going to kill them over their beliefs.

technorati tags: muslim+world, USA, terrorism, radical+religion, organized+religion, society, christianity, empire, history, extremist+ideology

My vacation schedule

Seeing as its already June 3rd, I want to let readers know when to expect fewer postings during this busy summer travel season. I'll be making a trip to New York City and Washington, DC on 7 June or so to visit family and explore the cities; I'll get back on the 16th. Also throughout the season — till mid-August — I will make several trips to upper Michigan (my relaxation trip) and Los Angeles (my culturally-minded trip). On most of those trips I'll be able to post to the blog. And now that it's summer time, I'll have more time overall to devote to the blog.

Thanks to all the readers. I will be picking up again on "How to talk to a closed-minded person" soon, along with other essays and projects. Feel free to email me with questions or comments.