Treeless Terror
The inhabitants of Afghanistan are facing a number of problems these days. Smoldering infrastructure, tribal rivalries, Taliban holdouts, and even a recent earthquake. According to Mother Jones magazine's Michael Kamber, though, that's only the beginning. You probably didn't realize that Afghanistan is also facing an environmental crisis. Warlords might be roaming and unexploded munitions might be maiming, but MJ is concerned with the trouble the soot from wood fires is causing. Not only that, deforestation is being exacerbated by "a large timber mafia that smuggles wood out of the country" to towns in Pakistan. I didn't realize that firewood was banned from international commerce. Bad news for Canada, I guess.
Not all is lost, however. It seems that the unexploded bombs and other hazards of war might actually be good for the environment:
"Some environmentalists, searching for a silver lining among the ruins, are hoping that the landmines and dormant bombs will indirectly help protect some of Afghanistan's wildlife - even though they also pose a threat. 'Landmines tend to keep people out of areas,' says Dr. Joshua Ginsberg, Asia Director of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). 'That can be good for animals.'"
We've found the secret to wildlife preservation in the Third World - landmines. If only Princess Diana had lived to learn that they are "good for animals," she might have had more free time.
Wednesday, April 03, 2002
Mideast Paralysis
The Los Angeles Times has a good reminder from Robert Satloff about President Bush's role in the current state of war between Israel and the Palestinians. He did not, through lack of involvement, cause the current state of violence:
"When President Bush came to office in January 2001, the Palestinian uprising against Israel was 4 months old, and the promise of the Camp David peace talks was a distant memory. The uprising already had morphed from a popular revolt to a full-scale guerrilla war. It was clear then that Yasser Arafat had violated the basic foundation on which the entire Oslo edifice was constructed: renouncing armed struggle."
The same people who are blaming Bush for not pulling the Israelis and Palestinians apart and giving them a good shake are the same people who believed round after round of diplomatic talks were the route to lasting peace. Even after overwhelming evidence that the Palestinian Authority was not negotiating in good faith and continued its involvement with the suicide bombers, high-minded opinion makers around the world had only one solution: the United States should force both sides back to the table. Arafat counted on world opinion to force Israel to give him everything he wanted - and they almost did. Israel offered him a sovereign state and he turned it down. That should give the world some idea of the size of his ambitions.
Not that total inaction on Bush's part is a good thing. Outlets like the Washington Post are also reporting on Bush's performance, comparing it negatively to his leadership of the war with Afghanistan:
"Bush's instincts to see the war on terrorism as one of good vs. evil served him well after Sept. 11, as he rallied an international coalition for a military campaign in Afghanistan that dislodged the Taliban regime and at least dispersed the al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for the attacks on the United States.
"But as he has confronted the escalating war between Israel and the Palestinians, Bush has sounded anything but certain, the black-and-white rhetoric of his war on terrorism replaced by what administration critics have described as hesitancy, inconsistency and ambiguity."
Conventional wisdom has it that this ambiguity comes from trying to support Israel and secure Arab allies for a war against Saddam Hussein at the same time. That, we hear, puts us in a terrible bind. But need we bind ourselves? Barbara Lerner has an interesting answer to that in her National Review Online column "Who Needs the Arabs?":
"That wisdom is summed up in the self-defeating non sequitur that could be heard, hourly, on every newscast in America as Vice President Cheney toured the Middle East: To make war on Iraq — repeat after me — 'We need Arab allies.' There are two main problems with this journalistic cliché: first that it isn't true, and second that it's against our interests. Pack journalists offer four reasons for it: because without Arab allies, we'd be at war with the whole Muslim world; because we need military bases in Arab lands; 'stability in the Middle East'; and Arab oil. All four are false."
Worth considering.
The Los Angeles Times has a good reminder from Robert Satloff about President Bush's role in the current state of war between Israel and the Palestinians. He did not, through lack of involvement, cause the current state of violence:
"When President Bush came to office in January 2001, the Palestinian uprising against Israel was 4 months old, and the promise of the Camp David peace talks was a distant memory. The uprising already had morphed from a popular revolt to a full-scale guerrilla war. It was clear then that Yasser Arafat had violated the basic foundation on which the entire Oslo edifice was constructed: renouncing armed struggle."
The same people who are blaming Bush for not pulling the Israelis and Palestinians apart and giving them a good shake are the same people who believed round after round of diplomatic talks were the route to lasting peace. Even after overwhelming evidence that the Palestinian Authority was not negotiating in good faith and continued its involvement with the suicide bombers, high-minded opinion makers around the world had only one solution: the United States should force both sides back to the table. Arafat counted on world opinion to force Israel to give him everything he wanted - and they almost did. Israel offered him a sovereign state and he turned it down. That should give the world some idea of the size of his ambitions.
Not that total inaction on Bush's part is a good thing. Outlets like the Washington Post are also reporting on Bush's performance, comparing it negatively to his leadership of the war with Afghanistan:
"Bush's instincts to see the war on terrorism as one of good vs. evil served him well after Sept. 11, as he rallied an international coalition for a military campaign in Afghanistan that dislodged the Taliban regime and at least dispersed the al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for the attacks on the United States.
"But as he has confronted the escalating war between Israel and the Palestinians, Bush has sounded anything but certain, the black-and-white rhetoric of his war on terrorism replaced by what administration critics have described as hesitancy, inconsistency and ambiguity."
Conventional wisdom has it that this ambiguity comes from trying to support Israel and secure Arab allies for a war against Saddam Hussein at the same time. That, we hear, puts us in a terrible bind. But need we bind ourselves? Barbara Lerner has an interesting answer to that in her National Review Online column "Who Needs the Arabs?":
"That wisdom is summed up in the self-defeating non sequitur that could be heard, hourly, on every newscast in America as Vice President Cheney toured the Middle East: To make war on Iraq — repeat after me — 'We need Arab allies.' There are two main problems with this journalistic cliché: first that it isn't true, and second that it's against our interests. Pack journalists offer four reasons for it: because without Arab allies, we'd be at war with the whole Muslim world; because we need military bases in Arab lands; 'stability in the Middle East'; and Arab oil. All four are false."
Worth considering.
Tuesday, April 02, 2002
Drilling for Jobs
A split in the Labor-Left coalition?
For some time now there has been a rift between the environmentalist wing of the Democratic party and its traditional support by organized labor. Some locals even endorsed Bush for President. Now the jobs-minded Teamsters are being encouraged to support drilling in the Arctic. Not that they need the prodding. To their credit, they know the difference between feel-good greenie obstructionism and an oil strike that could mean thousands of new, living-wage jobs. A flourishing economy needs affordable energy. And if exploiting 1% of an otherwise frozen wasteland can bring us that, then break out the diamond-tipped drills. It's nice to keep a polar bear from being annoyed by far-off noise. It's even nicer for a hard working American to be able to support their family with a steady job.
A split in the Labor-Left coalition?
For some time now there has been a rift between the environmentalist wing of the Democratic party and its traditional support by organized labor. Some locals even endorsed Bush for President. Now the jobs-minded Teamsters are being encouraged to support drilling in the Arctic. Not that they need the prodding. To their credit, they know the difference between feel-good greenie obstructionism and an oil strike that could mean thousands of new, living-wage jobs. A flourishing economy needs affordable energy. And if exploiting 1% of an otherwise frozen wasteland can bring us that, then break out the diamond-tipped drills. It's nice to keep a polar bear from being annoyed by far-off noise. It's even nicer for a hard working American to be able to support their family with a steady job.
Psychedelically Fresh Breath
And so the countdown begins. How long will it take the DEA to list Salvia divinorum, the newly popular hallucinogenic herb from Mexico, as a controlled substance? That depends on how well-known it becomes. If it were not for national news attention from organizations like ABC News, it might have had a chance of staying legal indefinitely. But of course that's hardly possible now. All it takes is one e-commerce pioneer spamming Hotmail with a subject line that reads "The New LSD!!!! Totally legal high!!!!!!!" and the humble plant's fame is assured. As with LSD itself, the idle attentions of the non-drug using public rarely contribute positively to the future of a controlled substance.
Ethnobotanist Daniel J. Siebert seems to be more optimistic about the potential of this member of the mint family, however: "If you choose to pursue a relationship with this plant please treat it with respect and care. Perhaps if people can use the plant safely and responsibly it will be able to grow and thrive freely into the future." Ignoring for a moment the cloying hippie talk of 'pursuing a relationship' with the plant, I find it hard to understand that he would actually believe this. As the prohibition of marijuana makes painfully clear, the trigger for prohibiting a substance in this country has nothing to do with negative health impacts and everything to do with the ability of the government to fit it into a selective and emotionally defined category. If it's pleasantly mind-altering and not patented by a pharmaceutical company, it belongs in the Just Say No category.
Keep an eye out for DEA press conferences. The clock is ticking.
And so the countdown begins. How long will it take the DEA to list Salvia divinorum, the newly popular hallucinogenic herb from Mexico, as a controlled substance? That depends on how well-known it becomes. If it were not for national news attention from organizations like ABC News, it might have had a chance of staying legal indefinitely. But of course that's hardly possible now. All it takes is one e-commerce pioneer spamming Hotmail with a subject line that reads "The New LSD!!!! Totally legal high!!!!!!!" and the humble plant's fame is assured. As with LSD itself, the idle attentions of the non-drug using public rarely contribute positively to the future of a controlled substance.
Ethnobotanist Daniel J. Siebert seems to be more optimistic about the potential of this member of the mint family, however: "If you choose to pursue a relationship with this plant please treat it with respect and care. Perhaps if people can use the plant safely and responsibly it will be able to grow and thrive freely into the future." Ignoring for a moment the cloying hippie talk of 'pursuing a relationship' with the plant, I find it hard to understand that he would actually believe this. As the prohibition of marijuana makes painfully clear, the trigger for prohibiting a substance in this country has nothing to do with negative health impacts and everything to do with the ability of the government to fit it into a selective and emotionally defined category. If it's pleasantly mind-altering and not patented by a pharmaceutical company, it belongs in the Just Say No category.
Keep an eye out for DEA press conferences. The clock is ticking.
The Folly of the False Dichotomy
The Cybercast News Service has an article today on the future of windmill-generated electricity, in particular whether the federal government should continue to subsidize its production. The headline reads "Wind Power: Folly or Future?" Only the most naive of editors could think that, when Congress is involved, the two were mutually exclusive.
The Cybercast News Service has an article today on the future of windmill-generated electricity, in particular whether the federal government should continue to subsidize its production. The headline reads "Wind Power: Folly or Future?" Only the most naive of editors could think that, when Congress is involved, the two were mutually exclusive.
Illusory Universalism
Mark Bowden, author of Black Hawk Down, had a compelling op-ed in the Los Angeles Times yesterday. The War on Terrorism, we are often told, is not against the people of the world, only a few crazy fringe operators and a handful of oppressive tyrants. This is not a war against Muslims, the Arab world, or the Middle East. The vast majority of the people in those categories are just like us - hungering for the Western ideals of freedom and democracy. In fact, when it comes to their aspirations and desires, The Common People all around the world are Americans at heart. Bowden disagrees:
"We cling to this belief despite ample evidence to the contrary, whether it is political oppression in China, racial hatred in Zimbabwe, religious fanaticism in Iran, tribal conflict in Somalia or ethnic battles in the former Yugoslavia. The fact that these conflicts persist is blamed on backwardness or the bad influence of oppressive leaders. We assume that the people who inhabit these countries, unlike their leaders (who are not chosen democratically, after all) long for peace, freedom and prosperity, a world where differing races and religions are respected, even treasured, and where the human family is enriched by variety and the free exchange of ideas. Well, we are not the world."
He speaks the truth. During the Cold war, there were two competing system - ours and theirs. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, we assumed that ours had won and the rest of the world would start coasting, as various speeds, toward the American ideal without serious impediment. It turns out that many of the places around the world we expected to emulate us actually despise us. They think freedom is chaos and toleration is blasphemy:
"In most places, people long for victory, not peace. Their lives are shaped as much by fear and hatred as by acceptance and love. They are often complicit in the crimes of their leaders. At heart, they want their tribe, their race, their political system or their god to rule. They want not only to live their lives in the manner they choose but to compel others to do so. They want to kill their enemies, establish traditional homelands, avenge historical wrongs and preserve ways of life many Americans fled on their way here."
Words of warning to whatever international body ends up overseeing a new Afghanistan. Just because the Taliban is gone doesn't mean that the population has changed into a cadre of fresh faced American suburbanites, eager to get back to the building a productive economy and flourishing civil society. The institutions and values that define us didn't exist there before, and they're not likely to in the near future.
Mark Bowden, author of Black Hawk Down, had a compelling op-ed in the Los Angeles Times yesterday. The War on Terrorism, we are often told, is not against the people of the world, only a few crazy fringe operators and a handful of oppressive tyrants. This is not a war against Muslims, the Arab world, or the Middle East. The vast majority of the people in those categories are just like us - hungering for the Western ideals of freedom and democracy. In fact, when it comes to their aspirations and desires, The Common People all around the world are Americans at heart. Bowden disagrees:
"We cling to this belief despite ample evidence to the contrary, whether it is political oppression in China, racial hatred in Zimbabwe, religious fanaticism in Iran, tribal conflict in Somalia or ethnic battles in the former Yugoslavia. The fact that these conflicts persist is blamed on backwardness or the bad influence of oppressive leaders. We assume that the people who inhabit these countries, unlike their leaders (who are not chosen democratically, after all) long for peace, freedom and prosperity, a world where differing races and religions are respected, even treasured, and where the human family is enriched by variety and the free exchange of ideas. Well, we are not the world."
He speaks the truth. During the Cold war, there were two competing system - ours and theirs. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, we assumed that ours had won and the rest of the world would start coasting, as various speeds, toward the American ideal without serious impediment. It turns out that many of the places around the world we expected to emulate us actually despise us. They think freedom is chaos and toleration is blasphemy:
"In most places, people long for victory, not peace. Their lives are shaped as much by fear and hatred as by acceptance and love. They are often complicit in the crimes of their leaders. At heart, they want their tribe, their race, their political system or their god to rule. They want not only to live their lives in the manner they choose but to compel others to do so. They want to kill their enemies, establish traditional homelands, avenge historical wrongs and preserve ways of life many Americans fled on their way here."
Words of warning to whatever international body ends up overseeing a new Afghanistan. Just because the Taliban is gone doesn't mean that the population has changed into a cadre of fresh faced American suburbanites, eager to get back to the building a productive economy and flourishing civil society. The institutions and values that define us didn't exist there before, and they're not likely to in the near future.
Monday, April 01, 2002
Labour's Love Lost
Lady Thatcher is retired from public life for one week and already it starts.
The rift between New Labour's version of Third Way politics and the Labour party's base is becoming clearer every day. Take this week's declaration by the UK's largest teachers' union that it's going to go on a limited strike over working hours. The National Union of Teachers is demanding a 35 hour work week - down from the reported average of 53 hours a week. The union says that "teachers are fed up waiting for improvements," but education secretary Estelle Morris was decidedly unsympathetic, reportedly feeling "disappointed and furious." An exotic combination indeed for a member of a Labour cabinet faced with an unhappy teachers' union.
This on the heels of PM Blair's characterization of opponents of public service privatisation as "wreckers," a comment many union leaders though was aimed squarely at them. Blair not only stuck with the comment in the face of criticism, however, but went on to deny that he had apologized for it. Echoing that recent controversy, Tory shadow education secretary Damian Green attempted to reassure the teachers' unions that they had friends on the Right, saying "Teachers are not wreckers. They are hard-working professionals who are doing their best under increasingly difficult circumstances." Green reportedly faced "heckling" from the union representatives during his speech.
Lady Thatcher is retired from public life for one week and already it starts.
The rift between New Labour's version of Third Way politics and the Labour party's base is becoming clearer every day. Take this week's declaration by the UK's largest teachers' union that it's going to go on a limited strike over working hours. The National Union of Teachers is demanding a 35 hour work week - down from the reported average of 53 hours a week. The union says that "teachers are fed up waiting for improvements," but education secretary Estelle Morris was decidedly unsympathetic, reportedly feeling "disappointed and furious." An exotic combination indeed for a member of a Labour cabinet faced with an unhappy teachers' union.
This on the heels of PM Blair's characterization of opponents of public service privatisation as "wreckers," a comment many union leaders though was aimed squarely at them. Blair not only stuck with the comment in the face of criticism, however, but went on to deny that he had apologized for it. Echoing that recent controversy, Tory shadow education secretary Damian Green attempted to reassure the teachers' unions that they had friends on the Right, saying "Teachers are not wreckers. They are hard-working professionals who are doing their best under increasingly difficult circumstances." Green reportedly faced "heckling" from the union representatives during his speech.
An Embarrassment of Riches
Bill Clinton's shamelessness never ceases to amaze me. He's made a new statement about the Marc Rich pardon which is classic Bill. He maintains that he did nothing wrong in granting Rich a pardon, and that despite significant and compelling evidence to the contrary, there was no quid pro quo arranged by Denise Rich to benefit the Clintons. Asked if he would do it all over again, however, he says that he wouldn't. Why? According to the former President, "It wasn't worth the damage to my reputation." So despite the fact that he believes Marc Rich was innocent and did indeed deserve a pardon, if Clinton had it to do over again he wouldn't give him one because of the damage to his own reputation. I hope one of the Kennedy kids is coming out with a revised edition of Profiles in Courage soon. This belongs in some Appendix of Shame near the back.
Bill Clinton's shamelessness never ceases to amaze me. He's made a new statement about the Marc Rich pardon which is classic Bill. He maintains that he did nothing wrong in granting Rich a pardon, and that despite significant and compelling evidence to the contrary, there was no quid pro quo arranged by Denise Rich to benefit the Clintons. Asked if he would do it all over again, however, he says that he wouldn't. Why? According to the former President, "It wasn't worth the damage to my reputation." So despite the fact that he believes Marc Rich was innocent and did indeed deserve a pardon, if Clinton had it to do over again he wouldn't give him one because of the damage to his own reputation. I hope one of the Kennedy kids is coming out with a revised edition of Profiles in Courage soon. This belongs in some Appendix of Shame near the back.
John McCain Corruption Alert
Could it be that Microsoft is not the only one who knows how to manipulate market conditions for its own profit? Today Robert Novak points out the surprisingly large amount of campaign contributions received by state Attorneys General from Microsoft's rivals, such as Oracle and Novell. Why would they contribute the campaigns of state Attorneys General? Why, because the AGs are the ones who are suing Microsoft, and who get to decide if any proposed settlement punishes the company enough. And who is most interested in seeing Microsoft kept in court through the next several waves of innovation? Naturally enough, the companies that have been trying, often unsuccessfully, to compete against the big M's products. Why bother coming up with a strategy for winning in the software market when you can buy a strategy for winning in the market for political influence?
Could it be that Microsoft is not the only one who knows how to manipulate market conditions for its own profit? Today Robert Novak points out the surprisingly large amount of campaign contributions received by state Attorneys General from Microsoft's rivals, such as Oracle and Novell. Why would they contribute the campaigns of state Attorneys General? Why, because the AGs are the ones who are suing Microsoft, and who get to decide if any proposed settlement punishes the company enough. And who is most interested in seeing Microsoft kept in court through the next several waves of innovation? Naturally enough, the companies that have been trying, often unsuccessfully, to compete against the big M's products. Why bother coming up with a strategy for winning in the software market when you can buy a strategy for winning in the market for political influence?
Tell it to the Bankruptcy Judge
Somehow Enron is still near the top of the Fortune 500 - moving up from no. 7 last year to no. 5 this year. Perhaps Fortune magazine, which is up there with Don Jones, Inc. as a brand name source for business information, should consider re-calculating their famous list. Being de-listed from their exchange and forced into bankruptcy should merit at least an asterisk next to their rank.
Somehow Enron is still near the top of the Fortune 500 - moving up from no. 7 last year to no. 5 this year. Perhaps Fortune magazine, which is up there with Don Jones, Inc. as a brand name source for business information, should consider re-calculating their famous list. Being de-listed from their exchange and forced into bankruptcy should merit at least an asterisk next to their rank.