I wish I could hear about...

I was having a discussion with a bunch of friends last night and the latest topics in the news came up - Ellen's dog and Hillary Clinton's laugh. I noted that CNN international gave better news than the local CNN network and told them that if they wanted to watch real news, CNN international is definitely a better source. By no means am I saying that it is the standard bearer. To the contrary, their standard has gone down. I can think of three very current issues that are actual news (and very relevant to America) not being covered by the local news networks:

1. The new agreement in the European Union that will significantly change the workings of the bloc. It is a reform treaty known as the "Lisbon Treaty", signed by all the members last week. According to Gordon Brown, there are significant policy changes on the table that may come as early as December. I seriously doubt that, given the bungling bureaucracy that the EU is, but the members seem determined to get this right. More so after the constitutional issue that fell flat on its face.
   
   
2. Condoleezza Rice's seventh - yes, count that, seventh trip to the middle east this year. This is beyond "shuttle diplomacy". To me, this is "desperately fishing for a legacy diplomacy". Every time the messes created by dubya get too overwhelming, the Israel - Palestine conflict gets attention. This is the ever reliable scape goat of this administration's foreign policy. The newest contraption of this policy - a summit in Annapolis, already doomed to fail because the framework cannot be agreed on by the two parties.
   
   
3. Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart mentioned it, but no one else. Not a peep has been said in the mainstream media about it. I am referring to the book by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt about the Israeli lobby in the United States and its effects on foreign policy. I have no first hand knowledge of what the book says and will reserve judgement. The authors however are being dissed and condemned for writing a book that does not take too kindly to its subject. I know, from the interview of one of the authors on "The Colbert Report" that the book narrates a view that is not consistent with majority American opinion and therefore has not been given any coverage.
   

What a pity that Britney Spears' underwear seems to get more attention.

Its not all about you

In one of my classes last week, the issue of Iran came up, again. There was a divide in class opinion about what should be done about Iran providing weapons to Iraqi insurgents and continuous Iranian interference in Iraqi internal affairs. It was pointed out that this is not Iran's only transgression. Their support of the Palestinians and quest for nuclear weapons was mentioned. It was also pointed out that the rulers of Iran were "crazy" because they had rules forcing men to grow beards.

I thought the entire argument was ridiculous. It struck me that my classmates didn't get that it was not America's place to enforce international law, especially law that is broken by America on a daily basis. There are many dimensions to this argument which will make this post so much longer, but that is not the point of this post.

In the case of Iran let me point out that it is a democracy. It is not a democracy in the way that America is, but neither is any other country on the planet. In fact, going by accepted standards, Saudi Arabia is a worse democracy than Iran which has had regular free and fair elections and they are interfering in Iraqi affairs too, as is Turkey. It is a free for all in that region right now because of the mess created by America.

On the issue of transgressions, Iranians have not forgotten the Shah that was supported by America after a democracy was overthrown. Lets not forget Chile, Nicaragua, Haiti, Lebanon, Vietnam and Liberia, all of which are a clear case of internal interference by America. Now, these might be justified because its all a case of "good" fighting "evil" and the fact that these were terrorists. Right now, international opinion sees America as the terrorist and biggest threat to stability so going by the "good" fighting "evil" standard, all these countries should bring sanctions against America.

Finally, I believe it was Egypt that said that it will join the "Coalition of the Willing" only if there was an international definition of "terrorism" and not an American one. America refused of course saying if you are not with us, you are against us. The irony here is, as pointed out in class, the American definition of terrorism, makes America a terrorist and a state sponsor of terrorism.

What should we do about that?

Following the leader

I find it interesting that Turkey cites the resolution by the US Congress calling the killings of Armenians by turkey a century ago genocide as an excuse to beat war drums. What gets me though is the fact that this resolution by the Turkish Parliament seemed inevitable and it would have come anyway, regardless of the resolution by the US Congress. What this resolution has done is provide Turkey with an excuse to ignore US concerns and enter Iraq, just like "WMD" allowed the US to get into Iraq despite international concerns.

The response of the Turkish Prime Minister to US concerns was “did they seek permission from anyone when they came from a distance of 10,000 kilometers and hit Iraq?. We do not need anyone else’s advice.”

This brings back memories, specifically the response by the US government to international concern about their preparations for a war in Iraq. It was basically to the effect of "we will do whatever we need to in order to protect our security." Turkey is towing this line now. US influence and credibility in the region is clearly diminishing, evident in the statement of the Turkish Prime Minister addressing concern that the US Turkey relationship would be affected. He said “if such an option is chosen, whatever its price, it will be paid”. There is nothing much the US can really do. I guess bribing Turkey is an option but it didn't help before the Iraq war started and is unlikely to help now. Besides, Turkey clearly has the upper hand.

The purpose of government is to ensure the interests of a group is protected and the more the government is given the power to do this, the more individual liberties have to be given up. I would apply this to multinational institutions like the UN where countries have had to change their foreign policy because the UN disagreed with them. What has happened since the US invasion is that the UN has been undermined as a result of the US going its own way, despite overwhelming opposition. A trend has now been set. The UN is only as strong as its members make it. The shortsightedness of this American administration and its determined perusal of "yee haa" foreign policy has severely undermined the UN and thereby, international security.

I think we can most certainly expect countries to follow the American example in their foreign policy, resulting in further conflict. What a pity that no one listens to the "unpatriotic Americans".

Pitying "the Donald"

I was channel surfing last night for something that might be interesting when I stopped on CNN and found that the ever obnoxious and abundantly arrogant Donald Trump was on Larry King Live. I fail to understand why "the Donald" would have a cult following, especially among seemingly educated people. Last night, the extent of my consternation was further amplified.

At the end of the ten or so minutes that I watched him, I found that I actually felt sorry for the man. He was talking about his book and was explaining that there is a chapter in it where he advocates taking revenge and says it is therapeutic. He further went on to gloat about how much of a best seller his book was and as always, dissed everyone that came to mind. He had not one good word to say about anyone. On the topic of revenge, he told Larry King that Larry was like that too. Larry tried to explain that he wasn't but Trump cut him of saying something to the effect of "I know you Larry, you are like that". He knows Larry King better than Larry King knows himself! The consummate champion of all things good always seems to have a few words for Rosie and this time was no exception either.

I was sitting there thinking about how pathetic he was. Here is a man who professes to have "made it" in life, but cannot get past putting people down. I cant help but feel immensely sorry for him. What a small man he is. Someone needs to tell him that constantly putting people down and revengeful action are typical signs of low self esteem and at times, mental disorders. That is "the Donald" I see.

Why Gore?

Congrats to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize this year. I have one question though - why?

I have had the same question for the last few times that the Nobel committee has awarded the prize and since I now have a blog, I can write about it. Looking at the list of winners, I noticed that the "branching out" happened in 2003, and has remained consistent since:

2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.
2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
2004 - Wangari Maathai
2003 - Shirin Ebadi

What I mean by "branching out" is that the prize has been given to people who have not directly been involved in any peace initiatives. The committee has "branched out" before, like in 1944 when the award was given to the Red Cross or in 1999 when it was given to Médecins Sans Frontières but more or less it has been awarded to individuals like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, and entities like the UN Peace Keeping Forces.

The argument made for environmentalists is that given the importance of environmental resources, the impact of their work creates awareness and therefore prevents war over those resources. This is a logical argument and even though it might have some slim basis in fact, I am not convinced.

I cannot make a case against Wangari Maathai and Shirin Ebadi or any of the others because it is probably the case that they have worked for years in their respective fields before getting the award. Furthermore, they probably never acted contradictory to the actions they received their respective awards for. In the case of Gore however, this is not the case. I think all his actions should be taken into consideration and not only what he has done in the last few years. Those actions include taking no action against the genocide in Rwanda and the NATO bombing of Kosovo during the Clinton Presidency. I am not claiming that he is solely responsible for these things; but neither is he solely responsible for creating awareness about the perils of climate change.

Just Another School Shooting?

I woke up yesterday to the news of another school shooting. This time in Cleveland. I go to class and no one seems to care when I bring it up. One of my class mates actually said "oh another school shooting". I for one am bewildered by the reaction or lack thereof to news of another school shooting. This gets me thinking about how many school shootings I have heard of since I got to America and I started looking things up.

The number of school shootings since August 2006 (in reverse chronological order) that I found on the Brady Campaign website, :

Dover, Delaware. September 21, 2007
Newark, New Jersey. August 4, 2007.
Dallas, Texas. June 29, 2007.
Huntersville, North Carolina. April 18, 2007.
Blackburg, Virginia. April 16, 2007.
Gresham, Oregon. April 10, 2007.
Midland, Michigan. March 7, 2007.
Los Angeles, California. January 26, 2007.
Tacoma, Washington. January 3, 2007.
Springfield Township, Pennsylvania. December 12, 2006.
Clinton, South Carolina. November 9, 2006.
Joplin, Missouri. October 9, 2006.
Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania. October 2, 2006.
Cazenovia, Wisconsin. September 29, 2006.
Bailey, Colorado. September 27, 2006.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. September 17, 2006.
Green Bay, Wisconsin. September 14, 2006.
Hillsborough, North Carolina. August 30, 2006.
Essex, Vermont. August 24, 2006.

That's 19 in that list and since then, the incident this week in Cleveland. That's a total of 20 incidents within about a year. I think this would be enough to start a national debate or some discourse on the method of selling guns in this country, safety issues in schools and about what might be driving all these incidents. However, there seems to be nothing (in the mainstream at least). Looking around, I found the website of the author of the "Copycat Effect". This is the site of the author who has studied school shootings and written about them, concluding that there is a trend and that incidents are more likely certain times of the school year. I found it fascinating and think it is a site that should be looked at.

The worst thing to me though is that Americans seem to have accepted these incidents as inevitable and a part of their lives and seem totally indifferent to it. This is something I cannot bring myself to understand.