More on Zimbabwe elections

Mugabe predicts an "overwhelming victory" as it were...what else do we usually hear from defiant dictators? The majority of Zimbabweans surely are sick of this man; I don't see how there is any way a fair election could turn out in his favor. He simply has too much stacked against him. His so-called "land reform" has only done more harm than good by putting vital farmland in the hands of his party bosses who can't tell the front end of an ox from its rear.

However, there are still a good number of major obstacles the Zimbabwean people must overcome to make this work. Going to the polls over there is quite different from over here (maybe with the exception of Broward County). Mugabe still controls the press and has the entire internal security force working directly under his payroll.

While political violence has been sharply lower in this campaign than in the 2000 and 2002 elections, the MDC charges that its supporters have been intimidated this year.

They also say tough security and media laws will skew the vote in favor of Mugabe's ZANU-PF.

You don't say?

The question of observers is another issue worth looking at. This is truly what may steer this election in favor of Mugabe yet again. South Africa, one of the major countries that is sponsoring observers, clearly does not wish to see Mugabe leave for one reason or another. The Guardian Unlimited reports:

In the absence of observer missions from the Commonwealth or the EU, the responsibility for passing judgment on Zimbabwe's elections rests with observers from South Africa and the Southern Africa Development Community, the 13-nation regional group.

South Africa's president, Thabo Mbeki, is conscious that Mr Mugabe backed the ANC during the anti-apartheid struggle, and that in the eyes of land-hungry rural black people in South Africa Zimbabwe's president is a hero.

Before the vote, Mr Mbeki and the leader of his observer mission made comments suggesting they had already made up their minds that the election would be free and fair.

"The reports of the use of food to buy votes and to deny opposition supporters state food should be investigated by observers," said John Makumbe, a lecturer in political science at the University of Zimbabwe. "It is disappointing to see South African and SADC observer missions say that everything seems fine. They seem to be quite desperate to see Mugabe stay in power."

So basically, to the South African government, it's not so much what Mugabe is doing now, it's what he did back in the day for anti-apartheid? So that makes it okay for him to stay on for another couple of years and kill thousands of his people? Weak.

Christians and the GOP

While getting my daily fill of Hugh Hewitt, I stumbled upon a really interesting New York Times editorial about the dominant role that conservative Christians are playing in the Republican Party. John Danforth more or less blames this large American faith group, which has become increasingly front and center on the political stage in recent years, for hijacking the GOP's agenda. By putting religious issues before traditional socio-economic ones, Danforth feels that Republicans have forgotten about the fundamentals that unite them as a party. I myself am not a Republican, but I do feel that Danforth is right on target on a number of things that I have observed (in the wake of the Terri Schiavo fiasco in particular).

High-profile Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo, including departures from Republican principles like approving Congressional involvement in private decisions and empowering a federal court to overrule a state court, can rightfully be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of religious power blocs.

Exactly what I was thinking. I always felt that Republican politicians' stance on the issue really seemed to veer away from traditional party ideology. To me it was simple: the federal government is to have as little a role as possible in peoples' lives, whether that be in terms of "private decisions" or intervening in state legal matters. In any case, the influence of right-wing Christian fundamentalists is obvious.

I like the way Danforth wraps things up...

During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.

But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.

All too true. When is the last time present-day Republicans did a thing about the federal deficit? Wasn't "conservatism" applicable to fiscal matters at one point? Of course, I am not pro-gay marriage either, but I certainly think that there are more important issues on the table right now that should be addressed first and foremost. The fact that my generation is basically left with the largest bill to pay in history is a bit disconcerting. Like the saying goes, "the last one at the party gets stuck with the check." And I think my ride just left...

Showdown in Zimbabwe

President Mugabe's recent behavior doesn't suprise me in the least. He is apparently preparing legions of armed youth militia to fight to keep him in power in preparation for the upcoming elections. Two days from now he faces a possible "peaceful" uprising, led by Archbishop Pius Ncube of the Roman Catholic Church, in the wake of an expected theft of the election by the ZANU-PF government. Does all of this signal a start in the inevitable demise of autocratic rule in Africa?

Archbishop Ncube is the Roman Catholics' second most senior cleric in Zimbabwe. His unprecedented call for a peaceful uprising to stop Mr Mugabe, whom he has branded a brutal crook who relies on ballot theft to cling to power, has seemingly energised a previously cowed populace.

People getting energized about the posibility of freedom (not to mention food)? Who would have thought?

One of the issues that bothers me the most is the fact that representatives from South Africa and the AU are the main people being tasked to oversee this election (of course, Mugabe still insists the elections will be fair and there is nothing to worry about because he will win by a landslide anyway...blah, blah). Now anyone that knows something about African politics could probably tell you that these two regional players have been some of the most lenient towards Mugabe's policies out of any pro-Western political entity.

Some 500 international observers, including delegations from the South African government, parliament and ruling ANC, the Southern African Development Community and the African Union have deployed across Zimbabwe to monitor the poll.

The Commonwealth, the United States, Britain and the European Union -- all of which have accused Mugabe of political abuses in the past -- were not invited to participate.

Well that's a relief.

Below are some good Zimbabwe blogs you might want to check out for more of a man-on-the-street feel as this story unfolds (courtesy of Glenn Reynolds):

http://www.sokwanele.com/blog/blog.html

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/03/zimbabwes_hopes.html

If I find any more, I will be sure to post them.

Reflections on America's horrendous diet

After watching this evening's edition of World News Tonight on ABC, I was frightened to learn that Burger King has just unveiled a new 730-calorie breakfast sandwich. Judging from Burger King's website, with its flashy promotional campaign already up and running, they have joined the ranks of fast-food franchises, such as Hardee's, that have little shame in regards to their customers. With something like 2/3 of Americans obese as it is, why exactly do we need another monster product dished up with fries (or hash browns in this case)?

Of course, many Americans may put forth the personal freedom arguement. "It's my body and I can do whatever I want with it!" Fast-food companies play off of this too, putting a variety of options on the menu to further the concept of "consumer choice." Unfortunately, this statement is a contradiction of sorts when one considers that we all have to pay for health insurance. Dr. McDougall of TravelWizard.com wrote a very good article (I suggest you skim it, it is long but it contains some very good points) about how "responsible" Americans are paying for the actions of their fellow citizens that are choosing to wreck their bodies. I think he summed it up pretty well in this sentence:

Personally, I am tired of paying for someone else’s irresponsibility; drunks, smokers, and people who choose to be unhealthy by eating like royalty and failing to exercise, must no longer be allowed to put this financial burden on the “responsible minority.”

Amen to that.

So obviously people are aware of the problem, but how to go about fixing it is a whole 'nother ballgame. In June of last year, apparently there was a summit on obesity that attempted to address the issue in a concise manner. The only problem is there was little that could be agreed on in terms of where to put pressure points. Here are a few excerpts that caught my eye:

What is the role of government? We don’t all see eye-to-eye that that one either. Many here were disappointed to hear Secretary Thompson stress personal responsibility over government leadership. They were disappointed that his department’s initiatives were mainly small, low-budget steps, such as underfunded PSA programs, rather than big well-funded actions. And we just heard that there’s only a pathetic $2.7 million budget behind the department responsible for giving us the U.S. Dietary Guidelines and Food Pyramid program.

We heard about extraordinary nutritional overhauls going on in the schools of Texas, a state with a very high obesity rate, and those changes reflect the effort of one government official: state agricultural commissioner Susan Combs. She has shown what strong government leadership can do.

Speaking of the Health Insurance Industry

We heard about a promising new pilot program from Aetna called Healthy Body, Healthy Weight, that breaks new ground in helping overweight patients and reimbursing primary care doctors for time spent on this. We heard suggestions to build financial incentives into our health insurance systems so that companies and individuals reap benefits from changing to a healthier lifestyle, diet and weight. How about a pilot program on that?

So basically, there is a lot that needs to be addressed. Let's just hope that America (in whatever form, socially or politically) faces this problem head-on before it's too late.

More seismic activity in Southeast Asia

As if the Indonesians haven't had enough already...

An 8.2 magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of Sumatra Monday close to where a similar quake triggered a tsunami that left nearly 300,000 people dead or missing, the U.S. Geological Survey said. -ABC News

While there is still a good chance of local tsunami activity, experts seem to agree that it won't be anything like what we saw in December. Plus, I am confident people definitely learned from what happened and are choosing to move far away from the beaches.

In any case, this breaking story reminded me of the active role that bloggers took in the last disaster, bringing plenty of "on-the-scene" reporting to audiences that didn't seem to be completely satisfied with the MSM at the time. In many cases, mainstream reporters would only spend time in one area, which obviously limits one's scope of observation. Here's a nice long article from the Asia Times Online that offers a lot of interesting insight into the tsunami bloggers.

So while many top bloggers like Hugh Hewitt and Glenn Reynolds are choosing to largely ignore the story, either because they have more pressing political matters to attend to or because they feel forced to rely largely on the hated mainstream media to fill them in (considering they don't live in Asia), bloggers such as Malaysian Jeff Ooi are top choices to fill in the gap (this guy has detailed maps and everything). It is the World Wide Web after all.

Easter weekend reflections

Every year come Easter, 2 billion Christians celebrate the day when they believe Christ rose from the dead. Likewise, the world's 1 billion Roman Catholics look forward to the Easter Mass on this day, in which the Pope traditionally leads the service from the Holy See in Rome (Interesting note: the Vatican website actually features the "Pope's" email address).

This year's service was a bit different, however. The Pope's ailing health left him with an inability to address the crowd. He struggled to speak and instead chose to simply make the sign of the cross, leaving the bulk of the Easter weekend responsibilities to subordinate cardinals, mainly Angelo Sodano of Italy and Joseph Ratzinger of Germany.

This is the first time in John Paul II's 26-year papacy that he did not take part in the Holy Week celebrations leading up to the Easter Mass. More and more we are seeing top-level cardinals stepping in to fill the Pope's position, reading statements on his behalf and trying to keep peoples' spirits up. What is the Catholic Church to do with the problem of an ailing Pope who refuses to accept resignation? John Paul has begun to relate his suffering to that of Christ Himself, which I perceive as a humble yet proud statement at the same time. On the one hand, it is good to look to the example of Holy Figures such as Christ in order to get through periods of tribulation. On the other hand, in the case of the Pope, I think that it is better for him to accept that he is, in fact, only human. True, Christ suffered on the cross, but he was able to rise again (whether you take that to be a literal or allegorical truth), which is something a sick 84-year-old will never be able to do, regardless of whatever he may believe about his station here on earth. In any case, some at the Vatican seem to be preparing for the worst, while others still cling to the notion that the Pope's embrace of suffering will somehow bring about his redemption. Either way, I do not believe he has much time remaining on this plane.

On the Terri Schiavo front, there is something truly profound (at least, I hope you think so as well) that dawned on me while reading about the resiliency of "pro-Terri" protesters, who were asked today by the Schiavo family to go home to their families for Easter. Some insisted on staying behind and continuing to fight on "behalf" of the Schiavo family.

The idea that many of these conservative Christian/Catholic protesters are arguing, in favor of allowing Terri Schiavo to live, is the intrinsic value of a human life; that no matter how handicapped a person may be or hopeless the situation may seem, we are still talking about a human life. If that is the case, then why not spend more time lobbying the U.S. government to send food aid to starving people in Third World countries? Does the conservative American belief in the intrinsic value of a human life remain confined to our own borders? I don't mean to play Devil's advocate here, but I think it's a good point to be made. If Terri Schiavo has the right to food and water, why not an orphan from Sudan or the Congo? Just something to think about...

Doctor who?

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit posted a great statement from the American Council on Science and Health, which basically put to rest any doubts that Terri Schiavo is in fact in a state of "minimum consciousness" as opposed to vegetation.

What is probably the most interesting aspect of this statement is the exposure of Dr. William Cheshire, a so-called "expert" in neurology.

Yesterday, there was another public challenge to Ms. Schiavo's well-established diagnosis: Florida governor Jeb Bush announced that a "very renowned neurologist," Dr. William Cheshire, had concluded that Terri had been misdiagnosed and that she was really only in a state of "minimal consciousness" rather than a persistent vegetative state. He used this "new diagnosis" to argue that "this new information raises serious concerns and warrants immediate action."

As it turns out, Dr. Cheshire is not "renowned" as a neurologist -- his limited publications focus on areas including headache pain and his opposition to stem cell research. Dr. Cheshire never conducted a physical examination of Ms. Schiavo, nor did he do neurological tests. . . . Let's call tripe when tripe is served.

Okay, it's bad enough that Jeb probably helped his brother win the election, but now he, along with the Schiavo legal team, is citing fake experts. How tragic. I wish the government would just stay out of what is more or less a family feud. True, in essence it is sort of a legal/ethical issue, however, the fact remains that the life of one woman, who has been in her present state for 15 years is actually being debated in the Congressional chamber. What's worse, the MSM has gone insane (like it does more and more these days) and refuses to cover anything else that is actually important. The feeding tube has been out for over a week now and the Supreme Court is not going to do anything about it. Can't we all just get along?

The Pundit on Schiavo

Of course Bush is "pro-life," which is why he is unhappy with Judge Whittemore's recent ruling, but it is hard for me to reconcile the politics of abortion with the politics of removing the feeding tube from a suffering human being. Terri Schiavo is clearly in a vegetative state, as Florida law has ruled on her behalf. The New York Times reports that "doctors have said [she] has no hope of recovery." In addition, there is a good amount of proof that would suggest that Terri Schiavo herself would not desire to live in such a state.

State courts accepted Mr. Schiavo's testimony that several times, his wife told him she would not want life-prolonging measures.

Yet at the same time, Terri did not leave any written will or testimony that would break the case wide open. Throw that in with an appeal to religious liberty (Schiavo's Catholic parents insist that Pope John Paul II's statement against "refusal of food and water" somehow applies to this situation, even though it can be easily argued that this is referring to a completely different set of circumstances) and you've got a multi-faceted legal dilemma. Nevertheless, with the feeding tube already out, lawmakers don't have much time to come up with legislation that could put it back in for good.

Perhaps in this case it is best to apply a standard of utilitarian ethics. That is, the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people should be the prevailing factor. If Terri is allowed to die, not only will her soul finally be freed from the prison that has become her body (yes, I do believe in such things), but one could also look at it from the taxpayer's point of view. Why should we pay to keep someone alive whose husband, one who was her loving life partner, insists that she would not want to live this way? Of course her parents will be devastated; no one expected it to be otherwise. However, in all honesty, I think I would feel worse for her, even if I were her parent, if she were allowed to continue living in her present condition.

NPR refuses to change its ways

Today's Jerusalem Post featured a very interesting opinion piece by Andrea Levin about NPR's continued pro-Arab stance after years of fundraising campaigns and federal subsidy. Unfortunately, the article cannot be accessed on the Post's website if you aren't a member, but I would be glad to paste the contents right here on this blog for all who are interested.

More static on American public radio
>
> ANDREA LEVIN, THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 20, 2005
>
> It's fundraising season at America's National Public Radio. For Israelis
unfamiliar with the network, NPR is a producer and distributor of
noncommercial news, talk and entertainment programming. It is a privately
supported, not-for-profit membership organization serving 760 independently
operated, noncommercial public radio stations.
> NPR has earned a reputation for both the quality of its programs and for a
long-standing bias against Israel. But is that now beginning to change?
> A review of its coverage in early 2005 offers few signs of positive
change. Instead, the tilt toward the Arab narrative continues. Gestures of
accountability, including sporadic corrections and quarterly
self-examinations of its Middle East reporting amount to little more than PR
damage control.
> NPR's Peter Kenyon, for instance, declared on March 9 that "most observers
believe under international law all Israeli settlements in the occupied
territories are illegal." Who these "observers" are, and how Kenyon tallied
their views in order to conclude that "most" consider settlements illegal is
unclear.
> The round-up of guest interviewees was also numbingly familiar - with, for
instance, no fewer than nine interviews in eight weeks with
Palestinian-Jordanian journalist Rami Khouri, editor-at-large of Lebanon's
Daily Star. An outspoken advocate of Arab views, Khouri, for example, argued
on March 8 that Hizbullah is "a very impressive, legitimate, even heroic
resistance movement," and he dismissed any menace the group poses to the
Jewish state. "Hizbullah," he declared, "is not a big threat to Israel."
> Neither Khouri nor the NPR host mentioned Hizbullah's declared dedication
to Israel's destruction, or Israeli estimates that 13,000 Iranian-supplied
artillery and short-range Hizbullah rockets are trained on northern Israel,
some in reach of major population centers.
> Nor are any references made to Hizbullah's anti-Semitic rhetoric, widely
disseminated on the group's Al Manar television station. Omitted too are
Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah's rants against Israel, which he terms the
"cancerous entity," an "ultimate evil," and a "predatory beast." Excluded
are rantings such as: "Throughout history the Jews have been Allah's most
cowardly and greedy creatures."
> Among others repeatedly invited to comment on events was Khaled al Maeena,
editor of Saudi Arabia's Arab News, who has written that Israel "commits
mass murder against Palestinians" and has railed against the monitoring
group MEMRI for its exposes of Arab anti-Semitism.
> Robert Malley, an outspoken proponent of the view that Israel was
insufficiently forthcoming at the Camp David/Taba talks in 2000/2001 when it
offered the Palestinians a state on more than 95 percent of the West Bank
and Gaza, has made frequent NPR appearances. So too author Patrick Seale, a
notorious apologist for the late Hafez al-Assad.
> In each of these and other similar cases, the guest speaker was presented
as a neutral commentator.
> During this same time, NPR's Robert Siegel spent several weeks in Israel,
reporting from the region and filing at least 14 stories. Although he was
there during the February 25 terrorist attack on a Tel Aviv nightspot, he
did not cover the breaking story, nor did he do a follow-up on the victims.
> But there were predictable segments with Hanan Ashrawi, Nabil Sha'ath and
Saeb Erekat. There were familiar paired segments of Israeli and Palestinian
students, and predictable NPR laxity in challenging blatant Palestinian
falsehoods.
> When Arab students recited a litany of distorted allegations about Israel,
Siegel interjected one apologetic corrective - noting that contrary to a
Palestinian student's claim that Israel had failed to open checkpoints or
release prisoners: "By Palestinian standards a very small release, but a few
hundred people have been released so far." >
> To the ludicrous claim that "during the Oslo period there was no bombings,
there was nothing," Siegel was silent, failing to remind listeners that Oslo
spawned unprecedented terror bombings. In fact, Palestinian attackers killed
some 250 Israelis between Yasser Arafat's arrival in the territories in July
1994 and his launching of the September 2000 terror war.
> But Siegel does not just fail to counter distortions; he himself presents
Palestinian views as fact. On March 1, for instance, he declared that "one
of the real obstacles of the moment... is the security barrier..." He added:
"In many parts, it is pretty - although the word is disputed - it sure is a
wall."
> But in Jerusalem's view, "one of the real obstacles of the moment" is the
ongoing failure by the Palestinian Authority to eradicate the Hamas and
Islamic Jihad terrorist infrastructure, and the fence is a monument to the
Palestinians' refusal to control the killers in their midst.
> Nor is it accurate, or professional, of Siegel not to report that the
security barrier is actually 95 percent fence and 5 percent wall.
> So early 2005 has been more of the same on NPR. Americans who care about
factual, balanced and unbiased reporting should keep this in mind when
they're asked to send a check.
> The writer is executive director of CAMERA, Committee for Accuracy in
Middle East Reporting in America.

After reading it, it has become pretty clear to me that NPR consistently chooses to ignore accuracy and objectivity in its reporting on Middle East issues (I can't really speak on behalf of other world or domestic reporting, although I am fairly confident it takes a left-wing stance on its stories overall). Certain generalizations that are made are very unprofessional in my opinion, like in the case of Peter Kenyon saying that "most observers believe under international law all Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal." And the makers of Outfoxxed, a left-wing documentary that bashes Fox News, have the nerve to criticize right-wing generalizations in reporting. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Fox News either. In fact, I probably rely on more traditionally liberal media sources like The New York Times for news, but I think it is very important for ordinary citizens to realize when an outlet is compromising accuracy for bias.

NPR has a duty to its listeners to provide objective news. Its own website spells out how it is funded by a combination of public donations (86%) and assistance from The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (14%), which is kept afloat by Congress. No matter how one slices it, a portion of American taxpayer money is being allotted to this station, and accordingly it should work a little harder to improve the quality of its reporting. How is it that an Arab journalist from Lebanon's Daily Star can get on NPR and say such things like Hizbullah is a "very impressive, legitimate, even heroic resistance movement," and that it is not a "big threat to Israel"? At least get an opposing viewpoint and let the audience make up its mind. But to consistently invite these types of people while excluding others is just plain sloppy.

Peterson sentenced to death

In the world of criminal justice, nothing has come close in the last couple of years to the Laci Peterson case. A judge in California finally sealed the case today, handing Scott Peterson, 32, a sentence of death by lethal injection.

By law, the judge was required to consider a lesser sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. But instead, the judge, who called Mr. Peterson "cruel, uncaring, heartless and callous," according to news agency reporters in the courtroom, chose to formally impose the death sentence that was recommended by jurors in December.

The sheer monstrosity of the case definitely pushed the jury over the edge, and I think that even with the law that requires a judge to consider a lesser sentence, hardly anyone in America that believes in capital punishment would have forgiven the judge for not seeking death. Who else would be more deserving anyway? A man with a beautiful wife and a son on the way decides to kill them in favor of a message therapist?

Hostility against Mr. Peterson and curiosity in his case intensified when he acknowledged an extramarital affair with Amber Frey, a massage therapist from Fresno, that began in the weeks leading up to Laci Peterson's disappearance.

How incredibly selfish. What is worse, there is evidence that Scott murdered for financial gain. He had somehow convinced Ms. Frey, according to bits of her testimony, that he was a "wealthy businessman," when in fact this seems far from the truth. Apparently there was a big debate over Peterson's financial condition (I wasn't really following the case detail by detail from start to finish). That is, whether or not reaping benefits from Laci's life insurance would have helped his start-up fertilizer business. The prosecution argued that he was in a hole (both financially and in terms of impressing his mistress) and felt murdering his wife was one of the ways he could get out of it. The defense, on the other hand, insisted that Peterson was fully able to support himself, his wife, and a son with his finances before the murder, not to mention that Laci would have inherited hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry alloted to her by her grandparents had she lived.

In any case, as much as one can get wrapped up in heated exchanges between legal parties, this case is now put behind us. From the standpoint of most Americans, it seems as if justice has been served once again for a monstrous killer with the face of a car salesman.

Palestinian bias in the media

After receiving an email from someone critiquing my previous post about Hamas and its participation in mainstream politics, I felt it was necessary, for the sake of fairness, to point out that sources like the BBC have been repeatedly found to be bias and inaccurate in favor of the Palestinians. Although I respect the outlet as a fairly reputable source for international news, I was perhaps wrong to include excerpts from it on such a touchy subject as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The purpose of my previous post, I suppose, was to find the "bright side" of Hamas' statement, as reported by CNN. However, I did not mean in any way to show favor towards the cause of Hamas, which I find to be very extremist and bigoted in nature.

Just to emphasize my point, I would like to share a couple of links that may be of interest to those wishing to get the straight scoop about some of the things going on in Israel.

Honestreporting.com is a hotbed of stories of bias in the Western media against Israel. Within that site, for example, there are a number of instances where the French and British media, the AFP and BBC respectively, have committed blatant errors in their reporting that could be taken as a sign of bias. Here is an interesting excerpt from the site:

On Feb. 14, a Palestinian in Hebron tried to stab an IDF soldier, but was shot and killed before he could do so.

Agence France-Presse (AFP) released this photo (at left) of the scene, with the following caption:

An Israeli soldier walks next to the body of a Palestinian who was shot dead by Israeli troops close to the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. Israel handed over the remains of 15 militants shot dead by the army during attempted attacks in the Gaza Strip as part of a series of goodwill gestures towards the Palestinians.

The AFP caption omits the essential context of this scene ― the pictured man had attempted to stab the IDF soldier, who then shot in self-defense. The effect is to suggest that the IDF killed the Palestinian man for no reason.

The photo really gives the effect that the Palestinian that was shot was indeed a victim of a senseless murder, as opposed to an act of self-defense by the IDF soldier.

Another major source of news that I have been made aware of is the Jerusalem Post. Although considered liberal by most Israelis, it could probably be passed off as conservative by mainstream Western media standards. Nevertheless, I will try to include a broader range of sources in further posts so as to maintain as accurate and objective an atmosphere as I can on this blog.

Hamas willing to get involved in Parliament

The basis for a fully-fledged Palestinian democracy is slowly coming together. CNN reports that Hamas has made a statement that it is planning on taking part in the upcoming parliamentary election. This is a major sign that the militant group is becoming more willing to cooperate with the new Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas, considered to be a moderate by Israel and the West.

Hamas' stance reflects efforts by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to promote peace and stability in the West Bank and Gaza and influence militant groups to promote a cease-fire.

Whatever Abbas is doing, it seems to be working. It is obvious that he truly wants to get all parties involved in the new Palestinian government. Hamas, although a violent group, does hold significant sway over the hearts and minds of many in the West Bank and Gaza. Abbas undoubtedly knows this and must realize that it is better to get them involved in a constructive, political setting rather than leave them on the street to their own devices, which would lead to further disunity among the Palestinian factions and a grim future for the territories in the face of a determined Israel.

It is also interesting to note that having Hamas be more involved in politics (alongside moderate voices of course), as opposed to terror, may not be such a bad thing for Palestinian internal affairs. Hamas is well-known to be a promoter of social welfare and reconstruction in the territories, drawing upon significant financing from all over the region.

BBC News published an article last year on deceased Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who was killed in an Israeli rocket attack. It touched upon Hamas' philanthropist activities towards the end.

Hamas has been able to build support by offering material help to Palestinians suffering economic hardship during the latest intifada.

It has established charitable funds to establish schools, clinics and hospitals that provide free services to families in distress and has been able to attract millions of dollars from the Gulf and elsewhere.

Perhaps Hamas' resources, and reputation among disenfranchised Palestinians, would be useful for the Palestinian government to exploit once Hamas gets more involved in politics on a parliamentary level. Of course, the extremist indoctrination that often follows the establishment of a school or a hospital would have to be cut from the equation somehow. Yet the thought of Palestinian factions working together to bring people up from destitution sounds too good to pass up. As wretched as Hamas's ideology may be, they could also serve as a force for progress. And once the majority of Palestinians are happy with their lives, maybe those who sympathize with Hamas will throw off the shackles of a militant mindset and choose the true path of peace and cooperation like so many of their Arab brethern are doing right now from Beirut to Baghdad.

Spain's Muslims speak out against Bin Laden

The recent fatwa issued by the Islamic Commission of Spain, which represents 1 million Spanish Muslims, comes as a delayed, yet still necessary response to the rise of fundamentalist groups like Al-Qaeda.

The fatwa said that according to the Quran "the terrorist acts of Osama bin Laden and his organization al Qaeida ... are totally banned and must be roundly condemned as part of Islam."

It added: "Inasmuch as Osama bin Laden and his organization defend terrorism as legal and try to base it on the Quran ... they are committing the crime of 'istihlal' and thus become apostates that should not be considered Muslims or treated as such."

Now more than ever, we are hearing the voice of moderate Muslims being amplified through the media. The Islamic world is coming closer everyday to outright rejection of terrorism because its citizens are finally realizing that terror is as much of a pestilence to them as it is to the West. It is keeping them from advancement into the modern age and full recognition among the respected nations of the world. This fatwa is merely one step in a series of steps towards that goal. More Muslim clergy around the world must mimic their Spanish counterparts, and do it fast. Because the more time they waste, the more recruits will be snatched up by terror groups to be brainwashed and set on a path of destruction.

White House awards credential to blogger

CNN.com reports that White House press secretary Scott McClellan has finally joined the 21st century. Garrett M. Graff of Fishbowl D.C., a blog covering media in Washington, has been awarded a coveted credential for White House press conferences. Finally...the bloggers have penetrated the inner sanctum of American executive political power.

Friedman on the E.U.

Thomas Friedman has definitely proven to me that he knows more than just why Israelis, Arabs, and Americans are important world players. His recent op-editorial on the E.U.'s recent break in its arms embargo with China is an eye-opener.

...what the U.S. should not countenance is that at a time when the Europeans are spending peanuts on their own defense, making themselves into paper tigers and free riders on America for global policing, that they start exporting arms to a growing tiger - China.

Come on now, seriously, what is Europe thinking?? They are supposed to be our allies in the war on terror, and yet they decide to downsize even more and sell stuff to China? I agree with Friedman that China is a stabilizing force in the region thus far, but arming it with equipment that Europe is deprived of itself does not sound very prudent.

The sale of advanced European weapons to China can only weaken that balance [between China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan].

As if this all doesn't sound ridiculous enough, Friedman goes on to point out a couple of shocking factoids about the E.U.'s armies.

If you put all the E.U. armies together, they total around two million soldiers in uniform - almost the same size as the U.S. armed forces. But there is one huge difference - only about 5 percent of the European troops have the training, weaponry, logistical and intelligence support and airlift capability to fight a modern, hot war outside of Europe. (In the U.S. it is 70 percent in crucial units.)

The Europeans are so short of long-range lift aircraft that they basically have to depend on leased Russian and Ukrainian Antonov transports to get to the battlefield. George Robertson, the former NATO secretary general, used to ask them what they would do if a war broke out during the Christmas season, when most of the Antonovs are leased to toy companies shipping electronic games around the world. Ride, mister?


Fubar! I can't believe what I'm hearing. Don't get me wrong, I am all for de-militarization. But now is simply not the time to do it, with the present state of the world. Terrorists and terrorist states are still alive and well. China is a rising power, and I don't think we need to speed up the process with arms deals. The U.S. needs a strong Europe to help shoulder the burden of liberty in the world. I just hope Europe has the common sense to realize that and stop worrying about making the quick dollar.

Such fitting comments

Apparently the mayor of Las Vegas is quite fond of the drink, which is funny because it is rather fitting for the boss of Sin City. CNN reported that he made a couple comments at an elementary school (of all places) regarding his affinity for gin.

Mayor Oscar Goodman said he was just being himself when he told elementary school students that drinking was one of his hobbies and that the one thing he would want if stranded on an island is a bottle of gin.

"I answered the question honestly and truthfully," Goodman told reporters. "I'm not going to lie to children. I'm not going to say I would take a teddy bear or a Bible or something like that."

Wow, what a great role model. I wonder how he got elected with such an honest inclination.

A look inside the Iraqi tribunal

NPR ran an interesting story a couple days ago dealing with the assassination of Judge Barawiz Mahmoud and his son, a lawyer, in Baghdad. Both men were working on gathering evidence in order to prosecute Saddam Hussein and his henchmen for crimes against humanity, something that has never been done before in Iraq.

Authorities still don't know the motive for the killing, although NPR's Baghdad correspondent speculates it could have been a number of reasons: the judge was Kurdish, he was simply a judge, or because he was working on Saddam's trial. In any case, the reporter gave some pretty interesting details on the entire process. The fact that these judges had to be specifically trained to carry out this trial, and that the death penalty is allowed to play a part in the sentencing. Also, the tribunal against Saddam and his aides will not be carried out by jury, only judges. I suggest that you listen to this story in order to get a better feel for the entire process.

The pulse of America

The New York Times conducted a recent survey, in collaboration with CBS News, that basically concluded that President Bush's priorities are out of step with average Americans. By conclusion, I really mean that the article attempted to stack facts and figures that may lead one to make such a conclusion, however, I have never been a big fan of polls, so I say this should all be taken with a grain of salt.

One of the major issues that was brought up was revamping Social Security, which seems to be the flagship of Bush's domestic agenda for his second term in office.

On Social Security, 51 percent said permitting individuals to invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts, the centerpiece of Mr. Bush's plan, was a bad idea, even as a majority said they agreed with Mr. Bush that the program would become insolvent near the middle of the century if nothing were done. The number who thought private accounts were a bad idea jumped to 69 percent if respondents were told that the private accounts would result in a reduction in guaranteed government benefits. And 45 percent said Mr. Bush's private account plan would actually weaken the economic underpinnings of the nation's retirement system.

Okay, so clearly people think something should be done about Social Security, but clearly privitization is not the answer. The article goes on to say that "almost four out of five respondents said it was the government's responsibility to assure a decent standard of living for the elderly." Yes, I agree with that, just as I agree with the fact that the economy would serve to pin down the nation's retirement system even more through privitization. If anyone read my previous post about Britain's little experiment with personal accounts, it would be clear in their minds that many people's savings would be eaten up, whether it be through hidden fees or falling equity. In short, it would require a great deal of micromangement to keep the money flowing, and I don't think our seniors really have that kind of stamina. Privitization, in my mind, is basically like taking the "security" out of Social Security. Bush is going to have to do a better job of convincing me that there are no potential cracks people's money could fall through, espcially with the economic uncertainty of the times we live in.

On the foreign policy front, there were a few key points made about the recent Iraqi elections.

In an apparent reflection of the success of the Iraq elections, 53 percent of those surveyed said that efforts to bring order to Iraq were going very or somewhat well, up from 41 percent a month ago. That is the highest rating on that score since the capture of Mr. Hussein.

Yeah, I think the success of the elections definitely made a lot of people believers in what the U.S. hopes to achieve in Iraq. Yet still, North Korea's recent coming-out-of-the-closet on its nuclear weapons seems to have Americans the most worried.

Still, 42 percent now say that Mr. Bush would have been better off trying to counter the threat of North Korea before invading Iraq, compared with 45 percent who think Mr. Bush was correct to focus first on Iraq.

On North Korea, 81 percent said that that nation does indeed now have nuclear weapons, and 7 in 10 said it poses a serious threat to the United States. Still, a majority of Americans said they opposed taking pre-emptive action against North Korea if diplomatic efforts failed - a shift from before the war in Iraq, when a majority said they would support military action if diplomatic efforts failed.

The key phrase here, which the Times kindly forgot to include in its survey, is "unilateral military action." A nuclear North Korea is not only a threat to the United States, but to the entire region. I definitely would not support going in it alone like the U.S. did with Iraq (of course, Bush would argue we had the UK and Poland with us, but whatever), but to take military action entirely off the table doesn't get us anywhere with bipolar autocrats like Kim Jong Il or the head mullahs of Iran.

So, what does this poll really tell us? Is Bush really out of touch? These two excerpts kind of sum it up.

"I don't think he's listening to the people concerning Social Security," said Beverly Workman, a West Virginia Democrat who said she voted for Mr. Bush. "I think the public wants him to leave it alone."

At the same time, there has been an increase in respondents who say that efforts to restore order in Iraq are going well, even as an overwhelming number of Americans say Mr. Bush has no clear plan for getting out of Iraq.

So I guess people think Bush is just winging it on all fronts, putting things out on the table that may never even get done like any politician. Some good things may come from it, others not so good. I say that's fair enough.

Lebanon looks for new PM

I don't think anyone could have predicted the amount of fallout from the recent assassination of Rafiq Hariri in Beirut. After thousands took to the streets in protest, directing their anger towards Syria, its military presence, and its puppet regime in Lebanon, the pro-Syrian government has finally collapsed. The Lebanese Parliament is now left with 48 hours, according to President Emile Lahoud (a pro-Syrian politician), to choose a new candidate to be Prime Minister, after Omar Karameh stepped down.

Prime Minister Omar Karameh's surprise resignation after just four months in office was hailed as a rare display of people power in the Middle East and greeted with jubilation by thousands of opposition demonstrators in Beirut.

People power has become a new fad in the region it seems. It is quite amazing though how much Syria and its allies in Lebanon have buckled under pressure from the West, not to mention common citizens. Syria has recently agreed to withdraw its forces in coordination with Lebanese authorites in accordance with the Taif accords. About 15 years late if you ask me, but I guess better late than never.