When there was suspicion of widespread corruption and fraud in the last Afghani election, the consensus seemed to be that, if Karzai does not acknowledge that the election was obviously fraudlent, the Obama administration should withdraw its support. In a sense we got what we wanted; Karzai agreed to a run off election. However, the guy running against him in that election made a few (very reasonable) demands about reforming the election process and throwing out some of the guys who oversaw the elections. When his demands were not met, he withdrew from the race and Karzai was declared the winner.
So while Karzai did, technically, agree to a run off, he set it up in such a way as to prevent anyone running against him from winning, and his opponent, recognizing that, withdrew, and now he's somehow considered a legitimately elected leader. Legitimate enough, at least, to deserve a visit from the Secretary of State at his inauguration.
Now, while I think, at this stage, trying to set up a functioning democracy in Afghanistan is a futile effort, the Obama administration should not be pretending that this is what their goal is, when their goal is obviously just a reasonable degree of stability. Afghanistan is not a democracy, and will not be until they develop a working civil society. They won't develop that until they have a reasonable amount of physical and economic security. So let's drop the pretense, not bother with continued fraudlunet elections for now, and do what needs to be done to lift the people of Afghanistan up to a decent standard of living.
When people have comfort, stability and security, they are more likely to demand and practice democracy.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Heh
Stephen Colbert just reminded me of how conservatives didn't complain when Bush was holding hands and walking through the rose garden with the Saudi prince. Apparently bowing to Al Saud is groveling, but having a quasi-homoerotic experience with him is just fine.
Bowgate
A few months ago, some people pointed out the hypocrisy of conservatives who criticized Obama for bowing to the Saudi prince, while, around the same time, also criticizing Michelle Obama for breaching protocol by hugging Queen Elizabeth. They can't seem to make up their mind about whether the POTUS is supposed to show respect for all the silly little formalities that people commonly go through when they meet with a monarch or not.
The reason for this seems obvious to me. They don't really care about proper protocol. They just want a reason to find fault with Obama.
The people who really hate him, and think that he hates America, see this as further evidence of his contempt for his own country. They see the bowing as an expression of how he sees non-western governments as superior to western ones.
I personally don't think he should have bowed to anyone. I also don't think people should be so upset about Michelle Obama hugging the Queen. Why? Not because I think it shows disrespect for the US, but rather because it looks like pandering to these foreign leaders. He comes off to me as someone who is not trying to show respect, but as someone who is patronizing them. Now, I don't really think that Obama intends to patronize these leaders, but when he tries to behave according to customs he doesn't really seem to understand, he is embarrassing himself AND the leaders to whom he is trying to show respect.
The reason for this seems obvious to me. They don't really care about proper protocol. They just want a reason to find fault with Obama.
The people who really hate him, and think that he hates America, see this as further evidence of his contempt for his own country. They see the bowing as an expression of how he sees non-western governments as superior to western ones.
I personally don't think he should have bowed to anyone. I also don't think people should be so upset about Michelle Obama hugging the Queen. Why? Not because I think it shows disrespect for the US, but rather because it looks like pandering to these foreign leaders. He comes off to me as someone who is not trying to show respect, but as someone who is patronizing them. Now, I don't really think that Obama intends to patronize these leaders, but when he tries to behave according to customs he doesn't really seem to understand, he is embarrassing himself AND the leaders to whom he is trying to show respect.
KSM
Could it be more appropriate to KSM in a military tribunal rather than a civilian court? Perhaps. It is very possible that some of the intelligence that was gathered is sensitive information from sensitive sources that should probably be kept under wraps.
Still, one way or another, this guy has to be tried. The US afforded even the Nazis a fair trial. If the US wants anybody to believe they are carrying out the war on terror in a way even remotely resembling justice, they need to try the people they capture.
As for the fact that he's being tried in New York, what's the problem? Are they worried that he's going to escape and tear down the Empire State Building with his bare hands? Some people are concerned about other Guantanamo detainees being brought to the US because they will attract supporters who will try to break them out of prison, but Zacarias Moussaoui has been in a prison in Colorado for years, and nobody's tried to break him out. He hasn't put the community around the prison in any greater danger than any of the other inmates of that prison.
Still, one way or another, this guy has to be tried. The US afforded even the Nazis a fair trial. If the US wants anybody to believe they are carrying out the war on terror in a way even remotely resembling justice, they need to try the people they capture.
As for the fact that he's being tried in New York, what's the problem? Are they worried that he's going to escape and tear down the Empire State Building with his bare hands? Some people are concerned about other Guantanamo detainees being brought to the US because they will attract supporters who will try to break them out of prison, but Zacarias Moussaoui has been in a prison in Colorado for years, and nobody's tried to break him out. He hasn't put the community around the prison in any greater danger than any of the other inmates of that prison.
Monday, November 16, 2009
A Moderate View of Health Care
As a Canadian, I greatly appreciate that I don't have to worry about going bankrupt paying for medical bills. I think it is in everyone's best interest to have a system in which there is a public source of funds for medical treatment, as it is in everyone's best interest that there be publicly funded education. Everyone gains an advantage from living amongst literate people, and everyone should enjoy the advantage of living amongst healthy people.
That being said, a single payer health care system that does not allow individuals to pay for quicker access is not the best way to tackle the issue. While there are reasonable criticisms of a two tier system, I believe that it is very possible to come up with a way of allowing private health care and taxing it that funnels extra money into the public system, making those who rely on it better off than they would if everybody waited in the same line in the public system rather than draining the public system of the best equipment and doctors.
The threat to the public system is not, however, the only criticism of a two tier system in Canada. People who are opposed to it, are also adverse to the idea of a rich person being able to get better or faster care than a poorer person, even if you could work out a way to improve the care the poorer person would eventually get. It is not unreasonable to ask, "why does a person with more money deserve better or faster care?" A wealthier person is not more deserving of care than a poor person, so I can understand why they would find this repugnant. Nonetheless, I see it a different way.
My question is, why should the public be paying for the health care of Irving family? They're billionaires, but if they get treated in Canada, some of the tax dollars of a person barely above the poverty line goes to pay for that. How is that fair? Why should we have to pay for the health care of those who are perfectly capable of paying for it on their own, especially if we could tax their treatment in a way that adds extra revenue to the treatment the rest of us would get?
That being said, a single payer health care system that does not allow individuals to pay for quicker access is not the best way to tackle the issue. While there are reasonable criticisms of a two tier system, I believe that it is very possible to come up with a way of allowing private health care and taxing it that funnels extra money into the public system, making those who rely on it better off than they would if everybody waited in the same line in the public system rather than draining the public system of the best equipment and doctors.
The threat to the public system is not, however, the only criticism of a two tier system in Canada. People who are opposed to it, are also adverse to the idea of a rich person being able to get better or faster care than a poorer person, even if you could work out a way to improve the care the poorer person would eventually get. It is not unreasonable to ask, "why does a person with more money deserve better or faster care?" A wealthier person is not more deserving of care than a poor person, so I can understand why they would find this repugnant. Nonetheless, I see it a different way.
My question is, why should the public be paying for the health care of Irving family? They're billionaires, but if they get treated in Canada, some of the tax dollars of a person barely above the poverty line goes to pay for that. How is that fair? Why should we have to pay for the health care of those who are perfectly capable of paying for it on their own, especially if we could tax their treatment in a way that adds extra revenue to the treatment the rest of us would get?
The Evolutionary Double Standard
A common criticism of possible or proposed genetic experiments, especially those involving humans, is that many attempts to improve the human genome may result in error, or that we may fuck it up and end up creating human beings worse off than if we had not altered their genes. But how does evolution happen? What is the "natural" process by which organisms adapt to their environments. Trial and error. The "natural" process is not guided at all. There are countless random mutations in random organisms, most of which make no difference or turn out to be harmful to the organism, and sometimes an organism gets lucky and ends up with a gene that gives it an advantage.
Is this how we want to continue to change and adapt to our environment? The "natural" way? A way in which we have to suffer through who knows how many horrid and grotesque mutations until we get lucky and end up with a few beneficial mutations every several generations? Is that really the more humane way to proceed as a species?
Sure, we may make mistakes as we try to guide our own evolution, but at least we'll be pushing it in the direction we want, and changes will be changes we design into ourselves. We will not be randomly rolling the genetic dice and hoping something good comes of it. To continue to subject humanity to that process doesn't sound very humane to me.
Is this how we want to continue to change and adapt to our environment? The "natural" way? A way in which we have to suffer through who knows how many horrid and grotesque mutations until we get lucky and end up with a few beneficial mutations every several generations? Is that really the more humane way to proceed as a species?
Sure, we may make mistakes as we try to guide our own evolution, but at least we'll be pushing it in the direction we want, and changes will be changes we design into ourselves. We will not be randomly rolling the genetic dice and hoping something good comes of it. To continue to subject humanity to that process doesn't sound very humane to me.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Mama T
I just found this great video Christopher Hitchens did about Mother Theresa. Fabulous stuff.
It's amazing how this chick was praised by just about every person who had ever heard about her, when all she did was herd a bunch of dying homeless people into some dumpy old ruin full of cots and proselytized to them until they kicked the bucket. I'll bet most people thought she actually did something to help the sick and dying like providing them with medical treatment, when in fact she did no such thing. Given the millions of dollars she was given by charities and wealthy individuals, she could have filled at least one of those nasty old shacks she "worked" at in the slums of Calcutta with doctors, but did she? No. She used the money to build convents.
It's amazing how this chick was praised by just about every person who had ever heard about her, when all she did was herd a bunch of dying homeless people into some dumpy old ruin full of cots and proselytized to them until they kicked the bucket. I'll bet most people thought she actually did something to help the sick and dying like providing them with medical treatment, when in fact she did no such thing. Given the millions of dollars she was given by charities and wealthy individuals, she could have filled at least one of those nasty old shacks she "worked" at in the slums of Calcutta with doctors, but did she? No. She used the money to build convents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)