The Republic of Dissent

Awaiting a catastrophe

I am extremely anxious about the boycott, which many groups and associations are proposing in support of immigration or rather of immigrants.

1. I don’t think that it will work and even if it does, I think that it will have a negative impact on the immigration debate. The way, I see it, it is a lose-lose proposition for those who want a fairer immigration policy for two reasons.
2. First, it is going to create resentment on the part of Americans who will be going to work tomorrow and who are going to wonder why others aren’t doing the same thing.
3. Second, even if it works, it isn’t going to affect the debate. It will simply polarize it and divide the American public.
4. The goal should be to unite Americans and to make them see that immigrants are people who are just like them not enemies and invaders.
5. The boycott is a show of force and I think that what we need at this moment are softer and gentler demonstration of humanity and the desire that most immigrants have to become a part of this beautiful country.

Dieting to kick out the oil addiction

The debate caused by the high cost of oil shows how difficult it is to make changes even when the changes are necessary.

1. Many people are in denial. They refuse to accept that there isn’t enough oil in the world to meet the needs of the US, of China and of Idea.
2. We might repeat the words Supply and Demand as much as Charles Krauthammer wants us to, but it does not change the fact that our lifestyle needs to change.
3. It isn’t because we want there to be more energy on earth that there is going to be and may be it is time to start planning a future without oil. Oil isn’t going to last forever and honestly, I think it would be unfortunate if it did. I think that oil is just like food for most Americans. It might be time for us to start a diet and to live a healthier life style.

What’s in a song? : singing the 'Star-Spangled Banner' in Spanish

I just heard the Star-Spangled Banner in Spanish and I have to admit that I had mixed feelings about it.

1. I don’t believe that this idea was a great idea because it plays in the hands of those who believe that immigrants want to invade the US and to change its culture and symbols. I can already hear their responses, “The US is not Mexico,” “Learn English,”…etc.
2. This version of the Star-Spangled Banner polarized a debate that is already too intense when what is needed is a common sense and fair approach to the immigration debate.
3. While I believe that releasing a Spanish version of the US National Anthem will not help the debate, I am asking myself the question why shouldn’t there be a Spanish version of the Star-Spangled Banner and why it should not permissible for Americans of Hispanic and Latin America decent to sing their national anthem in the language of their ancestor.
4. If the question is one of legitimacy and of right, then it is hard for me to argue that there shouldn’t be a Star-Spangled Banner in Spanish. In the Washington Post article, someone asked how would the French feel if someone sung La Marseillaise in English and I think that is precisely the issue. France isn’t America. France is currently in what I would an anti-immigration period. The United States shouldn’t follow its example when it comes to immigration. America is a melting pot and a country who has been for the most part an exemplary nation when it comes to immigration.
5. I would love if someone sung La Marseillaise in English or in Hebrew or in Arab, but I know that the reaction in France would be negative, but my hope is that when it comes to immigration, France, one day, becomes more American.
6. The context is important and I regret that a Spanish version of the US National Anthem was done in a period when it is necessary for Americans to come together on this issue and to give an opportunity to radicals to use fear and apprehension to win the debate.

The screams of Darfur: Dying to get the attention of the world

Yesterday, I was watching Hotel Rwanda and I thought of Darfur.

1. I came to the realization that Darfur will only receive the attention that it deserves when Hollywood makes a movie about it after hundred of thousands people have died.
2. The Bush administration has called what is happening in Darfur genocide and yet, not much has followed. There hasn’t been the treat to use force when one of the arguments for the war in Iraq was that Saddam killed an intolerable number of Iraqis.
3.   The question that the events raised is the following: Can there be such a thing as an acceptable genocide?
4. The answer to that question has been, so far, yes. I wonder why. I think, and I hope that I’m wrong, that it is because the people who are dying are not only blacks, but are also Africans.
5. After the Shoah, the world said, “nevermore,” but then it forgot and Rwanda happened, and it hung its head in shame (I’m making a comparison, between the response of the world to these events and not between the events),. Now, there is Darfur and once again the response of the world is inadequate and people are dying. The one thing we can conclude is that the world is better at repentance than at anything else especially when it cannot relate to the people who are dying.
6. For more on Darfur, you can read the following blogs: Sudan, the passion of the present and the Coalition for Darfur.

Is the American dream an illusion?

Tom hertz, a professor of economics at American University, has published an interesting and important study on race, class, and the American dream that is the ability to come from nothing and to become very rich. According to its findings, race, and social status plays an important difference in the ability to rise from nothing and to become rich. He also found that, “the United States had one of the lowest levels of inter-generational mobility in the wealthy world, on a par with Britain but way behind most of Europe.” In the US, the difference of incomes of parents is transmitted to their children in 22% of the time while it was only 2% percent of the time in Denmark.

No more Foie gras in Chicago

Chicago has decided to ban foie gras in its restaurants. City’s officials believe that foie gras can only made by treating ducks and geese cruelly. It is unbelievable that a city would go that far. I wonder what the French consulate did to convince the city’s authorities not to take that measure for after all most foie gras come from France. I also found it unbelievable that the French foie gras industry did not have anybody to lobby on its behalf. Isn’t this a proof that soft-paternalism is not only an oxymoron, but also dangerous?

Talking to Iran

There are few articles in the press today,  which are arguing that it is time to talk to Iran

1. John Palmer writes in the Guardian that, “There is plenty to talk about. Fears about Iran's possible ambitions to become a nuclear military force can only be understood and responded to in a rational and constructive fashion by placing the issue of its nuclear energy ambitions within the context of its own security fears in a region where nuclear weapons already exist.”
2. Robert Hunter argues in the Washington post that, “U.S.-Iran talks should focus on the salient issues. For America these include a moratorium on the production of materials that could be used for nuclear weapons and the opening of Iran to "at will" inspections of power-generating nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In addition regional security necessitates that Iranians stop supporting terrorists, in particular Hezbollah.”
3. I agree that it would be better for the world if the current crisis were resolved through talk and diplomacy. However, I wonder if both parties that Iran and the Western powers, particularly the US, who are against it acquiring nukes can talk.
4. In other words, has the rhetoric between the two sides become so overheated that dialogue is impossible without big concessions? However, the political climate both in Iran and in the US makes concession very difficult for they will be interpreted as a political defeat.
5. I wonder also if both are able to talk to each other. Both the Iranian government and the Bush administration lack what I will call the diplomatic gene, which would enable them to look for a way to resolve the situation, which does not involve a confrontation.
6. Talking implies the recognition by both parties that there is no other alternative than negotiation and compromise. I don’t believe that both parties have reached that conclusion yet and I’m not sure that the Bush administration given the current political climate in the US is willing to extend a hand to Iran especially when doing so will be interpreted as a sign of weakness.

Chernobyl, 20 years later

Today is the twentieth of the Chernobyl disaster and I’m stricken by how little more we know about this catastrophe twenty years later.

1. We don’t know how many died and how many suffered from the radiation. The estimates vary between a few thousand and hundred of thousand of victims.
2. We don’t know the extent of the harm that was done not only in Ukraine, but also in the countries surrounding Ukraine and even to countries such as France, which were touched by the radiations.
3. I believe that the Chernobyl disaster showed how disastrous the use of nuclear energy could be when it isn’t used carefully. I wonder if more nations are going to be willing to take the risks of using energy giving the fact that the price of energy. Tony Blair has talked about doing just that and Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace has argued that nuclear energy is the future and that it will be good for the environment. May be they are right, but I have to admit that I don’t want them to be.

Protecting modern values

There was an opinion piece in the Guardian yesterday, which indicted Tony Blair’s actions to protect values. The writer called it “authoritarian populism” which is based on asserting a lot of executive power to protect people from the threat of our dangerous world.

1. The important question, which this article raises, is whether it is possible to protect values, what societies believe to be the best of their system without using authoritarian measures.
2. The latest Bin Laden tape showed that the modern world is fighting in a war of ideas where words are only convincing if deeds follow them. Protecting modern values is therefore only possible if those values still have meaning and value.
3. Are we living in a time where the end justifies the means in the sense that modern societies must first focus on surviving threats such as terrorism before focusing on the preservation of their values?
4. Tony Blair’s most important mistake isn’t that he wants the people to trust him and to give him more power, but that he doesn’t seem to believe that just modern values do not have enough appeal to win a war of ideas against radicalism and violence.
5. There is always going to be a limit to what a leader and governments can do to protect their citizens. It is for this reason that if modern societies isolates themselves in a protective barricade and compromise their own values to survive, they might win the fight against terrorism, but they will love the war against radicalism.
6. It isn’t the end, which justifies the means, but the means, which means an end acceptable.

A failure of imagination: the reasons why Globalization has a cold

Washington post. He states:

Sebastian Mallaby writes about globalization in this morning's

Fifteen years ago, there were hopes that the end of Cold War splits would allow international institutions to acquire a new cohesion. But the great powers of today are simply not interested in creating a resilient multilateral system. Europe is distracted by its economic malaise and by the challenge of building its own union. Japan has yet to translate its economic clout into political or military power. China's dictators care about keeping the lid on simmering unrest, not about helping to resolve global financial imbalances or Iran's nuclear crisis. India has huge potential as a Democratic superpower, but has only just begun to realize it.

1. Globalization has stalled because for so long, it has moved forward in spite of the people of the world and without effective governance.
2. Political leaders have made globalization unpopular by blaming it for their shortcomings and for their lack of courage to do what is right and to push for reforms.
3. One of the biggest questions of the beginning of this century is now whether to globalize, but rather to globalize. The point isn’t that globalization is a punishment for liberalization but rather that it is an inevitable consequence of technology and of the thirst for most of the world for a better future.
4. Globalization is great, but it isn’t enough. Politics matter and right, politicians have run out of imagination to come up with what should come next.

After America, the Chinese president goes to Africa

Hu Jintao has begun his second tour of Africa since becoming president of China. The Chinese are increasingly interested in China as the tour of the Chinese foreign minister Li Zhaoxing earlier this year showed.

1. Why this increasing interest in Africa? The primary reason is simple: energy. The Chinese needs in energy are increasingly rivaling those of the United States and they have to find as many sources of energy as possible in order to avoid the trap within which the US fell which is to depend too much on the Middle East.
2. Mr. Hu Jintao is using his trip to Africa to show not only good will towards Africa, but also to show that he has enough respect for Africans (on the contrary to President Bush and the Americans) to visit the continent twice.
3. Most African leaders will feel flatter for the attention that they are getting from the Chinese and more importantly, they will compare to the treatment that they are receiving from the Americans.
4. Unfortunately, America isn’t very popular at the moment in Africa and the Chinese by courting African leaders are able not only to forge new alliances, but also to strengthen the economic ties between China and African countries. 

Breaking the cycle: small steps to start the immigration reform process

The immigration debate is for some people a way to vent about everything that is not going well with America and that has gone wrong with their lives. Attacking immigrants, of course, is nothing new for at different periods of American history, immigrants have been the scapegoat for American problems and ills. I believe however that there are small steps that could be taken by congress to reform the immigration policy of the United States and to achieve an equitable balance between security and fairness without sacrificing American ideals.

1. The sad thing about the immigration debate is that it has focused on illegal immigration and not on the fact that it has become harder for the immigrants that America should want to migrate to the US. For this reason, I believe that something has to be done to make it easier for those foreigners who are able to earn a living in the US because they have the skills and the knowledge needed to stay and to become Americans. This means increasing the number of work visas, shortening the process, and making it less burdensome for those aliens who represent, to say things crudely, the best and the brightest of the foreign population.
2. The second small step that should be done is to make it easier for those people to bring in their families. Why? Because they will be able to support them and to help them integrate American society.
3. A lot more money has to be spent on programs, which will help integrate immigrants whether they are refuges or here illegally into the society. This means spending more on English teaching programs because after all, knowing the language is the best way to integrate a society. The reason why so many immigrants don’t speak English is because they can’t afford to do it for it costs money and for their primary focus is survival not integration.
4. Finally, the goal of the immigration policy should be to make it easier to become an immigrant legally. It is important that the emphasis becomes merit that is whether somebody can earn a living in this country and integrate American society. It is also important that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services find ways to deal more efficiently with petitions for immigrant and work visas. Right now, the amount of time that you have to wait to get a decision on your immigrant petition or to receive a work visa depends on where you live, which in my opinion, is unacceptable.

A failure of racial politics

Race plays an important role in politics in most multicultural, multiethnic, and multiracial societies. Politicians tend to use race when everything else has failed to try to hold on to power and to divide the electorate by appealing to their fears and prejudice. Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe is one such politician who has shamelessly divided its country according to race to retain and although he has been able to retain power, its tactics have failed.

1. Zimbabwe is one of the hew nations of Africa, which as South Africa has a sizeable white minority who holds a lot of the land and has economic power. Robert Mugabe came to power as a national hero after gaining independence from the British and one of his promises was to make sure that land was divided more evenly.

2. However, Mugabe never did anything about the distribution of power and started to use racial politics in recent years when it became clear that his status as national hero was no longer enough to get him reelected.
3. He decided that to remain in power, he needed to divide its compatriots according to their race and to act as though White Zimbabweans had no right to their land and to the farms that they owned. 
4. He instituted land reforms, which led to the seizure of lands and farms owned by White Zimbabweans who had to flee and to leave everything behind. It also lead to erosion of the farming sector in Zimbabwe who could no longer produce enough food to feed its own populations because by getting rid of white farmers, they had lost the people who knew how to farm the land. This resulted in the huge migrations of Zimbabweans from their country who fled to South Africa and other neigboring countries.
5. Today, the government of Mugabe has realized that it went too far and is trying to attract the same people they chase away by offering them a way to get their land back.
6. Unfortunately, I believe that the national reconciliation will only happen with the departure or more likely the death of Robert Mugabe.

A missed opportunity: the Chinese president's visit to the White house

I just saw the images of Hu Jintao visit to the White House. I heard the speeches and of course, I saw the image of the Chinese woman, an accredited journalist from with the Epoch Times, who disrupted the Chinese President's speech. I couldn’t help thinking that the visit was a missed opportunity for the US.

1. President Hu Jintao accomplished his objectives. He came to the US, had a great time in Seattle, met with US business leaders, came to Washington, met President Bush, showed his party and his people that he could stand near Bush without conceding anything. Bush pressed, but he got polite smiles, promises, and a warm shoulder.
2. The image of Jintao standing next to Bush is a powerful symbol because it shows that China is becoming an essential country to the US in the sense that a Chinese leader is able to come to the White House and the US without bending over backward to make Bush and the US happy.
3. I believe that President Bush missed an opportunity to make a powerful point about freedom and human rights when the Chinese woman started to disrupt Hu Jintao’s speech. He should have said something like, “You see, Mr. President, the great thing about America is that anybody is free to express their opinion even if when they do it in a disruptive and disrespectful manner.”
4. In short, I believe he should have used what was an embarrassing moment to show the differences between the two countries and to say with subtlety that America is great not just because of its economic power, but also because it allows its people to protest.

The great American boycott

Many Mexicans are planning to boycott American products on May 1 (which is Labor day in the rest of the world) to show their support for immigrants and their disapproval of the bill voted by the House of congress, which takes a tough stand on illegal immigration. I believe that such a boycott would be a mistake for numerous reasons.

1. It would give a chance to those who are against immigration to argue that immigrants are not really Americans for they are using citizens for other countries to shape American immigration policy.

2. It would polarize the debate and make it about Mexico and about whether a foreign country should have a say in the legislating agenda of the United States.

3. The immigration debate is one which although it interests many nations should remain here in the United States and should happen among Americans whether they were born here or whether they came here. Although it is understandable that Mexicans want to show their support for Latin immigrants, they should to use a crude expression, butt out and let Americans deal with their own issues.

4. The best way for Mexicans and other foreigners who want to express their views on American immigration policy is to do it by supporting organizations which help immigrants through donations and by volunteering their services.

Chinese obsession

It is amazing to realize what strong emotions China awake in some people.

1. Lou Dobbs has come completely mad on the subject by talking about a Red Storm, which just betrays his own views on anything modern and his fears of globalization. Others are talking about the increasing power of China and the fact that its economy is growing a quicker pace than the one of the US.
2. I believe that the views of China are so schizophrenic and so motivated by fear and paranoia that there isn't really a constructive debate on the relationship between China and the US or China and the rest of the world anymore.
3. The unfortunate thing about the visit of the Chinese president is that it will no lead to anything constructive because the Bush administration for political reasons is going to ask for too much (the devaluation of the Yuan,  support on Iran, trade issues) and the Chinese also for the same reason are going to give up much.
4. I wonder whether the mindset that the US is limiting its options when it comes to China since it forces it to focus on what the Chinese are doing to catch up with them rather than on what it should do to remain on top.
5. For more on the views of China, there is an interesting post the China law Blog.

Bill Gates vs. George Bush: who is the most powerful person of the world?

Before coming to Washington, Hu Jintao will first come to Seattle, which is of course the capital of the Microsoft Empire. He will meet with Bill Gates, and dine in his house with other businesses. I can’t help but thinking that by meeting Bill Gates before meeting George Bush, Hu Jintao, and the Chinese are sending a message about their priorities and about whom they consider the most important man in the United States for them. Besides with Bill Gates, they can negotiate without having to give much since Microsoft is willing to respect restrictive Chinese laws (as Google and Yahoo) to have access to the Chinese Market. George Bush will try to negotiate with the Chinese, but he does not have as much to offer them as Bill Gates given his current political situation and especially given the fact that right now the US need China to support tough sanctions on Iran. We are living in the world where increasing economic power is more important than political power or rather where economic power has political consequences. I bet than Hu Jintao will feel a lot more at ease with Bill Gates than he will with President Bush.

Bigotry, insensitivity and hypocrisy

Apparently,  bigots have no sensitivity even when it comes to respecting other's people pain. The Westboro Baptist church has been picketing (uninvited) the funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq in order to demonstrate against homosexuality and to show that America is a sinful nation because of homsexuality. States have passed laws to make it impossible for members of the church to disturb funerals, but I believed that those laws are unfortunately unconstitutional. It is unfortunate that the members of the Wesboro Baptish Church believe more strongly in gay-bashing that they believe in the sanctity of funerals. The preacher of the Church, Fred Phelps has no intention of stopping and unfortunately, laws will not stop him.

The pacifist's dilemma

The BBC had a great article, which examines pacificism and when if ever it is okay for a pacifist to kill.  Although it focuses on Hitler, it is nevertheless a very relevant question for our time given the fact the current struggles against radicalism and terrorism. Is there ever such a thing as a just war or rather a just use of force? Or is the fact that force or violence is used makes the act injust? Professor Anderson has a excellent blog, which discusses those topics.

Mister Hu Jintao comes to Washington

This week, the president of China, Hu Jintao visits the US and I am really looking forward to this visit for a few reasons.

1. I am looking to see how comfortable Bush and Jintao will look together and whether there will be any awkward moment.
2. I am wondering what issue will dominate the visit. China is on the cover of Newsweek this week with the title, “the real clashes of civilizations.” Fareed Zakaria points out in his column that the relationship between the United States and Chinais at a crossroads and that the US (and China) needs to decide whether to be friendly rivals or bitter adversaries. If the Bush administration takes a more confrontational approach this week with China by focusing on what separates the two nations then we will know that it has chosen to view China as a potential enemy.

3. I wonder how the press is going to cover the visit and if Jintao will get good reviews or negative reviews.

4. Finally, I wonder how the Chinese are going to frame their view on Iran. It is certain that a journalist is going to ask a question about Iran at the news conference that the two heads of state will have. I wonder how they are going to hide the fact or rather smooth over the differences between the two visions that they have of Iran and of the current crisis.

Is Nuclear Energy, the way to save the world from its dependence on oil?

Oil prices are peaking due to the Iranian crisis and to the political instability in countries such as Venezuela and Nigeria. It is possible that in spite of the reasonable fear and reluctance that there is about using nuclear energy that it might be the only and most cost-effective way that is available now for countries such as the United States, which are to used the words of President, "addicted to oil."  Patrick Moore, the Co-founder of GreenPeace argue for nuclear energy by stating that "the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2emissions annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100 million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction." I am reluctant to agree with him because the facts that he gives in his article in the Washington Post does not calm my fears, but I wonder if he is right, if nuclear energy is the way to go to green and to save the environment.

Separate, but equal

Some US states are moving backward in the march for integration of schools. In the history case of Brown vs. the Board of Education, the Supreme Court established that the doctrine of separate, but equal was unconstitutional and integration was an essential part to equality. Yet, The Nebraska legislature passed a law on Thursday that would divide the Ohmaha school system according to race. Ernie Chambers, the only African American state senator supported the law and argued that the law will help “blacks to control a school district in which their children are a majority.” Laws such as this one just show that integration hasn’t worked, especially in the schools. However, I wonder if resegregration is the answer for how I do not see how separation can lead to improvements.

Breaking the cycle: five small steps to start the immigration reform process

The immigration debate is for some people a way to vent about everything that is not going well with

America

and that has gone wrong with their lives. Attacking immigrants, of course, is nothing new for at different periods of American history, immigrants have been the scapegoat for American problems and ills. I believe however that there are small steps that could be taken by congress to reform the immigration policy of the

United States

and to achieve an equitable balance between security and fairness without sacrificing American ideals.

1. The sad thing about the immigration debate is that it has focused on illegal immigration and not on the fact that it has become harder for the immigrants that

   America

   should want to migrate legally to the

   US

   . For this reason, I believe that something has to be done to make it easier for those foreigners who are able to earn a living in the US because they have the skills and the knowledge needed to stay and to become Americans. This means increasing the number of work visas, shortening the process, and making it less burdensome for those aliens who represent, to say things crudely, the best and the brightest of the foreign population.
2. The second small step that should be done is to make it easier for those people to bring in their families. Why? Because they will be able to support them and to help them integrate American society.
3. A lot more money has to be spent on programs, which will help integrate immigrants whether they are refuges or here illegally into the society. This means spending more on English teaching programs because after all, knowing the language is the best way to integrate a society. The reason why so many immigrants don’t speak English is because they can’t afford to do it for it costs money and for their primary focus is survival not integration.
4. Finally, the goal of the immigration policy should be to make it easier to become an immigrant legally. It is important that the emphasis becomes merit that is whether somebody can earn a living in this country and integrate American society. It is also important that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services find ways to deal more efficiently with petitions for immigrant and work visas. Right now, the amount of time that you have to wait to get a decision on your immigrant petition or to receive a work visa depends on where you live, which in my opinion, is unacceptable.

Wicked France !

I just read this post from a blogger who argues that France is the wicked country in Europe today because, “France gives reason to serious worries. France never departed from 70s style Keynesianism and always thought a little too much about itself and its great, great history to really embrace the lowly meddling of Capitalism, that is much less aesthetically pleasing than Louis XIV- and Charles de Gaulle-style politics. In a recent survey, only around 30% of the French responded “yes” to the question, if Capitalism was the best of all economic systems, making them last of all surveyed countries, while China came out on top with 75% saying “yes” to Capitalism.” Those assertions lead to two interesting questions, which I believe hasn't been answered in this whole debate about France, the French, and whether they are cut from reality:

1. Do the French have the right to be different? I think that the struggle for France is one of identity and of how to modernize without losing oneself. Many French politicians have chosen identity over modernity, immobility over globalization because they did not know how to balance the two and because it was easier for them to act as if France was a museum which had to be preserve from the past. However, as I have argued before, the last crisis wasn't one which opposed those who were ready for change and those who weren't. It was a fight against the politics of the worst which forces one to choose between cholera and the place. The French youth said no to that and they were right.

2. Does globalization means sameness or rather uniformity? I believe that what is needed in France and everywhere else are creative and talented politicians which will be able to make globalization look attractive to their electorate by presenting it as an opportunity rather than an ill and by saying that their nation can globalize without americanize. France hasn't yet found politicians who will be able to get out of the false dichotomy which opposes identity and globalization. Next year is an election year in France and I am hopeful that a real political debate will be about France and its future.

A clash between Reason vs. Superstition?

Religion seems to have power in modern societies that it has had before. Comedy Central forbade South Park's creators to show images of the Prophet Muhammad and instead, they made fun of their own network and Jesus instead.. I wrote a post a while ago about the fact that religions are increasingly considered to be above satire. There is an article in the Guardian that makes an interesting argument against religions schools in Great Britain. It argues, “Religion usually means class, race or tribe segregation,” and that “Every school that vanishes into the hands of the religions is gone for ever, exceedingly hard for a future government to get back.” To what extent is it true that religion enforces superstition over reason and legitimizes divisions within a society such as class and race?

Would a resignation by Donald Rumsfeld change anything?

With an increasing number of generals asking for Rumsfeld, it is important to wonder what purpose would his resignation serve and whether it will make things better. My opinion is that if Rumsfeld resigned tomorrow, it would not make any difference. It would not repair the mistakes, which, according those who are asking him to step down, he made. It would not convince Iraqis to form a unity government and to bond together to avoid a civil war. Michael Totten has a series of article in his blog about journey back to Iraq that shows how complex the situation is. Rumsfeld has become a symbol of everything that has gone wrong, but I wonder if it is fair to blame him for the problems in Iraq when it is unclear that another secretary of defense would have done a better job. The president gave him his full support yesterday and it was not a surprise. Rumsfeld was certainly one of the architects of an Iraq war plan that didn’t work, but he was just one of them. I am afraid that it might be too late to acknowledge that what events on the ground in Iraq show the rest of the world, that the Iraq war wasn’t planned well. At this point, the most important thing is not for Rumsfeld to resign, but rather for the United States to fix Iraq. Whether and how to make Iraq a better place remains an open question.

Adidas's faux pas: images, marketing and race

One of Adidas’s new shoes, “Yellow Series Y1 Huf” (which costs $250) has caused a scandal in with Asians because of the image used to market it. The image shows a “stereotypical” one of Chinese man with buckteeth and slanted eyes. The creator of the shoe, Barry McGee is half-Chinese  calls the character Ray Fong and says that the image is based on an image of his uncle as a child and that is should be regarded as a piece of art. However, many Asians are offended by that image and argued that it is racist and that images have consequences and influence the way people things: “We live in such a cynical, postmodern society that if you are offended by something like this, people say, 'Lighten up, it's ironic, it's a joke.' And that's really nice if you're a student of art history, […]But how many 10-year-olds talk about irony? When you get teased, it doesn't make it any better to know that they're also calling it ironic. It sends the message that it's hip to make fun of Asians.” I have to say that I agree with them because I think that when you use an image to sell shoes, you are sending the image whether you like it or not that the image is legitimate, valuable and therefore isn’t shameful.

The power of words

After failing to catch Phil Mickelson last Sunday, in the Masters,  Tiger Woods said that he played like a “spaz.” A spaz is a derogatory term used to described a disabled or a mentally retarded person who can’t do anything right. I think that words have meaning and that when using them, you have to be careful, especially when you use a word with bad connotation and used to group individuals according to one trait whether it is race, disability, or gender. Tiger Woods apologized and I am glad that he did because by doing so he showed that while his intent was not to be hurtful, he used a word that negated it by its meaning and its history. Whether we like it or not, words have meaning and their meaning can overpower good intentions and even good morals.

Some praise for China

Joseph Stiglitz has an excellent article, which praises China and the choices that it made to achieve both development and environment protection. He writes, “Part of the key to China's long-run success has been its almost unique combination of pragmatism and vision. While much of the rest of the developing world, following the Washington consensus, has been directed at a quixotic quest for higher GDP, China has again made clear that it seeks sustainable and more equitable increases in real living standards. China realises that it has entered a phase of economic growth that is imposing enormous - and unsustainable - demands on the environment. Unless there is a change in course, living standards will eventually be compromised. That is why the new plan places great emphasis on the environment.” So on the contrary to conventional wisdom, there are some things that the world can learn from China.

Race and DNA

Science is playing an incredibly important role in thr discovery of the past, the present and ourselves. The Newyork times has a great article on DNA and Race and on the ways that knowing your DNA makes to your ethnicity. An increasingly number of people are using the fact that their DNA shows that they are a part of a  minority group (11 % African American for example) to claim scholarships and to try to gain some advantage in college applications. These new trends lead to obvious, but difficult questions and it is what is the meaning of race and what factors should be used to determine ethnicity? And of course, the most important question of all is race just about DNA?

Can anything stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?

Iran has apparently moved a step closer to becoming a nuclear power and the key question is what, if anything can stop it from the final step of actually having the bomb? I am starting to think that the answer is nothing or rather nobody. Threats seem to have done nothing to stop it and sanctions won’t probably do the trick. The UN, as always,  has no good options and is powerless in front of a regime, which has decided to defy its virtual authority. The US and its allies seem to be trapped by their past mistakes, which may force them to accept the fact that Iran will kick the door of the nuclear club and join it without waiting for an invitation. Is the world just going to have to live with a nuclear Iran even it that reality would make it a lot more dangerous?

Monkey sounds: race, crime, politics, and hypocrisy

I was able to hear parts of the statement of the District Attorney who is investigating the Duke Students who are alleged to have rape an African woman while using racial slurs. A student of North Carolina Central University made good points about the role that race is playing in this story. He made the assertion that the media has overemphasized the fact that she was an “exotic dancer” as to suggest that she has no values and that somehow she might have send the idea to those young men that she was ready for the taking and that she didn’t need to be respected. I think that he is right. The Duke Lacrosse team story might not be one of rape for we do not know what happened yet, but it is certainly one of race and of class. I think that the story would be treated differently if it had been a North Carolina Central University student, especially an African American one, was accused of having raped a Duke student. The sad thing about this story and about the race question is America is that people such as Cynthia McKinney are able to call a news conference that is covered by all cable news channels to exploit race issues to make political points. However, the real victims of racism are invisible and really have the attention that a Cynthia McKinney gets. This is the reason why the whole circus around Representative McKinney is a tragedy and that African Americans should disown her. She used race and screamed racism to raise her political profile and then when it became clear that it wasn’t going to work, she apologized. Racism isn’t a political tool. It is a potent and serious issue. People who use it nastily to manipulate public opinion and to raise their profile should be punished for doing so for they are diminishing the power that the word racism has or ought to have. Cynthia McKinney used race to get out of an embarrassing situation and for that reason, she should feel as much shame as those who do not take racism seriously. Because of them, an African woman in Durham, North Carolina, who was allegedly rape and humiliated because of the color of her skin cannot defend herself and cannot be given the full protections that the status of alleged racism and rape victim entitles her to receive.

The Italian elections show that Ideology is everything

The results of the Italian elections show that Ideology trumps everything nowadays when it comes to politics. The left coalition of Romano Prodi seems to have barely won the elections even though the economic situation of Italy and the miscues of Berlusconi were supposed to lead to an overwhelming victory. Nevertheless, millions of Italians voted for Berlusconi not because they believe in him, but because they believe in what he stands against that is communism, leftist politics and the death of traditional Italian values. Prodi didn’t get a mandate not because he wasn’t convincing but rather because Italy, as many countries, is divided. Last year, Angela Merkel was supposed to beat Gerhard Schroeder and to gain a mandate for her party so that she could govern Germany, but Germans did the same thing that Italians did. They chose to stick for their ideology not matter what the realities were. Angela Merkel had to form a coalition with the left and has the unenviable task of trying to govern Germany without losing her ruling coalition. The political center seems to be dead in the beginning of this century and electorates have become so polarized that compromise and consensus are increasingly difficult. This is a worrying trend because our world is so complex that it might be impossible to govern effectively without compromise and without giving up some ideology for a little dose of pragmatism. The results of the Italian elections show that Ideology trumps everything nowadays when it comes to politics. The left coalition of Romano Prodi seems to have barely won the elections even though the economic situation of  Italy and the miscues of Berlusconi were supposed to lead to an overwhelming victory. Nevertheless, millions of Italians voted for Berlusconi not because they believe in him, but because they believe in what he stands against that is communism, leftist politics and the death of traditional Italian values. Prodi didn’t get a mandate not because he wasn’t convincing but rather because Italy, as many countries, is divided. Last year, Angela Merkel was supposed to beat Gerhard Schroeder and to gain a mandate for her party so that she could govern Germany, but Germans did the same thing that Italians did. They chose to stick for their ideology not matter what the realities were. Angela Merkel had to form a coalition with the left and has the unenviable task of trying to govern Germany without losing her ruling coalition. The political center seems to be dead in the beginning of this century and electorates have become so polarized that compromise and consensus are increasingly difficult. This is a worrying trend because our world is so complex that it might be impossible to govern effectively without compromise and without giving up some ideology for a little dose of pragmatism.

French contagion ?

Apparently, the French demonstrations have inspired some people in the United States and have showed that people power can change things. People took to the streets again after the failure of the Senate to reach a compromise on immigration to protest against what is an inhumane immigration policy. The problem isn’t that government is failing, but rather that the gap between the political elites and the people is widening. Globalization isn’t the sole culprit for the fact that public policy do not always reflect the will of the people, poor leadership plays a part and so does the fact that those who governed are farther apart from those who they governed since they come from different social, gender,  and ethnic background. The thing I like the most about the manifestations for immigration is that it shows that people still care enough about something to walk in the streets even though it may not lead to immediate change.

The end of Berlusconism?

According to exit polls (which are unreliable), Romano Prodi is set to defeat Berlusconi and my hope is that this victory if it happens will put an end to the political life of Silvio Berlusconi and to Berlusconism, the system he created. Berlusconism is a political system is in which money is the most important thing since it confers authority and confirms a certain moral superiority. Silvio Berlusconi is the richest man of Italy and his problem is that he ran Italy worst that he ran his companies principally because he got rid of anything, of any laws that would have made him accountable. It would be as if Bill Gates became President of the United States without giving up its stakes and his hold on Microsoft. Unfortunately, if Berlusconi loses, it wouldn’t be because Italians realized that he did not have the temperament of Statesman and that his hands weren’t clean, but it would be because at the end of everything, he failed to make Italy as rich as it made him.

The French crisis is over, and thank god the youth won

After almost 10 weeks of crisis, of streets demonstrations, of chaos in the universities and in the schools, Chirac heard the voice of reason and the screams of the youth and killed the first job contract law (CPE). He could have done these 10 days ago, but my guess he thought that by saving time, the youth’s anger would calm down and that Villepin would save face. He was wrong. By caving in too late, Chirac made France go through a meaningless and incredibly bruising crisis for at the end of it, nothing was solved, and the government of his prime minister has lost all of its authority. The question that has to be asked is what was the point of it all, why did Villepin and Chirac resist people power if it was to cave so inelegantly at the end? In the Guardian, Jonathan Fenby writes that, “France is moving into a near-anarchic nether world where nobody in power dares to do anything that might be unpopular.” He is wrong, this crisis showed that the French institutions are outdated and are in need of some serious remodelling for what this crisis showed and the French Non to the European Constitution is the widening gap that exists between those govern France and the French.

Can the US fight and win three wars?

The Bush administration is studying strike options against Iran. However, I wonder a strike on Iraq is possible or whether the Bush administration leaked this information to bluff and show Iran that all options are on the table. The US is already fighting wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which have been long and extremely costly. There are two problems with using a military option on Iran. The first problem is that it may not even be feasible. Most of the American troops are in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It is going to be difficult to convince American public opinion (and for that matter, the world public opinion) that military action is necessary. The second problem is that the military option might be too costly not only in terms of the amount of money spent, but also in terms of political and diplomatic capital. Striking Iran might not even solve the nuclear question in Iran and might have unwanted consequences in the Middle East by further destabilizing Iraq and increasing instability in the region.

The good old sex wars

It is interesting to realize that when newspapers talk about gender,  it is more often than not to contrast them and to tell its readers that one sex is in danger, in crisis or that something has gone terribly wrong. I wonder if when it comes to gender, if there is anything going right. Have we made progress or have we regressed? Are girls or boys in crisis? Are real men dying and are real women anti-feminists? Is the gap between the sexes narrowing, closed, nonexistent, irrelevant, growing, or unbridgeable? The one thing about sex wars that we can know for sure is that they will never end because as many wars, they are interesting, bloody, and profitable even though they are fruitless.

A wall to protect US borders would be a wall of shame

The immigration compromise failed in the senate because it is for senators to resist scoring political points and because few of them seem to want to find a balance between security and openness. There is a lot of talk about building a wall around the borders of the US between Mexico. Charles Krauthammer argues that building a wall is the best way for the US to regain control of its borders. I believe that if the US does build a wall, it will be the wall of shame because it will send two messages. The first message will be that America is a closed nation, which wants to remain the shining city of the hill and which wants to protect its wealth from the rest of the world. The second message that it will send is that America is so scared and so insecure that it had to build a wall to try to protect itself from the outside. Walls are never good things and are symbols of powerlessness and of fear. When I think of a wall, I think of the one that the Nazis built in Warsaw to separate the Ghettos before starting the final solution. I am not making a comparison, I am just saying that the act of building a wall means that what is on the other side is threatening, dangerous, and especially unworthy of coming to the good side. I do not want the US to be associated with the idea that separation means security especially when there are other ways to stop illegal immigration. Walls, fences should always be instruments of last resort and in this case, I do not believe that the US has tried everything else to make its borders secure. The day the US builds its wall will be its last day as an exceptional country that is admired and envied because it is both rich and approachable.

To avoid Aids, just take a shower

Jacob Zuma, the former deputy president of South Africa testified in his rape trial that he took a shower after having sex (raping in my opinion) with a HIV positive woman to avoid Aids. This is scandalous for two reasons (apart of course for the obvious ones). First, Mr. Zuma once headed the National Aids Council and the Moral Regeneration Campaign and he knows better than that. This is the reason why I think that it was rape, because I think that he couldn’t take precautions because the sex wasn’t consensual. Second, Mr. Zuma is perpetuating myths about Aids that professionals fighting that disease are trying hard to dispel. Mr. Zuma also testified that he was ready to marry his accuser. The sad thing about this trial is that it shows what the worst not only of South Africa, but also of Africa. There was a large group of people including kids outside the trial cheering and singing for Mr. Zuma. Rape is still not considered a crime and this is the reason why Mr. Zuma talked about the fact that he had been willing to marry his accuser. He was sending the message that he couldn’t have shamed her for after all he proposed her marriage.

Eyes wide shut: movies, culture, ethnicity, and communication

The Guardian has an article indicting the American public for refusing to see Arabic movies. It states, “Trying to sell Arabic films in America must be - in the current political climate at least - one of the most thankless and difficult jobs in the cinema world. The bulk of AFD's business comes from educational institutions, and it counts all the universities in the US on its client list. Arabic films have fallen victim not just to the changes affecting cinema-going in the US and elsewhere, but also to the political atmosphere in the wake of 9/11 and the war in Iraq.”  Somehow, I was expecting that more people would be more curious about the Arab world and would want to see Arab movies in an attempt to understand its culture and its point of view. Movies are a form of communication and if nobody is watching Arab or for that matter foreign movies then how is the world going to come together. To understand the world, you have to know more about it, to know more about it, you have to know how its people lives and what they believe. Seeing foreign movies is good (and cheap way) to see the world. 

Aids, Africa, and information

The Washington post has an article on Aids and Africa, which states that in some countries such as in Rwanda, the numbers of people with Aids were overstated. What should take conclude from this piece of information? Is the conclusion that there is no Aids epidemic in Africa and therefore the attention that is paid to the problem is too great compare to the reality? Or it the conclusion that data and research in Africa is done badly and that in the case of a disease as potent as Aids, it is necessary to have the right data not only to know the extent of the problem, but also to fight it. Information is priceless especially when the consequence of ignorance and of inaction is death.

Aren’t we all French?

A lot has been written about France recently, about its contradictions, its rebelliousness and about its unwillingness to accept some basic truths. The AP has an article, which states that France is becoming a tale of divided society. I am wondering if it isn’t, more or less, true of every modern society. I wonder if the difference between France and the rest of the West isn’t just that in France, people still believe in people power, that by demonstrating in the streets they can change take hold of their country and of their future. I watched the images of the more than half a million people who manifested more than a week ago against the immigration bill passed by the House. I wonder whether they would be more such demonstrations in the US and in other countries if people believed that by demonstrating they could shake things up and force those who govern them to pay attention to their problems. Isn’t France just better (or more willing to dare take the risk to say NON! and to face the consequences of doing so ) at expressing the anxiety, that gripping feeling of insecurity that we all feel towards the evolution of modernity and the things that globalization is changing?

Does Mac + Windows = success?

Apple just unveiled software that will make it possible to people who own a Mac to use a windows operating system. What took Apple so long? It is about time that it did this, for I believe that this software will make Apple more attractive if not more competitive. However, the big question remains unanswered: Will this change drive enough people who will never buy a Mac to buy one? Or will ill it just enable Mac to keep its customers happy and to regain its old customers (people such as me) who stopped using a Mac because they needed to use Windows? We will know the answer a year or two from now.

How do witch-hunts start?

The Guardian had an article yesterday about American universities and on the denunciation of many professors as Anti-American liberals. The article compared the attacks on some American professors to McCarthyism, it makes the following point, “Few would argue there are direct parallels between the current assaults on liberals in academe and McCarthyism….But in other ways, argues Ellen Schrecker, author of Many Are the Crimes - McCarthyism in America, comparisons are apt. "In some respects it's more dangerous," she says. "McCarthyism dealt mainly with off-campus political activities. Now they focus on what is going on in the classroom. It's very dangerous because it's reaching into the core academic functions of the university, particularly in Middle-Eastern studies."” I wonder if she is right and if we are witnessing the beginning of a witch-hunt for liberals on American campuses.

Should ideology affect science?

Science seems to have become more and more like social science in recent years in the sense that ideology affects it. Whether it is the debate about Darwinism or about global warming, it seems that your views on science depend on your ideology. George Will wrote on Sunday that, “Suppose the Earth is warming and suppose the warming is caused by human activity. Are we sure there will be proportionate benefits from whatever climate change can be purchased at the cost of slowing economic growth and spending trillions? Are we sure the consequences of climate change -- remember, a thick sheet of ice once covered the Midwest-- must be bad? Or has the science-journalism complex decided that debate about these questions, too, is "over"?” The question after reading his article is whether science is a matter of point of view. If it is, then it means that ideology bridges a gap between people that is unbridgeable. That is worrisome because if we cannot agree on science, on math and on reality, then togetherness becomes impossible.

Is religion killing politics?

After reading the article by Kevin Phillips in the Washington post about the Republicans, God and religion, I wondered whether religion has a role to play in politics and whether when it does play a role, it can only be a negative one. Religion is about faith and a relationship with the sacred that ought to be, in my opinion, personal. Politics, to the contrary, is about dealing with public issues and trying to find solutions to them. The question is can religion and politics mixed without one infecting the other. I am not sure that it can. In the Middle East, we see what happens when religion invades the political debate. Can religion lead to something other than fanaticism and radicalism?

Immigration and Identity: the Europeanization of America

The most important thing that the debate on Immigration showed is the fact that America is unfortunately becoming more like Europe when it comes to this issue and the one of identity. Hearing members of the House of Representative speak, I thought for a moment that I was in a European parliament and that I was hearing members of the hard right (not to say far right) speak about purity and about the fact that foreigners are invading their country and making it theirs by changing its racial and cultural makeup. America used to be proud to be a melting pot and used to believe in multiculturalism and cosmopolitism. However, there seems to have been not a change, but a tilt in the other direction where many feel that homogeneity is the only way to preserve what is good and noble about America. I get the feeling that what is hidden behind this fervent fight against illegal immigration isn’t a feeling of insecurity and the fear to lose a job to somebody who doesn’t have the right to be here, it is also the fear that illegal immigrants do not come from the right country and do not have the right genes. In Europe, the consequence of hard line approach has been disastrous. It has created ghettos within European societies where those illegal immigrants or immigrants who are never able to get citizenship are forced to live with their children. The riots in the suburbs of French showed how explosive the situation resulting from decades of exclusion, of segregation and of discrimination is. America cannot afford to become like Europe when it comes to the issue of immigration and to stop believing that multiculturalism is an obstacle to integration and to patriotism.

Jill Carroll, journalism and Iraq

I don’t understand all the fuss about Jill Carroll, her statements, and her actions. I think that there is too much emphasis on what she did what she should have done when her situation was peculiarly simple. She was the hostage of people who have no problem cutting the heads of their victims just because they are Americans or Jewish. She knew that the fact that the fact that she was a woman did not mean anything. She did what she needed to do to survive and to return home. She was kidnapped and she did what she needed to do to return home. So all of the psychobabble about her state of mind and what she should did, what she should have done, is useless. More however, it comes from persons who have never been close to living in such a horrific situation. Journalists can be propaganda tools. They cab be used; the Iraq war has shown how difficult it is to be a journalist, especially an American journalist in a country that is divided. Jill Carroll did the right thing. She survived, has disavowed her previous statement, and now she deserved some peace and some time with her family.

Chirac, or the cowardice of the punter.

Yesterday, Jacques Chirac had the duty either to take a position that is to clearly support the CPE (first job contract) or to disavow the acts of his Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin. He did neither. He tried to have it both ways by making the CPE into a law and by then saying that another law was going to be created to make the CPE better. The problem with that position is that it solves nothing and that it makes Chirac, the President of France, take the less unimportant place in the debate. Chirac, under the French constitution, needed to be clear and to send a message of authority or of real compromise. He needed to be the quarterback; instead, because he feared to lose potentially what is the biggest fight of his political career or at least of the one of the man he would to succeed him, he chose to become a punter to avoid his responsibilities and his obligations. I wrote yesterday that he needed to be Bush-like. He wasn’t yesterday. He was weak and indecisive, which is the worst that a leader can be in a time of crisis. What does it mean? It means that the crisis continues until something happens. I hope that it won’t be something tragic.