The Republic of Dissent

Gore on Bush

Gore has some tough things to say in the Guardian this morning about Bush and about the way he was governed the country for the last 6 years. Gore asserts that the Bush administration "a renegade band of rightwing extremists." He also argues that he has not become more liberal, but that rather it is the center of political power in the United States which has turned to the right. I haven't yet seen Al Gore's movie but I intend to see it, but the question that I am asking myself is whether even if he doesn't chose to run for president, he can play a role in American politics. I wonder if the American public will think that he is credible.

The “wrongness” of creationism

I wonder if it is possible to believe in creationism and to believe in science. I know that it is possible to believe in evolution and to be religious, but I am unable to understand why it has become so important for some people to disprove evolution and to pass creationism as science by using intelligent design so that it can be taught  in schools. I just read a short article, which states that more than 100 millions Americans believe in creationism and my question is why? Why would so many stubbornly believe in something, which is refuted by facts.  I don't think that the answer is simply faith. I don't know what is, but it worries me because it suggests that to a lot of people, reality and facts don't matter and that is dangerous because that is the essence of fanaticism.

Optimism on Memorial day

It is Memorial day and because of the symbolic nature of this day, I believe that it is important to be positive and optimistic without of course ignoring reality and without refusing to acknowledge shortcomings and the dangers, which exist out there. It is important to remember what is worth fighting and dying for. On this memorial day, the one thing that keeps me optimistic about America, about Africa, about France, and about the world is my strong and passionate belief in humanity and in the fact that what human beings have in common is a lot more powerful than anything else, which differentiates them. I believe in America and in what it can do for the world when it doesn't fear it, but embraces it. Happy Memorial Day to you all.

The Haditha Scandal, Rumsfeld, questions of leadership and accountability

During his news conference with Tony Blair on Wednesday, President Bush talked about Abu Ghraib when it came to name one of the mistakes he had made concerning Iraq, and I wondered why he really felt that way, he was still keeping Rumsfeld as secretary of defense. Now, comes the Haditha incident, which will undoubtedly taints the image of the United States and the one of the US military in spite of the fact that its members are for the most part doing as great a job as can possibly be done.

1. The greatest question raised by Haditha in my opinion is at when the people at the top of the chain of command will be held responsible. After Abu Ghraib, President Bush refused the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, however I think that this time, he should let him go to show the world that a line has been crossed and that the US cannot tolerate such actions.
2. I once said that the departure of Rumsfeld wouldn’t change anything . I have changed my mind because I believe that letting Rumsfeld remain as secretary of Defense, the President is undermining his moral authority and is sending the awful message that neither Abu Ghraib nor Haditha is worth the head of Rumsfeld.
3. If the President was sincere Wednesday when he said that Abu Ghraib had had negative effects on the US’s actions in Iraq, he cannot keep Rumsfeld. Keeping him would not just be a political mistake, but a moral mistake because it would place the fate of one man above the image and the moral authority of the United States.

The end of Blair

In this morning's Guardian, Martin Kettle offers is an accurate analysis of the position in which Tony Blair finds himself.

1. He writes, “This may not be Blair's last visit to Washington as prime minister, but the sense that these visits still shape our times is dying. Blair still retains all the dignities of office. His command on his feet continues to impress Americans embarrassed by Bush's lack of fluency. And he was genuinely impressive at Thursday's White House press conference and again in his foreign-policy lecture yesterday morning. His talents will look more impressive in retrospect than they do at the moment.[...] Blair no longer sets the agenda as before. He can propose but he cannot dispose. It was not just the British media that framed this week's visit as a meeting of two weakened leaders. The Americans saw it that way too. Blair's support for American foreign policy guarantees him a large tranche of White House time, and Bush was headline-grabbingly generous in his tributes to Blair, as well he might be. But when the Bush administration looks to the future and seeks a bridge to Europe it now naturally turns to Angela Merkel, not Blair.”
2. It is incredibly sad to see Blair ends his political career this way because he still has so much to offer not only to Britain, but to the world.  I also wonder how will history judge, will it say that he ruined his chance to be a great leader by supporting the war in Iraq or will it say that he made the right choice without worrying about its political costs?
3. I wonder what was Blair's greatest fault was it the overselling of the war in Iraq or was it his inability to realize that in politics it isn't enough to be right, you have to convince people that you are.
4. At the end, I believe that Blair's greatest strength, his eloquence and his passionate nature caused his undoing because it made him underestimate the extent to which he had to do more than win argument rhetorically to keep the trust of the British people.

Standing Firm: the Bush and Blair newsconference

I watched last night's news-conference between Tony Blair and George Bush with great interest, but I have to admit that I wanted more substance and less style.

1. My first thought was how eloquent Blair can be when he talks about something that he believes. I have always liked and admired Blair and that yesterday, he had some good moments.
2. However, it is difficult for me to trust him no matter how much I wanted to. I remembered the past and the current situation in Iraq and I wondered if eloquence and strong and passionate beliefs in the righteousness of the decision to go to war in Iraq and to remain there enough to make it a success. There always come a time when eloquence and passion are no longer enough and that results are all that matter.
3. Blair had the best argument when he talked about why it is the right decision to stay in Iraq and I particularly liked when he said this: “They [the Iraqi people] have gone out and voted despite terrorism, despite bloodshed, despite literally the prospect of death for exercising their democratic right. So they have kept faith with the very democratic values that we say we believe in, and the people trying to wrest that democracy from them are opposed to absolutely everything we stand for and everything the Iraqi people stand for. So what do we do in response to this? And the problem we have is very, very simple. A large part of the perspective with which we look at this is to see every act of terrorism in Iraq, every piece of ghastly carnage on our television screens, every tragic loss of our own forces -- we see that as a setback and as a failure when we should be seeing that as a renewed urgency for us to rise to the challenge of defeating these people who are committing this carnage. Because over these past three years, at every stage, the reason they have been fighting is not, as we can see, because Iraqi people don't believe in democracy, Iraqi people don't want liberty. It is precisely because they fear Iraqi people do want democracy, Iraqi people do want liberty. And if the idea became implanted in the minds of people in the Arab and Muslim world that democracy was as much their right as our right, where do these terrorists go? What do they do? How do they recruit? How do they say, America is the evil Satan? How do they say the purpose of the West is to spoil your lands, wreck your religion, take your wealth? How can they say that? They can't say that. So these people who are fighting us there know what is at stake. The question is, do we?”
4. The trouble is that to make this type of argument based on belief, morality, and values, one has to be credible and for lack of a better word “clean.” The problem is that Blair is no longer credible. I want to believe that he is right for I like him, but I remember the past and the fact that in spite of his passionate and idealistic views, neither him nor Bush has been able to “fix” the situation in Iraq and I am starting to wonder not only if they can, but also if it is possible.

In Ingles Por Favor: the stupidity of making English the national language

George Will “defends” English and the Senate for declaring it the national language of the US. I strongly disagree with him.

1. George Will writes, “What makes Americans generally welcoming of immigrants, and what makes immigrants generally assimilable, is that this is a creedal nation, one dedicated to certain propositions, not one whose origins and identity are bound up with ethnicity. But if you are to be welcomed to the enjoyment of American liberty, then America has a few expectations of you. One is that you can read the nation's founding documents and laws and can comprehend the political discourse that precedes the casting of ballots.”
2. The problem with George Will’s argument is that it is based on a fallacy, which is that there are English is under attack in this country and that if Government doesn’t act then the US will soon become a Spanish speaking country. Although, the US is a relatively young country, it has a rich and diverse history with people who come from different parts of the world and who speak different languages. Yet, in spite of this history, and in spite of the fact that English was never declared the national language. America has remained an English speaking country precisely because immigrants do not come to the United States to stay on the margins of society, but to succeed. It is impossible to realize the American dream without speaking and understanding English.
3. I will not argue that those who believe in English and who are against the use of Spanish of ballots and on other things are racists and bigots. However, I will argue that their belief that English needs to be defended is based on fears, which are irrational. Spanish isn't in competition with English and when it is used by Spanish-speaking immigrants, it is to show pride in their heritage and not as a way to disrespect America, the country, which they love. 

Netherlands, Immigration and Integration: more on Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The New York Times has a great article on Hirsi Ali and on the personal attacks against her since it was reveled that she earned her Dutch citizenship by lying about her past.

1. I think it is important to say that I don't agree with Hirsi Ali on everything. Her views of Islam are a bit too extreme even though I share her disgust for the way radical Islam objectifies women (as most fundamentalist movements within religions). I do not quite agree with her views on integration for she doesn't seem to believe in cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism.
2. However, I believe that the way the Dutch authorities, especially Rita Verdonk have responded in this case is a disgrace precisely because I believe that Mrs. Ali has earned her citizenship with her conduct in the last few years.
3. Ultimately, the most important question, which Dutch Authorities needs to answer is the following: "What type of people do we want to immigrate and to integrate our society?" Hirsi Ali has shown that she fitted in Dutch society for after all she was a member of parliament. Even though, her views are absolute, I believe that the simple fact that she is expressing  them peacefully and that she is living according to Dutch laws and customs shows that she is a "model" immigrant.
4. By rejecting Hirsi Ali, the Netherlands are showing that the real problem isn't really the "lie" that she used to gain citizenship for her conduct and her work redeemed that lie, but that it is the simple fact that she wasn't born Dutch and that for that reason, she can't make mistakes and somehow taint the bloodline.

What is a life worth? : Is it acceptable to pay a ransom to free hostages?

According to the London Times, France, Italy, and Germany have given money, more than $ 45 million to have their hostages freed in Iraq.

1. I have mixed feelings about this piece of information. On the one hand, I timidly feel that paying ransom to free hostages encourage hostage taking and puts states in the unenviable position of having to make the decision of how much is the life of a hostage worth.
2. On the other hand, I feel that saving lives is not only important, but also primordial. I put myself in the place of the families of the victims who were captured and then killed by kidnappers and it becomes very difficult for me to condemn the governments who chose to pay to save lives.
3. However, the question is whether paying kidnappers isn’t a temporary and a counter-productive fix to a great problem. It is a question, which I cannot answer. I haven’t experience anything remotely close to kidnapped victims and their families have experienced.

Bono, corruption, and Africa

Bono is touring Africa again in his endless and courageous quest to end poverty in that forgotten part of the world.

1. He had these words, which I believe deserve attention, "There is a window of opportunity but it could close if things like the corruption issue are not tackled or the peer review mechanisms are not felt to be real.[...] I'll go further and say that the single biggest obstacle to business and the renewal of the economies in the south is corruption and the single biggest obstacle to getting start-up money for those businesses, if you want to look at aid as investment, is corruption."
2. I think that Bono is right, but the problem is that African leaders don't have great incentives to end corruption especially when they are ruling a country, which has natural resources that interest the West.
3. My point isn't that reforms are impossible in Africa, but that they are very difficult especially because most countries lack the structures necessary to make them work and lack the savoir faire and the political will to implement reforms that might lead to destabilize the State.
4. Most often, the question, which governments face in African isn't really whether to reform, but how to keep their countries stable and how to hold to power. The answer too often is to avoid sweeping reforms and to let the status quo prevail  for fear that change will lead to chaos.

Sexual exploitation: sex, and immigration

A sex scandal has been discovered at the biggest UK immigration processing center. In a video, the chief immigration officer is seen proposing a woman to help her with her asylum case if she had sex with him.

1. Although I believe that such scandalous acts are more common than we would like them to be, they are still shocking. They happened because of the way the asylum and immigration process are structured in most Western nations where a few individuals have too much power without enough accountability.
2. Too often, people who seek asylum are in a position where they are ready and willing to do anything to stay in the country where they were able to gain entry. The unfortunate thing is that the system increase their vulnerabilities by giving some individuals the possibility to take advantage of them.
3. I am waiting to see how the Blair government will react to this latest scandal concerning the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) and whether it is going to propose structural changes that will address the issue of accountability without further victimizing the potential asylees.

The religious left : the place of religion in politics

Apparently, there is such a group as the religious left, which are made of people, who believe that  "their faith compels them to emphasize such issues as poverty, affordable health care and global warming."

1. Although, I like the fact that many religious people are standing to say that it is possible to be religious and liberal, I do not like this tight bond that there is between religion and politics.
2. My dislike for the mixture of politics and religion isn't so much on the separation between church and state as on the belief that the introduction of God, of the divine in the political arena can't only have disastrous consequences.
3. Politics should be about people, humanity, ideas, fallacy, and justice, it should be about how to become about morality in the sense that religious beliefs shouldn't become political ideas especially when the divine is used to justify their righteousness. If there is one arena, where people should God out, it is politics.
4. The main difference between a theocracy and a democracy, is the place that God and religion plays within it. It reminds me of the quote of Jesse Jackson Jr, "When I came here [to Congress], I put my hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. I didn't put my hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

Thank God for America: the US is ready to welcome Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The US is prepared to welcome Ayaan Hirsi Ali when/if she leaves the Netherlands. The Deputy Secretary of States, Robert Zoellick stated that she would be able to come to the United States and that her security needs would be addressed.

1. By embracing Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the United States is showing that in spite of the criticisms (fair and unfair), which one may have against it, that it is a great, open, and tolerant nation for it has for most of its history welcomed people, which few Western nations wanted to have on their soil.
2. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is going to be an asset to the US and to its fight to defeat terrorism and radicalism and to win world public opinion for two reasons. First, the fact that she will be able to settle in the US will show that the US is much more opened than Europe when it comes to immigration and to accepting people of which comes from countries, which are not part of the West.
3. Second, Hirsi Ali is going to help the United States make the point more convincingly that religious fundamentalism and radicalism are unacceptable not because they are a threat to American and against American values, but simply because they are against basic human values. Hirsi Ali will be able to speak of what she knows and to speak from the heart about the danger of Islamism and about why all people should fear extremism.
4. If Hirsi Ali comes to the United States, the Netherlands will lose a great voice for integration and against religious fundamentalism and one of the rare symbols which showed that it was possible for people who are non-western to integrate Dutch society. The United States(and the American Enterprise Institute), on the contrary,  will gain a good spokeswoman in its quest to have the world on its side in the fight against religious extremism.

So what comes after the fence?

The Senate has approved the building of fence around the US-Mexican border. However, I wonder what is going to come next.

1. I wonder if five years from now, the number of illegal immigrants would have gone down because of this fence. I doubt it, but it is possible that I am wrong.
2. The Senate still has to agree on a comprehensive immigration that would deal with illegal immigration and with legal immigration. Unfortunately, since we are in an election year, it is very unlikely that a bill on immigration will be something other than a way for both parties to score cheap political points.
3. In an article in the Washington Post, Robert Samuelson writes, “There is much muddle to our immigration debate. The central problem is not illegal immigration. It is undesirably high levels of poor and low-skilled immigrants, whether legal or illegal, most of whom are Hispanic. Immigrants are not all the same. An engineer making $75,000 annually contributes more to the American economy and society than a $20,000 laborer. On average, the engineer will assimilate more easily.”  I agree with him to an extent. The debate on Immigration has focused on the negatives and on those immigrants who are going to work low-pay jobs.
4. One of the issues that isn’t being addressed by the immigration debate is how to better deal with those immigrants who have the skills that the United States needs. It seems to me that one of the best ways to make sure that immigrants integrate American society is to make sure that will not be able to earn a decent living in this country, but contributing not only to the economy, but also to the community.
5. The immigration debate has been hijacked by those who believe that immigrants are invaders and are coming to this country to change it for the worst. 

Affirmative action Indian style

Violent student protests erupted in India after the Human Resource Department Minister, Arjun Sing announced plans to reserve about 50% of seats in colleges and university for lower-caste and disadvantaged Indians (reservation).

1. India has a caste system and a constitutional amendment passed in December 2005 requires that a certain number of seats be reserved for the people who are part of the lower classes to make sure that there had better chance to overcome history and actual prejudices.
2. The problem is that there aren't enough seats in India's best colleges for everybody and the students feel that it is unfair for the government to decide to use quotas, which would make it harder for many who have the qualifications to have a seat in an Indian college.The Singh government is considering increasing the number of seas in Universities to deal with this issue.
3. India is moving in the right direction when it comes to remedy the wrong of its caste system. The government of the Tamil Nadu state decided that priests of its temple will come from every class ending the monopoly of high-caste Hindus. The problem is finding the right way to do it and I fear that by the use of quotas will divide Indian society and would a policy, which is essential, unpopular. In the US, the Supreme Court decided that the use of quotas were unconstitutional, I wonder if the Singh government is going to be able to go ahead with its plans if the protests continue.

A sad and tragic tale: the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is leaving the Netherlands to settle in the United States.

1. Why is her announced exile from her adopted country a noteworthy story? Because Ayaan Hirsi Ali has is a Somali-born member of the Dutch parliament who has the face of Dutch integration and who had fought radical Islam.
2. She is leaving the Netherlands because she lied to get asylum and thus to get Dutch nationality. She said that she was running away from a forced marriage when in fact, it wasn't true. It is possible that she will lose her Dutch nationality in spite of the fact that she has done a lot of good for her country by being a role model for the successful integration of immigrants within Dutch society.
3. I wonder what is the message that this sad episode. Is it that a lie is a lie is lie or is it that it is impossible for an immigrant to redeem her/his initial lie with exemplary behavior and by doing good for her/his adopted country? Ayaan Hirsi Ali lied, but I wonder if she hasn't earned her Dutch citizenship by actions as a member of the Dutch parliament and by the fact that she exemplified the message that Dutch authorities want immigrants to understand, which is that they have to integrate and to follow Dutch laws when they immigrate in their country.

Looking for a coherent and honest message on Immigration

I watched President Bush's message last night and I have to say that it left me wanting more.

1. I was looking for a message that would educate people on the issue without looking for short cuts and for easy solutions. I didn't get it probably because it was an almost impossible balancing act to pull.  I still believe that the President's guest worker program goes in the right direction, but I fear that the way he has chosen to frame the debate that ia by accepting the premise that immigration is first and foremost a question of security will not make the program popular and will make it more difficult for Americans to have a reasonable dialogue about immigration.
2. To me, the decision to send national guards to the border escalates the tensions created by the immigration debate by legitimating the view that immigrants are potential invaders. I wonder if there is a way to bridge the gap between those who are choosing to view immigration solely as a legal and security issue and those who like me believe that it is possible to find a middle ground on this issue.

Religion, intolerance, and compromise

After reading a Saudi woman dressed in  a hijab who had some trouble (to put things mildly ) in a German airport, I wonder what does tolerance means in a modern society. The woman was asked to get out of her hijab so that a female official could check her hair to make sure that she had nothing dangerous under it. She refused and had to be checked in a private area where she alleges that she was mistreated and insulted by the female official.

1. Assuming that this version is true, it is of course unacceptable for the female official to have insulted the woman, but I also believed that it was acceptable for the official to ask the woman to remove her her hijab and to follow the procedures, which everybody in a German airport has to respect.
2. I also believe that in a sensitive situation such as the one describes in this story, it is important for the officials to be ready to be forceful without being disrespectful and without seeming to insult an individual who dresses differently for religious or cultural reasons.
3. The mistake in this case was not to ask and to ensure that the Saudi women follow the airport security rules, but it was the inability to deal with this situation in a manner that would have made conflict less likely. Maybe it wasn't possible, maybe conflict was inevitable. I believe probably naively that it is possible to communicate with each other and to understand each other even when they disagree and when their beliefs and their views of the world oppose them.
4. Thus, the question  is not whether strangers or rather people who have different beliefs follow local laws and regulation, but it is how to do without humiliating them and without making them feel that conflicts, clashes are unavoidable and that communication is impossible between people of different religions and who live in different worlds.

Hugo Chavez isn’t Che Guevara

Hugo Chávez’s stature is growing in Latin America and in the world because he is seen as courageous leader who is daring to say No to the United States and to dream of Latin America that isn’t dominated by American power.

1. John Pilger sings the praises of Hugo Chávez in an article in the Guardian. He writes, “Chávez is, of course, a threat, especially to the United States. Like the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, who based their revolution on the English co-operative moment, and the moderate Allende in Chile, he offers the threat of an alternative way of developing a decent society: in other words, the threat of a good example in a continent where the majority of humanity has long suffered a Washington-designed peonage.”
2. I think he is wrong. It might true that Hugo Chávez is offering Venezuela and Latin America a choice, which it has never really had which is the choice to develop in another way, but that does not mean that the criticisms against Chávez are unwarranted and that he is a great man.
3. In a world where too often countries in Latin America and in Africa are forced to adopt harsh policies to receive foreign aids, it is important for them to have choices other than neo-liberalization especially when it is clear that civil society and governance are not strong in those countries.
4. However, I think that those who support Hugo Chávez believe that the end justifies the means and that as long as Chávez defies America and offers countries a way to develop other than by using the Washington consensus, he is great. Means are important and are everything for a leader such as Chávez who speaks so passionately about social justice and who denounces the United States for being unjust and duplicitous.
5. Hugo Chávez would be a notable and worthy adversary to the United States if in fact, he practiced what he preached and in fact, there wasn’t something heinous and reckless in his criticisms of America. It is one thing to criticize America, but it is another thing to demonize it and to blame it for all the ills of the world.
6. The problem with Chávez is not what he believes, but rather who he is, just another dictator who adopted social justice as a cause as a way to remain a power. Hugo Chávez isn’t Che Guevera. Che Guevera believed in his cause enough in his cause not only to leave everything behind including a life of relative wealth to fight for it and to die for it. Even if I do not agree with Che Guevara’s ideology (Marxism), I understand those who admire his idealism and his courage. Hugo Chávez has none of those qualities. His sole goal is power.
7. We had have seen this movie too many times to buy the Chavez’s act and to believe that there can be such a thing as benevolent dictatorship.

Escaping justice: Rwanda, genocide, and the West

It is appalling to realize how easy it can be to escape punishment for horrific crimes such as genocide by moving to the West and by counting on the fact that international law means nothing without the recognition of its importance and relevance by the most influential nations .

1. Many of the people who are alleged to have been the perpetrators of the worst of the crimes in the Rwandan Genocide are living freely in many European countries without fear and without even the threat of ever having to face justice.
2. The Guardian is reporting that at least two Rwandans accused of genocide (Charles Munyaneza, and Célestin Ugirashebuja) are living peacefully in London with the tacit approval of the British government.
3. The Rwandan Government has issued international warrants for their arrests, yet nothing has been done. The reason given to justify this shameful refusal to facilitate the road to justice is the fact that the warrants aren't valid under British law.
4. The fact that some who are accused of genocide are able to find refuge in the West should lead to the questioning of legal system where the law stands in the way of justice.

O Europe, where art thou?

Tuesday was Europe Day, which is the 56^th anniversary of the Robert Schuman’s declaration, which led to the creation of the European Coal and Steal Community, which has evolved, into what is know the European Union. This year, however, the European Union doesn’t have much to celebrate since last year was a catastrophic year since the Dutch and more importantly, the French No to the European Constitution stalled European Integration. The EU is a transition period where it not only has to find itself, but also to find leaders who believe in Europe and unfortunately there aren’t many of those around. Angela Merkel, although she was to revive the European Constitution, is untested and unproven as a European leader. Tony Blair has the vision, but lacks the power and the credibility to follow it with action. Since the Iraq war, he has no constituency in the old continent and at home, he is fighting to push back the inevitable that is the ascension of Gordon Brown to the post of Prime Minister, a little bit longer. Chirac is too obsessed with America to be a true European and to help Europe forge an identity that isn’t base solely in opposition to the United States. At a time where the world is facing numerous challenges and needs Europe not only to have diverse solutions to these challenges, European leaders seem to have stopped believing in Europe as a supranational entity and to have resuscitated old and dangerous nationalistic sentiments in order to regain the power they felt they were losing because of globalization and Brussels. I am not one of those who believe that Europe is dead, but unfortunately, I believe that it may take a long time for it to have again the opportunity that was lost last year, that is to become a real political and democratic power.

The Mexican Government and the US immigration debate

Po Bronson argues in an article on the Time website that the Mexican government shares a lot of the responsibility for the current immigration, which leads a lot of Mexicans to flee their countries to come to the US.

1. He writes, " During the 1970s, 120,000 Mexicans came to the U.S. every year. During the 1980s, it was about 200,000 a year. During the 1990s, it was 350,000 a year. Today, it's estimated at 485,000—every year. One out of every eight Mexican-born adults are now living in the U.S. "
2. For Po Bronson the Mexican is taking advantage of the current situation by exporting its problems to America, "Pushing its poor towards the U.S. seems to have become Mexico's primary social policy.  But the Mexican government has not pushed money into those areas to ease the conditions that force Mexicans to leave. It's doing the opposite; the World Bank says those states are receiving the least government help. This has been a threefold victory for the Mexican government. First, it eliminates the financial concern of how to care for these people. Second, the citizens who would be the angriest about the government's inadequacies keep leaving the country. Those who would vote, protest, stage walk-outs, and revolt—instead keep voting with their feet. Which in turn protects The Powers That Be. And third, as a reward for watching entire communities empty out, they receive a huge influx of cash."
3. There is something with this article that troubles me and it is probably the attempt to put much of the responsibility for what is essentially an American problem. There is no question that the Mexican government has some responsibility, but its responsibility is only secondary for America isn't a banana republic and it has a government, which has the power and the tools may be not to solve the problem completely, but to implement policies, which can reduce the mess and address some of the concerns of its people.
4. The article does not provide answers. What should the American government do to change the situation? Pointing out the role of the immigration for the migration of Mexicans to the United States is very good, but what should be done? Maybe the problem isn't really the Mexican Government, but the fact that the American government chose to focus on other things such as trade and oil rather than to force it to take care of its people and to be tougher on human trafficking.
5. However, the essential issues of the debate still need to be addressed, does the US close down its doors and orders Mexico to deal with its poor? Or does it found a way to deal with the problem in a manner that is consistent with its values without jeopardizing its security?

Shouldn't Bush respond to Ahmadinejad?

One thing everyone can agree about the President of Iran's letter to the President of the United States is that it is long, very long.

1. The letter starts by of course accusing Bush of hypocrisy and questioning his faith, "Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, Feel obliged to respect human rights, Present liberalism as a civilization model, Announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, Make War and Terror his slogan..."
2. The letter then goes on and on about the evils and the mistakes of the Great Satan and about the war on Iraq and about the fact that Iran and other countries have rights, which include the one to have nuclear energy.
3. If the objective  of the letter was to show that Iran is willing to dialogue and that it is the United States, which is unwilling to do so, then I believe that it was accomplished. Because this letter makes it more difficult for the United States to argue that it is for diplomacy when it refuses to have one on one discussions with Iran.
4. I believe that Bush should respond to Ahmadinejad just to show that he means what he says when he talks about the fact that diplomacy is the first option to resolve the Iranian crisis. Responding doesn't mean surrendering. It doesn't even have to mean changing the objective of the West, which is to make sure that Iran doesn't acquire nukes, however responding means engaging Ahmadinejad. 
5. This episode reminds me the one when President George H. Bush agreed to talk to the Iraqi people through Iraqi state television before the start of the first Gulf War. He knew hat his message would not get through the Iraqi people because Saddam loyalists would mock him but he didn't anyway to show that openness is one of the values for which the US stands for.
6. The truth is unfortunately is that the US does not have many choices and that it is going to have to talk to Iran and to do in a manner that is both constructive and realistic. Recent history shows that sanctions don't work especially when they are applied against a regime, which is undemocratic. Soon or later, the US is going to have to the Iran, the Bush administration may not want it to happen soon, but it would be better for the US and for the World if it happened sooner than later.

Is Feminism an ill?

Lawyers, Gun, and Money had a great post yesterday about Feminism and about the myth that feminists are bunch of bitter women who hate men.

1. I am not a feminist and yet, I have trouble with people who believe that Feminism is as grave an ill to modern society as terrorism or racism.
2. Feminism to me is complex and is something with which I am not able to identify not because I believe that it is too extreme, but because I have trouble relating to feminism.
3. Anyway, after reading a couple of books who argued that Feminism is an ill for society because it is making whimps or monsters out of men, I am asking my self whether maybe the problem with Feminism is that it hasn't evolved enough since the sixty and since the "glory days" during which it had thinkers such as Simone de Beauvoir.
4. Maybe the reason why Feminism gets a bad rapt is because it lacks convincing and charistmatic thinkers to adapt its ideas to our time and to make the point that there are still differences among the sexes.

Can a man ever be guilty of rape in Africa?

1. This verdict leads me to ask what I believe to be an important question: is it ever possible for a man to be guilty of rape in Africa? The attitude of the judge, in my opinion, implied that even in Mr. Zuma might have forced the woman (who has Aids) to have sex, he didn't rape because she wanted in some level to have sex with him. After all, how could she not want to, Mr. Zuma is powerful and he offered to marry her? Can you rape a woman that you want to marry? The answer in Africa, unfortunately, is no.
2. What is shocking are the implications of this case and what it says to all the women in South Africa, a country which has a problem, whether it was to admit or not, with sexual violence against women. This case says to every woman that when she knows a man wants her, she shouldn't do anything to excite him and to make him lose his judgment by staying for example in his house as the accuser in this case did.
3. It is sad to admit but in Africa, for rape to be a crime, the woman has to demonstrate that a harm what done to her and to show that she was pure before the act. However, purity is an almost impossible criterion to meet and it is difficult for people who come from a patriarchal society that sex with a man can be harmful to a woman.
4. African women are sexual objects.  They are the second sex, beings whose sole and primary functions are to satisfy a man's desires, to be a good woman to him, and to carry his children. It is for this reason that rape is almost an unimaginable crime because it is impossible to conceive that a man can see food, without wanting to eat and that a woman wouldn't just with her presence cause him to lose his judgment.
5. The judge, in the Zuma trial, chose to follow what he considers the laws of nature, the man is the hunter, the woman is the prey, and when the hunter catches his prey, it is hard to condemn him for doing so even if he did it in the most despicable manner possible.

Jacob Zuma, the ex vice-president of South-Africa was found not guilty of rape.  The Judge Willem van der Merwe decided that the sex between Mr. Zuma had to be consensual even though he deplored the lack of judgment of Mr. Zuma and cited Kipling, "Had Rudyard Kipling known of this case at the time he wrote his poem, If, he might have added the following: 'And, if you can control your body and your sexual urges, then you are a man, my son'."

The heart of Darkness: why nobody cares about Congo

 

Andrew Sullivan has a great post on Congo and on the tragedy that is happening in that rich part of Central Africa.

1. I believe that nobody cares about Congo because as I have said before, it is difficult to stop a national tragedy when there are no images on Television. In this world we live, without images, there is silence, and with silence comes inaction and a tolerance of the inevitable.
2. Congo is ignored not only because its conflict is complex and without easy solution, but also because those who could do something to stop the conflict and to lessen the violence are under no pressure to do so.
3. The trouble with Africa and with its problems in general isn't really racism, but rather fatality and the sense that Western Powers have that it is destined to be a place of violence, poverty, and of deadly diseases like aids in the world. This is the reason why their first priority is always containment that is to avoid that the ills spread in part of the continent when there are natural resources they care about about.

Blink versus Think

Should you blink or should you think when taking a decision? We all know why Malcolm Gladwell's view of this is, which is that we make better or rather more accurate decision when we blink.  Michael LeGault has a book, Th!nk: Why Crucial Decisions Can't Be Made in the Blink of an Eye, argues for think and against blinking by asserthing that it is important to ask hard questions and not to lose the ability to think critically about issues. But the question is that I have is whether when we blink, we do not think?

Women of leisure

Germaine Greer is aruguing in an article in the Guardian that Women don't relax not only because they don't know how, but also because they are not able to and because they are not the main focus of the leisure industry.

1. She writes, “Women either don't do leisure, or they do free leisure, or at best cheap leisure, or they fail to perceive any difference between work and leisure. [...]Occasionally some foolhardy academic tries to suggest that housework is a leisure pursuit, the paradigmatic "leisure industry", which is one way of saying "keeping very busy doing nothing". Women will not accept this version of their reality; they want us to believe that they hate and resent housework, but that "someone has to do it". The people who make money out of this kind of leisure industry are multinationals like Unilever and Procter & Gamble, and by manipulating women's insecurities they make unimaginably huge amounts of it. Currently, women are fighting a war on bacteria, nasty, deformed aliens who hide under toilet seats and on work surfaces. Where lazy boys play murderous videogames, diligent housewives deal out death and destruction to an equally fictitious enemy. The boys know they are playing; the women think they are working.”

2. I wonder if she is right and if she is, what are the implications of her assertions?

Arguing for the right to die: the morality of physician-assisted suicide

I have read an article, which argues convincingly for the right to die. In Britain, there is a proposed bill, the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill which would allow if passed terminally ill people to die.

1. The writer, Mary Warnock, argues, “Patients who are facing death and know that they are, and who are in great pain or distress, want nothing except that things should be less intolerable. It is for this that they should be able to trust their doctors. Death is in sight for them; accepting it, they may want it sooner rather than later. If this is their case, then it seems to me both unreasonable and dictatorial that they are not to have their own rational wish granted, but are to be subjected to the ethos of the medical profession instead. It is an ethos apparently unable to accept the choice of death. And yet, of all people, doctors should not be afraid of death.”
2. I agree with her arguments. I believe that death is still a subject, which is taboo in most societies because people are not only afraid to talk about it, but also do not know how to talk about it.
3. Most of the arguments against physician-assisted suicide are almost always based on slippery slopes and on the idea that giving people are asking the right to die with dignity would lead to abuses and to other dangers.
4. Fear and the possibility of abuses are not in my opinion good enough reasons to take away from people a right that we should all have, the one to decide how we want to die.

Questions of credibility

It is interesting to realize how important credibility is important in world where speed is everything and where it is difficult to believe what you see. So when people take a chance and decide to trust you, it is very difficult to get it back once you lose.

1. This week, Tony Blair suffered a new defeat electoral defeat, which forced him to reshuffle its cabinet. The problem with Blair since Iraq is that the British people and the press know that he is competent and brilliant, but they don't trust him and because for that reason they don't like him.
2. On Thursday, Rumsfeld had to face some pointed questions from a member of the crowd and he couldn't give it a convincing and an acceptable answer because he has lost his credibility and because to regain some of it, he would have to admit that he was wrong.
3. The White house press reporters and the Bush administration had trouble laughing at Stephen Colbert's skit last week because he pointed out something that was true, they have lost their credibility by playing along without asking questions.
4. Credibility is everything in our world and once, you lose it, you can no longer exercise the power you once had unless you do the most difficult thing that there is, that is eating crow in public and seeking forgiveness.

Puzzling questions on Cinco de Mayo

It is Cinco de Mayo and I am asking myself a few questions about America, about assimilitation, which is a work I don't like (I prefer  the word integration) , and identity.

1. I wonder what it means to be an American and if it is possible to become an American without giving your past identity and without renouncing your roots. I think that it is, but more people seem not to think so.
2. I also wonder the American identity has the right to change and to evolve. I believe that a lot of the immigration debate is in fact about that question that is about whether people who were not born American have the right to change this country.
3. I may be wrong, but I strongly suspect that there is somewhat a racial element to this debate in the sense that most of the new immigrants are non white, speak spanish and are becoming a powerful force in America. The question is is their power legitimate and do they have the right to make their mark on America?

The end of Moussaoui

The judge of the Moussaoui trial, Leonie M. Brinkema sentenced him to life yesterday sending him to the“Alcatraz of the Rockies.” The judge yesterday ended the trial with words, which I thought provided as fair ending to this tragedy, “Mr Moussaoui, you came here to be a martyr and to die in a great bang of glory. But to paraphrase TS Eliot, you will die with a whimper…For the rest of your life you will never get a chance to speak, and that is a fair and appropriate ending.” A member of the families of victims said two days ago that she wished that the world forget about Moussaoui and I hope that her wish comes true.

Taxes and Immigration

It is amazing to me to realize how many people justify their anti-immigration stands based on Taxes. Many argued that the simple fact that they pay taxes and that immigrants do not takes away from immigrants the right to do certain things in this country or rather to be in this country.

1. It is important to realize that most immigrants pay taxes and the illegal immigrants who do not pay taxes who like nothing better than to pay taxes and to make more visible contributions to the American society.
2. Even though illegal immigrants do not pay taxes, they do work and play an important role in the American economy not only with their work, but also with their spending. There is a growing illicit side of the US economy, and illegal immigrants make positive contributions to it.
3. It is also important to recognize that poor people in general pay very little taxes. This means that even if illegal immigrants could pay taxes, they wouldn't pay most taxes at all for tmost of the jobs, which they are doing barely pays them enough to eat and to feed their family.

Moussaoui gets life, but the verdict resolves nothing

The jury condemned Moussaoui to life in prison. I must say that there were no ways to achieve justice in this case, but I believe that no giving him the martyrdom that he sought was the least unjust way to end this case. However, this case has left a bitter taste in my mouth, because I don’t believe that the culprits for the events of September 11 will ever face justice. I also wonder how many Moussaouis are out there willing and ready to sacrifice themselves, to become martyrs, and to inflict pain on others in the name of God and of divine justice. I also wonder if modern societies are equipped with the efficient tools to protect themselves against those people without sacrificing its ideals.

Religion, atheism, society and modernity

I just read a great article and challenging article on Religion on the Guardian Website.

1. The writer, Ac Grayling argues against religion and poses this interesting challenge: “…all the faiths currently jostling for our tax money to run their "faith-based" schools know that if they do not proselytise intellectually defenceless three and four-year-olds, their grip will eventually loosen. Inculcating the various competing - competing, note - falsehoods of the major faiths into small children is a form of child abuse, and a scandal. Let us challenge religion to leave children alone until they are adults, whereupon they can be presented with the essentials of religion for mature consideration. For example: tell an averagely intelligent adult hitherto free of religious brainwashing that somewhere, invisibly, there is a being somewhat like us, with desires, interests, purposes, memories, and emotions of anger, love, vengefulness and jealousy, yet with the negation of such other of our failings as mortality, weakness, corporeality, visibility, limited knowledge and insight; and that this god magically impregnates a mortal woman, who then gives birth to a special being who performs various prodigious feats before departing for heaven.”
2. In his column in Newsweek, Rabbi Gellman wrote about what he called “angry atheists.” We know, of course, that calling somebody angry means that s/he is unable to understand reason since s/he is overcome by the irrationality of her/his passions. he writes, “I would ask for forgiveness from the angry atheists who write to me if I thought it would help. Religion must remain an audacious, daring and, yes, uncomfortable assault on our desires to do what we want when we want to do it. All religions must teach a way to discipline our animal urges, to overcome racism and materialism, selfishness and arrogance and the sinful oppression of the most vulnerable and the most innocent among us. ”
3. All of this leads to a pertinent question: has religion become a polarizing force in modern society in the sense that instead of bringing people together it is pulling them apart?

Desperately seeking Good customer service

I had a problem with my computer yesterday so I had to go to Best Buy and to see if their Geek Squad could help me and I was extremely disappointed with the service I received.

1. My computer’s fan was acting up so I thought that I needed to replace it, so I called Best Buy (I bought my laptop there) and asked if they were selling fans and they told me that they did so I rushed over there.
2. When I got there, a young man looked at me disdainful as though he was evaluating merchandise he didn’t like. He told me that Best Buy didn’t sell fans and his tone implied that I was stupid for thinking that they did.
3. I asked him about what he thought that I should do, he advised me to call Toshiba to ask them to send me a new fan, and then to come back and that then they may be able to replace it for me.
4.   Throughout the conversation, I kept thinking about the fact that I was a customer and that I was being treated a spoiled child who was asking for too much.
5. Is asking for good customer service really a luxury nowadays? My fear is that we might be living in a world where there is no other alternative than to accept poor customer service.
6. My fan is still acting up by the way, but I have decided to live with up until it dies on me.

The criminalization of immigration

The New York Times had an editorial today, which argued the following: “The worst among our citizens and politicians are eager to depict illegal immigrants as criminals, potential terrorists and alien invaders. But what we saw yesterday, in huge, peaceful rallies in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Chicago, Denver, New York, Atlanta and other cities, were regular people: the same types of assimilation-minded moms, dads and children we wistfully romanticize on holidays devoted to, say, St. Patrick and Columbus.” I agree with this assertion.

1. Many fear immigrants because they believe that they are not good people and that they will not make America better off, but worst off. This is the reason why many will use the great American Boycott to argue that immigrants do not love America since they were willing to take the risk to affect negatively its economy, by choosing to participate in demonstrations rather to go to work. Immigrants will never be able to win this argument for they will never be able to prove their patriotism in a convincing enough manner for some who believe that they have no right to be in a place where they invited themselves in meaning that they are thieves and can never become legitimate Americans.
2. It is for this reason that the house make it a crime to come illegal in the US because many lawmakers believe that if you come in this country illegally that means that you are incapable of following its laws and of living in the right side of the law.
3. However, the question at the center of all of this remains unanswered. If illegal immigrants are the worst of the worst, then why hasn’t the US crumbled? According to some estimates, there are at least 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, why haven’t they ruined the United States?
4. Immigration is a subject, which awakens within most people strong beliefs. The problem is that it is difficult to make good and rationale when one becomes a slave to one’s passions.

So what was accomplished by the Great American Boycott?

More than one million immigrants marched in the streets today and I wonder if they accomplished their aim.

1. The Great American Boycott was a success in terms of numbers, I wonder if it changed the minds of lawmakers by convincing that American needs immigrants. I don't think that it did. Lamar Alexander and the Senate Majority leader  introduced a nonbinding resolution to affirm the fact that the national anthem should be sung in English.
2. I fear that it is going to be more and not less difficult for congress to reach a compromise on immigration because the debate has shifted from finding a reasonable and fair balance between secured borders and hospitality to one about patriotism and national identity.
3. The Great American Boycott accomplished one thing in my opinion. It showed that Hispanics and Latinos are an emerging force in America and that scared, to say things crudely, the hell out of some people who fear that they will change America.
4. A couple of year ago, Pat Buchanan wrote a book called the Death of the West, which argued that immigration is changing the United States from the White and western nation with Christian Values that he argued he is to one where which is more colored and less Christian. Unfortunately, more people have started to share his beliefs and this is why the immigration is becoming about assimilation, integration, and identity.
5. The Great American Boycott was impressive, but I feat that it scared all those people who feel that immigrants are taking what is theirs or should be theirs. Because of the inequities of globalization, people no longer believe that the pie is big enough for everybody, but instead believe that there has to be winners and losers and that by coming to this country, immigrants are further reducing the size of the pie.

D-day: the day of the great American boycott is here

We are May 1 and I wonder if the great American boycott will work. I don't think it will even it succeed for I think that it will backfire by angering the people who will go to work today. However, I could be wrong. I will be watching for a couple things today:

1. How the press will cover the event? Will place the emphasis on the immigrants or on their methods?
2. What will be the reaction of the politicians?
3. What will be the reaction of other Americans? Will it be hostile or sympathetic?
4. And finally how effective will the mobilization be?