I doubt it. Looks like politicians everywhere do things for - well, political reasons ;-)
Chicago Tribune | President says he can call sovereignty vote next year
TAIPEI, TAIWAN -- In a move likely to infuriate China, Taiwan's president said Saturday that a new law allows him to call for a referendum on Taiwan's sovereignty on March 20 if he chooses.A civil war split Taiwan and China in 1949. Communist Beijing still claims sovereignty over the self-governing, democratic island, threatening war if Taiwan moves toward formal independence.
President Chen Shui-bian said the referendum law passed Thursday lets him call for a public vote on sovereignty the day of the next presidential elections, if he wants to."Next year, on March 20, we can still organize a referendum, to protect our country's sovereignty," Chen told supporters.
Soochow University political scientist Emile Sheng saw the president's statements as "damage control" and "election talk" which should not anger China.
Before the law passed, China warned the law could lead toward independence, though Taiwan said it was it was only aimed at raising government efficiency and expanding democracy.
A triumph for politics, a crisis for EU
This companion piece to the report posted a bit ago is also from the International Herald Tribune, but is not just a report but also an analysis. Both pieces depict something that our earlier analysis of the EU suggested was not far off!
Euro-zone budget rules unravel
This item in the International Herald Tribune describes a classic case of the kind of conflicts surface in the development of a federation from a confederation. The launch of the Euro was a major federation accomplishment. This suspension of the rules in favor of French and German deficits demonstrates the power of the large states in the EU.
Though not my view, this provides an interesting - and challenging - way to lookat foreign policy.
Bill Moyer's Keynote Address to the National Conference on Media Reform
Yet today, despite plenty of lip service on every ritual occasion to freedom of the press radio and TV, three powerful forces are undermining that very freedom, damming the streams of significant public interest news that irrigate and nourish the flowering of self-determination. The first of these is the centuries-old reluctance of governments ï¿ even elected governments ï¿ to operate in the sunshine of disclosure and criticism. The second is more subtle and more recent. Itï¿•s the tendency of media giants, operating on big-business principles, to exalt commercial values at the expense of democratic value. That is, to run what Edward R. Murrow forty-five years ago called broadcastingï¿•s ï¿’money-making machineï¿“ at full throttle. In so doing they are squeezing out the journalism that tries to get as close as possible to the verifiable truth; they are isolating serious coverage of public affairs into ever-dwindling ï¿’news holesï¿“ or far from prime- time; and they are gobbling up small and independent publications competing for the attention of the American people. "And later he added:
What would happen, however, if the contending giants of big government and big publishing and broadcasting ever joined hands? Ever saw eye to eye in putting the public’s need for news second to free-market economics? That’s exactly what’s happening now under the ideological banner of “deregulation.” Giant megamedia conglomerates that our founders could not possibly have envisioned are finding common cause with an imperial state in a betrothal certain to produce not the sons and daughters of liberty but the very kind of bastards that issued from the old arranged marriage of church and state.And then he slides on in to the third point:
When the journalist-historian Richard Reeves was once asked by a college student to define “real news”, he answered: “The news you and I need to keep our freedoms.” When journalism throws in with power that’s the first news marched by censors to the guillotine. The greatest moments in the history of the press came not when journalists made common cause with the state but when they stood fearlessly independent of it.
Which brings me to the third powerful force – beyond governmental secrecy and megamedia conglomerates – that is shaping what Americans see, read, and hear. I am talking now about that quasi-official partisan press ideologically linked to an authoritarian administration that in turn is the ally and agent of the most powerful interests in the world. This convergence dominates the marketplace of political ideas today in a phenomenon unique in our history.
But read it all and shiver. So many things seem to be happening so fast . . .
George Soros, multimillionaire financier who is contributing large hunks of money to organizations committed to the defeat of George W. Bush, writes this call for America to move away from Bush Doctrine and towards a collaborative approach to dealing with the human rights crime of global terrorism.
An early paragraph sets out his view of why September 11 was such a watershed date in an analysis of the underlying principles which preceded that day.
Even so, September 11 could not have changed the course of history to the extent that it has if President Bush had not responded to it the way he did. He declared war on terrorism, and under that guise implemented a radical foreign-policy agenda whose underlying principles predated the tragedy. Those principles can be summed up as follows: International relations are relations of power, not law; power prevails and law legitimizes what prevails. The United States is unquestionably the dominant power in the post-Cold War world; it is therefore in a position to impose its views, interests, and values. The world would benefit from adopting those values, because the American model has demonstrated its superiority. The Clinton and first Bush Administrations failed to use the full potential of American power. This must be corrected; the United States must find a way to assert its supremacy in the world.This foreign policy is part of a comprehensive ideology customarily referred to as neoconservatism, though I prefer to describe it as a crude form of social Darwinism. I call it crude because it ignores the role of cooperation in the survival of the fittest, and puts all the emphasis on competition. In economic matters the competition is between firms; in international relations it is between states. In economic matters social Darwinism takes the form of market fundamentalism; in international relations it is now leading to the pursuit of American supremacy.
Midway through the piece comes this
The doublespeak [of the administration] is needed because of the contradiction between the Bush Administration's concept of freedom and democracy and the actual principles and requirements of freedom and democracy. Talk of spreading democracy looms large in the National Security Strategy. But when President Bush says, as he does frequently, that freedom will prevail, he means that America will prevail. In a free and open society, people are supposed to decide for themselves what they mean by freedom and democracy, and not simply follow America's lead. The contradiction is especially apparent in the case of Iraq, and the occupation of Iraq has brought the issue home.
He concludes in a crisp statement of purpose
I propose replacing the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military action with preventive action of a constructive and affirmative nature. Increased foreign aid or better and fairer trade rules, for example, would not violate the sovereignty of the recipients. Military action should remain a last resort. The United States is currently preoccupied with issues of security, and rightly so. But the framework within which to think about security is collective security. Neither nuclear proliferation nor international terrorism can be successfully addressed without international cooperation. The world is looking to us for leadership. We have provided it in the past; the main reason why anti-American feelings are so strong in the world today is that we are not providing it in the present.
Guardian Unlimited Politics | Comment | Universal soldier
To at least this Bristish audience the president's words sound sweet, but they have their eye on his actions and conclude:
Perhaps the greatest disconnection between Whitehall words and real-world actions was evident in Mr Bush's ideas about multilateralism, exercised via the UN and other institutions, which in theory he supports. In practice, as all the world knows, his administration continues to subvert or bypass collective decision-making whenever that suits its purpose. No amount of sugar coats this bitter pill. No amount of folderol, flummery or flattery makes it easier to swallow.
The second part in this Asia Times Online series about the new leadership in China wanders a bit, but has the following observation which is an important cautionary insight:
The young administration, basically speaking, is technical and pragmatic but with restricted power and a flinching ax. Its people are apt to be committed civil servants rather than revolutionists. External speculation, expectation and analysis may be nothing more than daydreaming.
China to launch 11 satellites by 2005
China plans to launch up to 11 satellites over the next 14 months before it stages its second manned space mission in 2005, the Chinese state media reported today.
Part 1: China Restores Pragmatism
This is the first in a series of articles in Asia Times.com about the current politics within China. While there are some clumsy linguistic articulations in it, I find it interesting not least for its clear disdain for what is passing as policy reform in China today. This item from the latter part of the piece gives you a sense of the whole.
The highly lauded "Three Represents" theory does no harm to the new system inaugurated after the 16th Party Congress, but it is no more than ambiguous, prevaricating fluff. Certainly it is much better than the Four Adherences, or Adherence to the Four Cardinal Principles (to keep to the socialist road; to uphold the people's democratic dictatorship and leadership by the Communist Party; Marxism-Leninism; and Mao Zedong Thought). The problem is that no one, neither left nor right-wing nor neutral, can read the mind behind the "Three Represents". [Emphasis added]
Japan's war past sparks Chinese rage | csmonitor.com
Riots, beatings and a simmering rage break to the surface in China and these are the focus of the first part of this story. But the second half of the article focuses on more long-term issues and the changing diplomatic scene.
All these factors were present, but the one cause that did not make headlines or talk shows in Japan was the issue that Chinese students themselves consistently described as the No. 1 reason for unhappiness: Japanese unwillingness to own up to the past. Many Chinese believe that Japanese do not see the war as wrong, but as a mistake - a distinction quite different in their moral calculus.. . .
owever politically skewed China's history teaching, most Chinese have been exposed to far more details and facts about World War II than Japanese - who come from a presumably open society. With standard Japanese history texts only offering two to three pages about the entire war, Japanese schools seem as diligent about not bringing up the facts of the war as Chinese schools are about raising them, experts say.
I found this article's opening parts a bit tedious, but once the author settles down to reviewing the history of the relationships between these three nations - North Korea, China, and Russia - it is very helpful.
Please note that it is also dated. For an update, read the article posted in August about China hosting talks with North Korea et al.
The contrast between American foreign policy and Chinese foreign policy is sharply drawn in this article which opens with the following arresting paragraph.
The unilateralism and anti-terror policies of the United States are increasingly damaging its relations with the largest Muslim nation in the world, Indonesia, where many view the "war on terror" as anti-Islam. Meanwhile, China is quietly moving closer to the archipelago.
And towards the end of the piece is this paragraph:
In pursuing better relations with its neighbors, China has placed itself in a good position vis-a-vis the US. It has a more active diplomacy, and is reinventing itself as an alternative to the US. China is becoming the nation of multilateralism. It is taking a greater role in the United Nations, and is sponsoring regional initiatives such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and ASEAN+3. It advocates cooperative solutions to problems such as the North Korean nuclear crisis. [Emphasis added]
What's next for Taiwan if Chen is re-elected?
USA is not the only nation facing crucial elections in the coming months. Taiwan's elections could determine how the Taiwan Strait stand-off plays out. There's not a lot of fresh meaty news here, rather an analysis which depicts how matters now stand -- tense and subject to volatile shifts.
Foreign Policy Association - Global Views
Bound into your Great Decisions 2003 Briefing Book are polls which people who worked through it earlier in the year returned. This site gives the results of the surveys which were returned, accepted, and tallied. (We began this group after the deadline for submission so there is no way we could have been included.)
What is your sense of these results in comparison with ours?
It appears that the hopes for a reduction in US and EU farm subsidies were as evanescent as hopes for a swift winning of the Iraqi peace.
There are growing signs that the so-called G20+, the group of 20-odd developing nations that brought the World Trade Organization's Doha Development Round of negotiations to a stop in Cancun, Mexico, in early September, are going to live to regret doing so.It isn't necessarily their fault. The bigger concern is that the rich nations, particularly the United States and the European Union member countries, whose agricultural subsidies were the rock on which the talks foundered, will use their failure as a pretext simply to dim the lights at the WTO until they ultimately go out. The US is clearly increasingly preoccupied with conducting preferential bilateral agreements with individual nations. The momentum for world trade liberalization is slowing.
"I think the US and the European Union bear a heavy burden," Clyde Prestowitz, the US trade representative under former president Ronald Reagan, told Asia Times Online. "We can talk about the G20, but my view is that after all, if the US and the EU want to get something done, they can make it happen. The problem is that they haven't been able to get their act together, and the agriculture thing in both the US and the EU [is] insoluble. The two big guys can't solve their own domestic problems in a manner that would push the WTO forward, but they have the clout to be able to tear it [a]part by bilateral trade arrangements." [Emphasis added]
An unsettling look at the new economics of China's Communist government making like capitalists.
BEIJING - When communism mates with capitalism, the unlikely couple breeds a monster - a compitalist - inheriting the worst of both gene pools: ruthless power and unchecked greed.. . .
That is communism at its worst and capitalism at its ugliest. They combine to profit from each other's expertise at the expense of social justice. The abuse is not limited to the property market. Another chilling example is in the way workers' rights are trampled.
. . .
Therein lies the root of the social injustice highlighted by the act of self immolation in Tiananmen Square. That is how those residents find themselves on the short end of the property deal, oppressed by the state and exploited by the capitalists all at once, left and right, literally and figuratively.
More to the point, we have become used to the idea that the only way we can get "news" is from the media. People who know that they and their friends are living worse than they did 10 years ago will turn to the papers to see how the economy is doing. People whose neighborhoods are as safe as they were in 1950 are terrified to walk the streets because of all the murders on television. People who scream that their landlord and their boss are twisting them for every penny will nod along with radio personalities who rail against controls on rents and predatory business practices. And people who are besieged by panhandlers and have to step over people sleeping on the street will nonetheless believe that even poor Americans share the highest living standards on earth.Which is to say, it makes perfect sense for an American government to think that Iraqis will be comforted by billboards saying that everything is swell, even as they hear bombs exploding and see armored troops in their streets. American leaders are not used to a population that knows from long experience that the people giving orders and making optimistic predictions are probably not acting in its best interests.
A succinct analysis of the economic factors which have led to a rise in Islamic fundamentalism in the far western Chinese province of Xinjiag. Bottom line? The opening of China's trade markets -- gaige Kaifang -- and the importation of cheaper American cotton coupled with cancellation of governmental subsidization of farmers' losses have driven the the cotton-farming Uighurs of Xinjiang out of business.
As farmers bitterly disposed of their unsold bales, mosque attendance skyrocketed. Radical Imams emerged railing against the Han 'infidels'. In essence, ultraconservative religion became the spiritual dimension of backlash. Gaige kaifang had ravaged the Xinjiang economy, and suddenly destitute Uighurs flooded to Friday service both for solace and, by enlisting in an activity antithetical to the secular state, to express their anger at the regime.
The rise of Nigeria's godfathers
So... if you wonder who is running Nigeria, here's a fascinating look from the BBC. This is not anything I would call "poitics as usual." Or for that matter, :democracy as usual." A brief sample from the article:
The concept of godfatherism is firmly establishing itself as a guiding principle in contemporary Nigerian politics.
Godfathers are generally defined as men who have the power personally to determine both who gets nominated to contest elections and who wins in a state.
Many regard them as a huge challenge to democracy in the country - although the godfathers themselves are staunchly supportive of the practice.
Defense Diplomacy, Chinese Style
China's leadership has shifted its international stance dramatically in the space of a very few years.
As David Finkelstein, a longtime student of Chinese security affairs, wrote in 1999, China's leaders had established a series of benchmarks that declared China would not participate in formal alliances with foreign governments. It would then not have to concern itself with alliance issues like interoperability of equipment, training and doctrine. Therefore, China rejected all efforts to participate in combined training exercises like those now common in Europe even when those exercises were confidence-building measures. Second, the benchmarks would prevent China from stationing forces abroad, making sure thereby that China's defense would occur at or within the country's borders. However, even as Finkelstein was writing, the ground was changing beneath China's feet, and recent developments even indicate an acceleration of the fundamental change in Beijing's policies.
. . .By 2000-01, facing continuing tensions with Washington and the growing threat of terrorism and insurgency within Central Asia and Xinjiang, Beijing was ready to move forward. During this time, it converted the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO) from an organization whose main purpose was confidence-building, border demarcation and the expansion of trade, into a vehicle for cooperative security and, more important, a model for subsequent attempts to deal with other states on China's periphery.
News Analysis: A Campaign to Rattle a Long-Ruling Dynasty
In our discussion of Saudi Arabia I came away with thegeneral feeling that we didn't think it was too important - as long as it stayed stable. However, that stability is very much in question as this analysis indicates. One key paragraph:
Though Saudi officials were quick to blame Al Qaeda for the bombing, it was difficult even for Saudis to distinguish where domestic political opposition ends and the goals of the current terrorist campaign begin. But the danger for the Saudi royal family, analysts said, was that the growing ranks of domestic opponents to the monarchy would adopt the violent tactics of Al Qaeda, or look to its members for leadership.
While this story centers on the Non-resident Indian male and mail/web-order brides, it is also revealing about the status of women in India.
Not too long ago, Indian men working in the United States were considered to be the most eligible bachelors. Recession in the US economy, a cap in the number of visas as well as thousands of Indian techies being sent back home has rubbed the sheen off the exalted status of Indians abroad, at least in the nuptial market. The non-resident Indian (NRI) badge is no longer enough to bag a beautiful bride, with parents lining up their girls for an assured life of comfort and high living that was automatically assumed for any resident of the US.
I don't know whether the author is male, though the name and the tone of the piece suggests so. I wonder how a woman journalist might have approached this story.
This is an Asia Times analysis of the China economy and what the Chinese economists face in trying to sustain growth while containing factors which are indicators of overheating. For those who would like a basic lesson in global economics this is a good read.
Over the past 20 years, the world has witnessed one of the most remarkable economic transformations in human history. China, home to 1.3 billion people, has been expanding its economy by more than 8 percent every year since 1980 in its endeavor to pull its millions out of millennia of poverty.If it succeeds it would be the greatest leap to prosperity ever, to be emulated elsewhere. But what if it fails?
This is the first of a series entitled Silk Road Roving, concerned with the provinces and nations of Central Asia. It is here in Xinjiang province that the government of China wants a free hand to treat as a terrorist should there be a concerted attempt for indepencence. The author, Pepe Escobar, sees parallels between Xinjiang and Tibet.
China Begins Giving Free H.I.V./AIDS Drugs to the Poor
China Begins Giving Free H.I.V./AIDS Drugs to the Poor
By JIM YARDLEYPublished: November 8, 2003
BEIJING, Nov. 7 — The Chinese government has started providing free treatment for poor people with H.I.V. and AIDS and plans to expand the program next year until every poor person who has tested positive is receiving medical help, a top Health Ministry official said in a speech this week.
AdvertisementThe speech on Thursday by Gao Qiang, the executive deputy health minister, confirmed anecdotal reports from AIDS sufferers in central China, who say health workers began handing out free anti-retroviral drugs several months ago in Henan Province, a region ravaged by AIDS.
Mr. Gao's speech, released by the official New China News Agency, was hailed by Chinese and Western AIDS workers as a significant step for a country that has come under intense criticism for its earlier handling of the disease. Even so, AIDS activists warned that China must do far more than give out medicine, and H.I.V.-positive patients in Henan cautioned that problems were already arising with the free drug program.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Analysis: Bush's Middle East shift
This is a BBC analysis of the shift towards and openly neo-conservative agenda in foreign policy that President Bush is appear to adopt. (See previous entry.)
washingtonpost.com: Bush Urges Commitment To Transform Mideast
This strikes me as the Neo-con agenda at last being brought out front as the real reason for the Iraq war. In any event, I thought it important enough to grab the whole article. In addition, here's a link to the complete text on the White House site.
washingtonpost.comBush Urges Commitment To Transform Mideast
By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, November 7, 2003; Page A01
President Bush said yesterday that the United States must commit itself to a decades-long transformation of the Middle East and termed the U.S. occupation of Iraq a turning point in the future of worldwide democracy.In a soaring and passionate speech that consciously echoed Ronald Reagan's call a generation ago for a "crusade for freedom" against the Soviet Union, Bush spoke of the spread of democracy as a moral mission and the war in Iraq as part of an American obligation to extend freedom as it did in World War II and the Cold War.
"Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Tehran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation," the president said. "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."
Bush's speech was the latest effort by the administration to stop the slipping support for the U.S. occupation of Iraq at home and abroad. Though he had previously mentioned the spread of Mideast democracy as a justification for the invasion of Iraq, Bush elevated that rationale to primacy yesterday, making no mention of weapons of mass destruction and only passing reference to national security and terrorism.
Bush spoke almost exclusively of the fight in Iraq as part of an American burden that he traced back to the Marne. "In the trenches of World War I, through a two-front war in the 1940s, the difficult battles of Korea and Vietnam, and in missions of rescue and liberation on nearly every continent, Americans have amply displayed our willingness to sacrifice for liberty," he said. "The sacrifices of Americans have not always been recognized or appreciated, yet they have been worthwhile."
A senior administration official familiar with the speech's preparation said the purpose was to "elevate the president's foreign policy to a moral cause, and remind people why they're fighting." The official said such a discussion "takes the whole thing out of troop levels and border patrols," subjects that have been vexing for the administration during the deadly Iraqi insurgency that has claimed the lives of 140 U.S. troops since Bush declared major combat over on May 1.
Even as Bush asked for endurance in the Middle East for "decades to come," the Pentagon announced details of a troop-rotation plan that will reduce the U.S. force in Iraq to 105,000 in May from the current 132,000. And even as Bush spoke about a hunger in the Mideast for the American message of freedom, the State Department issued an advisory warning of "the continuing threat of anti-American violence" in the region.
Though Bush spoke of a "willingness to sacrifice," a CNN-USA Today-Gallup Poll released yesterday showed that 54 percent of respondents disapproved of Bush's Iraq policies, up from 41 percent in August.
Later in the day at the White House, Bush signed into law an $87.5 billion spending package, mostly for Iraq. But in his address, Bush spoke indirectly of the cost of the war. "This is a massive and difficult undertaking," he said. "It is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region."
The speech came after some division within the administration about how best to cast the hostilities in Iraq. A Republican source said some of the more politically minded of Bush's advisers argued "that the whole issue must be framed only in terms of American security."
The speech, while presenting no new policy, contained tough words for Iran, Syria and the Palestinian Authority, while labeling Cuba, Burma, North Korea and Zimbabwe "outposts of oppression in our world" governed by "relics of a passing era." Bush had gentler admonitions for Egypt, Saudi Arabia and particularly China, whose citizens, he said, will "insist on controlling their own lives."
Though he made no mention of Russia, which is undergoing a democratic crisis over the government's arrest of an oil tycoon, Bush drew a parallel between his efforts to repair the "freedom deficit" in the Middle East and Reagan's efforts to bring democracy to central and eastern Europe.
Bush delivered his remarks to the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization Reagan launched with a 1982 speech to the British Parliament. Bush, predicting a spread of democracy with his "forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East," deliberately echoed Reagan's "crusade for freedom" speech denouncing the Soviet Union.
Just as Reagan spoke about the Soviet Union in 1982 as "a society where productive forces are hampered by political ones," Bush spoke of the "failures of political and economic doctrines" in the Middle East. Just as Reagan in 1982 said, "It may not be easy to see, but I believe we live now at a turning point," Bush said, "We've reached another great turning point -- and the resolve we show will shape the next stage of the world democratic movement."
Similarly, as Reagan said the spread of democracy was not "cultural imperialism" or "cultural condescension," Bush assured listeners that "as we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as westernization."
Bush spoke of the doubts that greeted Reagan's speech -- some of the same doubts that have been voiced in Europe and at home about Bush's policies. "Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive, and even dangerous," Bush said. "In fact, Ronald Reagan's words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct."
In describing Bush's speech, one of his aides even used the words from Reagan's speech. "It's never, in the end, about bombs and rockets; it's about ideas and broadening the struggle and elevating it to a moral cause," the aide said. Reagan, in his speech to the British Parliament, said: "For the ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas -- a trial of spiritual resolve."
Bush aides said the speech, carried on Radio Sawa, an Arabic-language network of the U.S. government in the Middle East, was designed in part to show that he is undeterred by the setbacks and criticism. The aides said Bush aimed to deflate some international distrust of U.S. motives by acknowledging the nation's support for autocracies in the past as he spoke of "60 years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty."
White House communications director Dan Bartlett said Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael J. Gerson, had been talking to the president since early October about articulating and explaining "this aggressive new posture in American foreign policy."
"Our foreign policy is much broader than just the issue of preemption," Bartlett said. "The speech was not designed to talk about the rationale for the war itself, but about the ultimate vision that guides our actions and that our actions should be judged by."
Bush likened the battle against Iraqi insurgents to struggles against communism. "As in the defense of Greece in 1947, and later in the Berlin Airlift, the strength and will of free peoples are now being tested before a watching world -- and we will meet this test," he said. Though Bush did not repeat Reagan's call for a "crusade" -- a word with poor historical associations for Muslims -- he invoked the power of God, saying "we can be certain the author of freedom is not indifferent to the fate of freedom."
Former representative Vin Weber (R-Minn.), a presidential adviser who is the National Endowment for Democracy's chairman, said the speech should answer the questions of people who thought Bush did not have a plan for Iraq or the Middle East. "History says the American people are idealistic and want their leaders to represent those ideals," Weber said. "The president made it clear he is that leader."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
The monarch of the Bakassi area has stated that this decision is a violation of their rights.
China's future auto production may mean that more jobs in auto production will shift to China joining other hi tech jobs that are migrating out of country
The headlines on the Google News homepage are selected entirely by a computer algorithm, based on many factors including how often and on what sites a story appears elsewhere on the web. This is very much in the tradition of Google's web search, which relies heavily on the collective judgment of web publishers to determine which sites offer the most valuable and relevant information. Google News relies in a similar fashion on the editorial judgment of online news organizations to determine which stories are most deserving of inclusion and prominence on the Google News page.
I notice some unusual things on Google News from time to time. For example, twice recently I have seen "stories" given big promotion that come from extremelt biased source - once from the left, once from the right.
This may be exactly what Google expects - or it may be that some folks out there have discovered how to beat the system and get their point of view promoted as news.
In any event, I recommend reading this page, if you haven't done so already. It explains why Google is not the New York Times - or any other news agency you may know. It is also worthw hile to study the Google News Advanced Search" if you haven't done so.
In the final analysis Google seems to me to be a measure of what is regarded as important news - a sort of machine-generated consensus. In the final analysis, that doesn't make it objective or particularly good.
The war against Saddam Hussein, along with the current crises involving North Korea and Iran's nuclear activities, underscore the centrality of the issue of nuclear proliferation in today's politics. Many governments, not just the United States, have concentrated on the danger of terrorists or of states who sponsor them getting hold of nuclear weapons.However, apparently defying those international concerns, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are now reported to have arranged a deal by which Pakistan will provide Saudi Arabia with nuclear technology in return for cheap oil. The US-based Defense and Foreign Affairs Daily even goes so far as to say that Pakistan will station nuclear weapons on Saudi territory. These weapons will be fitted to a new generation of Chinese-supplied long-range missiles with a reach of 4,000 to 5,000 kilometers.
There are numerous motives for this deal, as reported by different sources. . . .
"Asilomar Revisited: Lessons for Today?"
Joyce Passos made an interesting comment about technology that got me thinking. She said: "But once technology has found a way to operate on the natural world, rarely do the ethical issues surface in time to stem the tide. " For the most part I suspect she is right. But I also know of one noteworthy time when science and technology did pause to examine the safety and consequences of cutting edge work in recombinant DNA.
In the early 1970s scientists involved in recombinant DNA study realized that they had a potential tiger by the tail -- the prospect of what might happen if recombinant DNA (rDNA) of a Frankenstein nature were to "get loose". Over a couple of years the realization grew until prominent molecular biologists in 1973 called for a moratorium on rDNA work until safety issues could be threshed out.
In February 1975, the Asilomar Conference was held to discuss the relevant issues. The conclusion of this scientific conference was that most rDNA work should continue, but appropriate safeguards in the form of physical and biological containment procedures should be put in place.
It doesn't seem very earth-shaking now, but at the time we knew virtually nothing about what might happen in splicing a piece of DNA from one organism into the genome of another, and worst-case scenarios abounded, mostly focused on the possibility of novel and virulent bacteria escaping their labs and devastating the country.
This report of a more recent (03 March 2000) Asilomar conference is germane to our consideration of GM foods as the following paragraphs indicate.
Asilomar occurred at a unique moment in biology. Researchers had just discovered how to cut and splice together the DNA of disparate species and were beginning to contemplate the cornucopia of experiments this opened up. "Recombinant DNA was the most monumental power ever handed to us," said California Institute of Technology president David Baltimore, one of the organizers of the 1975 meeting. "The moment you heard you could do this, the imagination went wild." But a number of scientists at the time raised concerns about whether such experiments might create dangerous new organisms, microscopic Frankensteins that could sneak out of the lab undetected on the sole of a Hush Puppy and threaten public health.
Those concerns triggered a "hectic experience" of scientific soul-searching that culminated in the 1975 Asilomar conference, recalled Stanford molecular biologist Paul Berg, another organizer of that meeting. Participants at a June 1973 Gordon Conference on Nucleic Acids had published a letter expressing concern about recombinant DNA research. In response, Berg led a committee of the National Academy of Sciences that in July 1974 took the unusual move of calling for a voluntary moratorium on certain types of recombinant DNA experiments until the hazards could be evaluated.
Berg and several colleagues organized the Asilomar meeting 7 months later to bring together "people who were engaged in the research or were likely or eager to use it." The organizers also brought in researchers with expertise in bacteria and viruses to help assess the potential hazards. A sense of urgency pervaded the meeting, in part because researchers were impatient to put the new technology to work. Although most of the participants suspected that there was no real hazard, Baltimore said, the stakes were clearly "too important to be wrong." The meeting's organizers decided not to address the ethical issues surrounding genetic alteration but to stick to safety issues they felt they could address as scientists. After much haggling, the group settled on a set of safety guidelines that involved working with disabled bacteria that could not survive outside the lab. The guidelines not only allowed the research to resume but also helped persuade Congress that legislative restrictions were not needed--that scientists could govern themselves.
The group that convened last month faced a very different set of circumstances. The technology that seemed like science fiction in 1975 is now commonplace and has yielded what Baltimore called "a remarkable harvest" of products and applications, such as genetically enhanced crops, tests for genetic diseases, and human gene therapy. Last month's meeting also had less of a sense of urgency because, for the most part, scientists consider these technologies safe.
But the public remains hugely concerned about the applications of genetic manipulation: Witness the recent protests in Europe over genetically modified crops. And society today is much more insistent on participating in the debate. "There are no important risks that scientists alone can assess," said Princeton University president Harold Shapiro, chair of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. "Scientists can make a great contribution, but they can't decide alone." [Emphasis added]
Would that our national leaders were as open to this kind of consultation and deliberation.
If you would like to know the summary outcome of the 1975 Asilomar Conference follow this link to David Berg and Maxine Sanger's succinct summary. How might such a summary read for today's GM food conference? Asilomar 1975 Summary
Afghan Situation Continues to Deteriorate
The Taliban are resurgent in the south, with 2,500 new recruits reported to be preparing to enter Afghanistan, with the purchase of hundreds of motorcycles enabling them to seek, strike, and depart from NGO aid givers. In the north, the warlords are renewing their hostilities. And opium growth keeps everyone anxious. As the author of the piece closes: "Two years after the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan is in the news for all the wrong reasons."
Israel Slams Poll Citing 'Israeli Peace Threat'
This story raises a couple of issues. The first is the interesting spin tactic of going after the messenger while ignoring the message. The second is the question raised about the validity of a poll - simply put, is the way a question is asked being governed by politics.
Another way to look at this is:
Is pollign such a science that we can predict the answer based on how the question is asked?
This is hardly a new issue. Gore Vidal raises this same topic in a discussion of polling in the 1940 presidential campaign. In Vidal's novel, "the Golden Age," Vidal maintains that the pollsters were under the control of the politicians and thus shaped public opinion while pretending to report it objectively.
Israel seems to be claiming much the same thing here. Who do you trust?
Op-Ed Columnist: Pros at the Con
Interesting perspective dealing with cons from within and cons from without.
I'm facinated by what I call "the big number problem." I think it prevents us from understanding how large the galaxy is, let alone the universe - or how small the atom is, let alone an electron. We play all sorts of games to try to put it into perspective, comparing planets with ping pong balls, or marbles and putting the nucleus of an atom at the heart of domed sports stadium. Generally they don't work all that well - but here's one that's making the rounds of the internet today that I assume is inspired by the cost of war in Iraq. It works for me, maybe because for the most part it relies on time units that are within my experience. (thanks for forwarding this, Tori!)
TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH IS A BILLION
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one
advertising agency did a good job of putting that
figure into perspective in one of its releases:
A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the
Stone Age.
A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes ago,
at the rate President Bush spends it.