Kirmalak

Things Tantawi & Co. Don't Seem to Understand ..

2011-11-22T22:08:00.001-05:00

.. based on this speech:

When people are being killed on the streets, you don't offer condolences. You stop the violence immediately, and bring its perpetrators to justice.
Lack of security over a period of months is not an excuse for bad governance, it is a result of it. The same is true of a deteriorating economy.
Complaining about "ever-increasing" demands without identifying a single concrete achievement during your rule is a mark of irresponsibility.
Refraining from shooting civilians is not a concrete achievement.
Saying that you have "stopped trying civilians by military tribunal except in cases where military law applies" is ... such nonsense that I'm not sure where to begin, except to say that it does nothing for the 12,000 civilians who have already faced military tribunals since February.
Declaring support for democracy while arguing that "the criticisms directed at the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces only aim to weaken our resolve, reduce public trust in the military, and indeed cause the collapse of the Egyptian state" is a contradiction.
Assurances of parliamentary and presidential elections are insufficient if the resulting civilian government has no authority over the military.
If you can offer to hold an "immediate" referendum on military rule, you can complete parliamentary and presidential elections and hand over power a lot sooner than June 2012.

Watching Egypt

2011-11-21T06:47:00.001-05:00

I was just listening to BBC's World Have Your Say, where someone called Susie insisted that "the majority of Egyptians" are tired of watching the protesters in Tahrir Square.

Speaking as one of the majority of Egyptians who are watching what is happening in Egypt (in my case, watching from Canada), I can't claim to speak for the rest of the majority. I can, however, describe some of what we've seen.

We are watching the Ministry of Interior attack protesters using tactics and weapons indistinguishable from those employed in January and February. Just as we watched, for months, the MoI's apparent inability to secure Egypt's streets form the seemingly omnipotent and omnipresent baltagiyya (thugs).

We are watching military police join the MoI in its crackdown. Just as we watched, again for months, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces claiming to be the "guardians of the revolution" who "had not and would never fire on the people".

We are watching SCAF members like General Fengary dismiss the injured from January and February's protests as they return to Tahrir Square. Just as we watched, back in February, as General Fengary saluted those who had died to free Egypt from oppression.

We are watching Essam Sharaf call on the protesters to leave Tahrir Square. Just as we watched, the day Sharaf was appointed prime minister, as he stood in that same square and promised to join the protests the moment he felt he could no longer serve the revolution from his office.

And now we are watching those who insist on doing more than just watch, fighting to bring down a regime of oppression which remains very much in place. And I know that, while I'm fed up of watching many things in Egypt, those who are risking and giving up everything for freedom will never be on that list. Just as I know that, if all that some of us can or will do is watch, we can at least be honest about what we are witnessing.

الآمر والمأمور

2011-07-24T16:42:00.004-05:00

في أواخر فيلم "الإرهاب والكباب"، دخل وزير الداخلية (كمال الشناوي) الطابق الأرضي من مجمع التحرير، ووقف بين ضباط أمن الدولة يصرخ في "الإرهابيين" اللابثين في الطوابق العليا من المجمع، بعد أن فاض به من مطالبهم. وختم الوزير خطابه الشائط بأن أشار بإصبعه تجاه المشاهدين عبر الشاشة وقال: لازم تعرفوا إن الحكومة مالهاش دراع عشان يتلوي

استرجعت ذلك المشهد وذلك الوزير "الخيالي"، الذي تمثلت فيه السلطة التي تأمر ولا تؤمر، وأنا أشاهد البيان الأخير للواء محسن الفنجري، الذي استبدل فيه تحيته العسكرية لشهداء ثورة يناير باصبع التحذير لمتظاهري الثورة المستمرة، والذي تبعه توجيه متزايد بأصابع الإتهام تجاه الثوار من قبل بعض أعضاء المجلس العسكري وصفحته الرسمية بالفيسبوك. لست من الذين يساوون بين المجلس العسكري و نظام مبارك، فلم نر من المجلس (أو لم يثبت عليه) القمع والفساد كما رأيناه من النظام البائد. ولكن المجلس، برغم ما أعلنه من تأييد للثورة، واقرار بشرعية مطالبها، لم يثبت بعد أنه قابل بسلطة القانون والشعب عليه. بل يمكننا أن نلتمس العكس مما يقوله أعضاء المجلس عبر الإعلام والتصريحات الرسمية، حيث نسمع أنهم هم الذين يعلمون الشعب الديمقراطية، وهم الذين يفرقون بين المطالب المشروعة والغير مشروعة، والاعلام البناء والمخرب، بل وبين المواطنين الشرفاء و العملاء، الأمر الذي يدفع بنا إلى القول اننا اذا كنا نريد لهذه الثورة النجاح فإننا مازلنا في حاجة الى اعادة تنظيم العلاقة بين الحكومة والشعب، وأن هذا الأمر لا يحتمل التأجيل

لو أنني اليوم من أعضاء حركة ٦ ابريل، لتوجهت فوراً إلى القضاء المصري بدعوى ضد اللواء الرويني، وكل من قام بقذف الثوار باتهامات بلا دلائل، ليس بغرض ايذاء أولئك القاذفين أو الانتقام منهم، ولكن لتذكيرهم أنهم أفراد مثلهم كمثل غيرهم من أهل مصر، خاضعون للقانون مسئولون عن أقوالهم وتصرفاتهم. فحينما تشهد العباسية معركة شوارع يصاب بها المئات، فان كل من حرض ضد المسيرة السلمية التي كانت تمر بالحي يجب أن يكون عرضة للمسائلة. أما لو ثبت (من خلال لجنة تقصي للحقائق في تلك الأحداث، التي بات تشكيلها ضروريا) ما هو أسوأ من ذلك، وهو أن الهجوم ضد المتظاهرين كان موجهاً ومتعمداً (مثل معركة الجمل)، فهذا جرم يجب أن يعاقب عليه كل من شارك فيه أياً كان

آمال ثمانية يوليو

2011-07-07T21:52:00.004-05:00

:آمال لأهل التحرير من مصري في الخارج

الوحدة، التي هي أقوى سلاح

الغضب، الذي لا يزال حقاً و واجباً

السلام، الذي يحافظ على الشرعية

الكرامة، التي لا تفريط فيها

الثبات، الذي تُجتاز به المحن

النصر، الذي هو في متناول يدكم

Reactions

2011-02-13T12:04:00.003-05:00

Some of my favourite reactions to the dictator's ouster. Baheyya:

In the end, they leave, with hollow eyes and a few plain words. Stripped of their ill-gotten power, they are miserable, ashen, and base. All of the rhetoric they spewed lingers like a bad smell, soon to evaporate in the fresh air of freedom.

Sarah El-Sirgany, aka Sirgo:

Disbelief. It took me a few minutes to process the seconds-long announcement. It was short enough to fit in a tweet. But it was mighty. President Mubarak has stepped down.

I broke into tears when it downed on me. Protests worked. Peaceful street action worked. Egypt is free, for the first time in my life.

Tarek Shahin (yes, relation) at Al-Khan:

Sandmonkey:

Tonight will be the first night where I go to bed and don't have to worry about state security hunting me down, or about government goons sent to kidnap me; or about government sponsored hackers attacking my website. Tonight, for the first time ever, I feel free…and it is awesome!

Save any and all disagreements with any of the groups that operate them. We will disagree with each other, and that will be sweet because no more dictatorship. Tomorrow we squabble,and…tonite?

TONIGHT WE CELEBRATE!

Zeinobia:

The true heroes are our martyrs who brought down Mubarak , who purified us from fear , silence and hypocrisy with their pure blood.

The true heroes are those Egyptians who stood against what was believed to be the most fearful regimes in the Arab world for three weeks in Egypt biggest square , they were and are still standing despite the cold weather , despite the public criticism and doubt , they came from all Egypt to prove one thing : Egyptians are not passive , Egyptians are not sleeping they are only patient and the world not only the regime has to beware the anger of these patient people.

The true heroes are those great activists ,journalists and bloggers who stood against the Mubarak regime so bravely for years especially since 2005 and even before that risking everything including their own lives for that precious great moment.

The true heroes are those who are detained for no bloody reason except that they want better present and also future for their country.

Last but not least: one of the nice by-products of Egypt's revolution, in terms of international media coverage, is that many people got to hear of Mona El-Tahawy for the first time. She played an indispensable role in raising awareness and public support for Egypt's cause abroad, and it's been great seeing her get the credit she deserves as a writer and analyst of Egyptian and Middle Eastern affairs. Here is her first recorded reaction to the news:

Mubarak Overthrown

2011-02-12T04:30:00.003-05:00

After all the celebration, and after all the joyous words shared with so many people over the past seventeen hours, part of me has felt speechless for all this time. I don't know how to let all of these thoughts out, and I don't think that what has happened has fully sunk in yet. Even thousands of miles away, the emotion is overwhelming.

Mubarak assumed the Egyptian presidency in 1981. Like most Egyptians, I was born during his presidency, what came to be called "Misr Mubarak" ("Mubarak's Egypt"). And we all knew that, when the regime used that phrase, it wasn't meant figuratively. He and his cronies really did see Egypt, with its tens of millions of people and millennia of history, as nothing more than their little fiefdom, a place where they could accumulate power and money by stealing away the rights and inheritance of the country's true owners.

And now I've seen those true owners step up to reclaim the country that we all love, and in so doing, showing the very best of Egypt's character: pride, determination, peacefulness, courage, responsibility, and humour. And the further the regime devolved into violence, lies, and arrogance, the more it showed itself to be completely unworthy of the country it presumed to rule.

Egypt is now free of Mubarak, thanks to the sacrifice and effort of many, many people to whom I am forever grateful and by whom I am forever humbled. The essential and monumental first step has been taken. We are now living a rare moment, where all Egyptians have an opportunity to build a better country, with a better system of governance.

Considerable challenges remain. A great deal of vigilance will be needed to ensure that the end of Mubarak's regime translates into true liberation for Egypt. And there are many important debates to be had about Egypt's future, in terms of its constitution, government, and policies. But won't it be beautiful to have all of these debates out from under the shadow of authoritarianism, in the light of freedom?

صباح الحرية

2011-02-12T02:05:00.002-05:00

صباح الحرية

لمصر الثورية

وصبحتم بخير

يا أهل التحرير

وسلام وتحية

لاسكندرية

ولبور سعيد

والوادي الجديد

والسويس والمنصورة

والمحلة والاسماعيلية

* * *

شهدنا شيء عجيب

في تونس القريب

شعب رايد حياة

وقدر بيستجيب

ولما جاه النصر

وزين هرب مالقصر

سمعنا صوت بيقول

دورك بقى يا مصر

جات الردود تلقائية

دي مصر يابا سلبية

ونظامها ده مش حيهزوه

شوية عيال فيسبوكية

نزلوا شباب وكبار وصغار

وقالو مهما يكون جبار

لحد ما نزيل الطغيان

ثورة في كل ليل ونهار

ولسه حسني جي يقول

الأمر أمري وعليكوا القبول

وببلطجة وسرقة وكدب

يرهب ويضحك عالعقول

وادي شباب مصر الشجعان

من المدن الى الميدان

صامدين لحد ما ذلوه

وطفشوه زي الجبان

* * *

تحية لخالد سعيد

ولكل مصري شهيد

ذكراكوا دايماً جوّانا

وكمالة السيرة أمانة

وشعب مصر المتحرر

هو هيحكم ويقرر

وكل حاكم جوّه وبرّه

هيضل فاكر مثل الثورة

ثورة بلادي الحرة

عيشتي يا اغلى دره

عاشت مصر حرة مستقلة

Egypt's Revolution: Long Distance Solidarity

2011-01-30T19:19:00.011-05:00

Humbled by the courage shown all over Egypt by those fighting to end Mubarak's regime, I had to the least that I could to show solidarity. I got to the rally in downtown Toronto (Yonge and Dundas) at 1pm on Saturday, when it was just getting started:

Lots and lots of flags. Predominantly Egyptian, of course, but also Algerian, Palestinian, and (unsurprisingly) Tunisian and Canadian:

Soon after joining the group, the crowd grew around us. Among the many signs, there was the great Tunisian statement:

The line, from a famous poem by Abul-Qasim Ash-Shabbi, roughly translates as "If the people one day will to live, destiny cannot but respond."

The rallying cries were varied. Some were well known: "الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام" "The people want to topple the regime", "يسقط يسقط حسني مبارك" "Down down, Hosni Mubarak", "عاش الهلال مع الصليب" "Long live the crescent with the cross". There were also some new cries (who comes up with all these line): "لا سليمان ولا شفيق الحكاية مش تلفيق" "No Suleiman and no Shafiq, this matter won't be rigged", and "شوفو يا خلق البيه الضابط عمره ما فكر فكرة وصابط" "Look people at the officer, he's never had an idea that worked". And, this being Toronto, there were many English cries as well: "One two three four, Hosni Mubarak out the door, five six seven eight, let Egyptians choose their fate", "Hey hey, ho ho, Hosni Mubarak has to go", "What do we want? Freedom! When do we want it? Now!"

And here's a line everyone can get behind:

Anti-regime sentiment has been growing steadily for years, but it really started ramping up last June when a young man called Khaled Said was beaten to death in public by police officers. He's shown here with the #Jan25 Twitter hashtag:

Here's a fun video, where one of the rally leaders said he wanted to offer an impromptu Arabic lesson to non-Arabic-speaking ralliers. What you're hearing is him calling out words in English, and the rest of us calling them back in Arabic. This was pretty much near the end of the rally, so I'll close with this one.

The Final Four

2010-07-03T21:49:00.002-05:00

Of the four remaining teams in the 2010 World Cup:

Germany has won the cup three times (as West Germany in 1954, 1974, and 1990). Uruguay has won it twice (in 1934 and 1950), while the Netherlands and Spain have both never won the cup.
Germany has played in the most finals (7), while Spain has played in the fewest (0). Also, Germany has reached the final four the most times (this time being their 12th), while Spain has done so the fewest (this time being their 2nd).
Spain is currently the highest ranked team by Fifa (2nd), while Uruguay is the lowest ranked (16th). The Netherlands and Germany are ranked 4th and 6th, respectively.
In the current World Cup:

Germany has the youngest 23-player line-up (average age: 24.96), while the Netherlands have the oldest (average age: 27.65).
The Netherlands are the only team to have won all of their games so far. Uruguay drew against France; Germany and Spain lost to Serbia and Switzerland, respectively.
Germany has scored the most goals (13), while Spain has scored the fewest (6).
Germany, Spain, and Uruguay have each conceded only 2 goals, while the Netherlands have conceded 3.
The Netherlands have received the most yellow cards (12), while Spain has received the fewest (3)
Uruguay has received the most red cards (2). Germany has received 1, and the Netherlands and Spain have both received none.

One more fact, not specific to these final four: no European team has ever won the World Cup outside of Europe. If ever there were a year for that to change ...

Because One Good Speech Deserves Another ...

2010-04-08T21:24:00.005-05:00

In thankful response to Noha for posting JK Rowling's 2008 commencement speech at Harvard University, I'd like to offer the late David Foster Wallace's 2005 commencement speech at Kenyon College. I post it with a language warning, as there are a couple of words in there that I wouldn't use myself, but which I haven't edited out.

(If anybody feels like perspiring [cough], I’d advise you to go ahead, because I’m sure going to. In fact I’m gonna [mumbles while pulling up his gown and taking out a handkerchief from his pocket].) Greetings ["parents"?] and congratulations to Kenyon’s graduating class of 2005. There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”

This is a standard requirement of US commencement speeches, the deployment of didactic little parable-ish stories. The story ["thing"] turns out to be one of the better, less bullshitty conventions of the genre, but if you’re worried that I plan to present myself here as the wise, older fish explaining what water is to you younger fish, please don’t be. I am not the wise old fish. The point of the fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about. Stated as an English sentence, of course, this is just a banal platitude, but the fact is that in the day to day trenches of adult existence, banal platitudes can have a life or death importance, or so I wish to suggest to you on this dry and lovely morning.

Of course the main requirement of speeches like this is that I’m supposed to talk about your liberal arts education’s meaning, to try to explain why the degree you are about to receive has actual human value instead of just a material payoff. So let’s talk about the single most pervasive cliché in the commencement speech genre, which is that a liberal arts education is not so much about filling you up with knowledge as it is about “teaching you how to think”. If you’re like me as a student, you’ve never liked hearing this, and you tend to feel a bit insulted by the claim that you needed anybody to teach you how to think, since the fact that you even got admitted to a college this good seems like proof that you already know how to think. But I’m going to posit to you that the liberal arts cliché turns out not to be insulting at all, because the really significant education in thinking that we’re supposed to get in a place like this isn’t really about the capacity to think, but rather about the choice of what to think about. If your total freedom of choice regarding what to think about seems too obvious to waste time discussing, I’d ask you to think about fish and water, and to bracket for just a few minutes your scepticism about the value of the totally obvious.

Here’s another didactic little story. There are these two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness. One of the guys is religious, the other is an atheist, and the two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer. And the atheist says: “Look, it’s not like I don’t have actual reasons for not believing in God. It’s not like I haven’t ever experimented with the whole God and prayer thing. Just last month I got caught away from the camp in that terrible blizzard, and I was totally lost and I couldn’t see a thing, and it was 50 below, and so I tried it: I fell to my knees in the snow and cried out ‘Oh, God, if there is a God, I’m lost in this blizzard, and I’m gonna die if you don’t help me.’” And now, in the bar, the religious guy looks at the atheist all puzzled. “Well then you must believe now,” he says, “After all, here you are, alive.” The atheist just rolls his eyes. “No, man, all that was was a couple Eskimos happened to come wandering by and showed me the way back to camp.”

It’s easy to run this story through kind of a standard liberal arts analysis: the exact same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, given those people’s two different belief templates and two different ways of constructing meaning from experience. Because we prize tolerance and diversity of belief, nowhere in our liberal arts analysis do we want to claim that one guy’s interpretation is true and the other guy’s is false or bad. Which is fine, except we also never end up talking about just where these individual templates and beliefs come from. Meaning, where they come from INSIDE the two guys. As if a person’s most basic orientation toward the world, and the meaning of his experience were somehow just hard-wired, like height or shoe-size; or automatically absorbed from the culture, like language. As if how we construct meaning were not actually a matter of personal, intentional choice. Plus, there’s the whole matter of arrogance. The nonreligious guy is so totally certain in his dismissal of the possibility that the passing Eskimos had anything to do with his prayer for help. True, there are plenty of religious people who seem arrogant and certain of their own interpretations, too. They’re probably even more repulsive than atheists, at least to most of us. But religious dogmatists’ problem is exactly the same as the story’s unbeliever: blind certainty, a close-mindedness that amounts to an imprisonment so total that the prisoner doesn’t even know he’s locked up.

The point here is that I think this is one part of what teaching me how to think is really supposed to mean. To be just a little less arrogant. To have just a little critical awareness about myself and my certainties. Because a huge percentage of the stuff that I tend to be automatically certain of is, it turns out, totally wrong and deluded. I have learned this the hard way, as I predict you graduates will, too.

Here is just one example of the total wrongness of something I tend to be automatically sure of: everything in my own immediate experience supports my deep belief that I am the absolute centre of the universe; the realest, most vivid and important person in existence. We rarely think about this sort of natural, basic self-centredness because it’s so socially repulsive. But it’s pretty much the same for all of us. It is our default setting, hard-wired into our boards at birth. Think about it: there is no experience you have had that you are not the absolute centre of. The world as you experience it is there in front of YOU or behind YOU, to the left or right of YOU, on YOUR TV or YOUR monitor. And so on. Other people’s thoughts and feelings have to be communicated to you somehow, but your own are so immediate, urgent, real.

Please don’t worry that I’m getting ready to lecture you about compassion or other-directedness or all the so-called virtues. This is not a matter of virtue. It’s a matter of my choosing to do the work of somehow altering or getting free of my natural, hard-wired default setting which is to be deeply and literally self-centered and to see and interpret everything through this lens of self. People who can adjust their natural default setting this way are often described as being “well-adjusted”, which I suggest to you is not an accidental term.

Given the triumphant academic setting here, an obvious question is how much of this work of adjusting our default setting involves actual knowledge or intellect. This question gets very tricky. Probably the most dangerous thing about an academic education–least in my own case–is that it enables my tendency to over-intellectualise stuff, to get lost in abstract argument inside my head, instead of simply paying attention to what is going on right in front of me, paying attention to what is going on inside me.

As I’m sure you guys know by now, it is extremely difficult to stay alert and attentive, instead of getting hypnotised by the constant monologue inside your own head (may be happening right now). Twenty years after my own graduation, I have come gradually to understand that the liberal arts cliché about teaching you how to think is actually shorthand for a much deeper, more serious idea: learning how to think really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience. Because if you cannot exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed. Think of the old cliché about “the mind being an excellent servant but a terrible master”.

This, like many clichés, so lame and unexciting on the surface, actually expresses a great and terrible truth. It is not the least bit coincidental that adults who commit suicide with firearms almost always shoot themselves in: the head. They shoot the terrible master. And the truth is that most of these suicides are actually dead long before they pull the trigger.

And I submit that this is what the real, no bullshit value of your liberal arts education is supposed to be about: how to keep from going through your comfortable, prosperous, respectable adult life dead, unconscious, a slave to your head and to your natural default setting of being uniquely, completely, imperially alone day in and day out. That may sound like hyperbole, or abstract nonsense. Let’s get concrete. The plain fact is that you graduating seniors do not yet have any clue what “day in day out” really means. There happen to be whole, large parts of adult American life that nobody talks about in commencement speeches. One such part involves boredom, routine and petty frustration. The parents and older folks here will know all too well what I’m talking about.

By way of example, let’s say it’s an average adult day, and you get up in the morning, go to your challenging, white-collar, college-graduate job, and you work hard for eight or ten hours, and at the end of the day you’re tired and somewhat stressed and all you want is to go home and have a good supper and maybe unwind for an hour, and then hit the sack early because, of course, you have to get up the next day and do it all again. But then you remember there’s no food at home. You haven’t had time to shop this week because of your challenging job, and so now after work you have to get in your car and drive to the supermarket. It’s the end of the work day and the traffic is apt to be: very bad. So getting to the store takes way longer than it should, and when you finally get there, the supermarket is very crowded, because of course it’s the time of day when all the other people with jobs also try to squeeze in some grocery shopping. And the store is hideously lit and infused with soul-killing muzak or corporate pop and it’s pretty much the last place you want to be but you can’t just get in and quickly out; you have to wander all over the huge, over-lit store’s confusing aisles to find the stuff you want and you have to manoeuvre your junky cart through all these other tired, hurried people with carts (et cetera, et cetera, cutting stuff out because this is a long ceremony) and eventually you get all your supper supplies, except now it turns out there aren’t enough check-out lanes open even though it’s the end-of-the-day rush. So the checkout line is incredibly long, which is stupid and infuriating. But you can’t take your frustration out on the frantic lady working the register, who is overworked at a job whose daily tedium and meaninglessness surpasses the imagination of any of us here at a prestigious college.

But anyway, you finally get to the checkout line’s front, and you pay for your food, and you get told to “Have a nice day” in a voice that is the absolute voice of death. Then you have to take your creepy, flimsy, plastic bags of groceries in your cart with the one crazy wheel that pulls maddeningly to the left, all the way out through the crowded, bumpy, littery parking lot, and then you have to drive all the way home through slow, heavy, SUV-intensive, rush-hour traffic, et cetera et cetera.

Everyone here has done this, of course. But it hasn’t yet been part of you graduates’ actual life routine, day after week after month after year.

But it will be. And many more dreary, annoying, seemingly meaningless routines besides. But that is not the point. The point is that petty, frustrating crap like this is exactly where the work of choosing is gonna come in. Because the traffic jams and crowded aisles and long checkout lines give me time to think, and if I don’t make a conscious decision about how to think and what to pay attention to, I’m gonna be pissed and miserable every time I have to shop. Because my natural default setting is the certainty that situations like this are really all about me. About MY hungriness and MY fatigue and MY desire to just get home, and it’s going to seem for all the world like everybody else is just in my way. And who are all these people in my way? And look at how repulsive most of them are, and how stupid and cow-like and dead-eyed and nonhuman they seem in the checkout line, or at how annoying and rude it is that people are talking loudly on cell phones in the middle of the line. And look at how deeply and personally unfair this is.

Or, of course, if I’m in a more socially conscious liberal arts form of my default setting, I can spend time in the end-of-the-day traffic being disgusted about all the huge, stupid, lane-blocking SUV’s and Hummers and V-12 pickup trucks, burning their wasteful, selfish, 40-gallon tanks of gas, and I can dwell on the fact that the patriotic or religious bumper-stickers always seem to be on the biggest, most disgustingly selfish vehicles, driven by the ugliest [responding here to loud applause] (this is an example of how NOT to think, though) most disgustingly selfish vehicles, driven by the ugliest, most inconsiderate and aggressive drivers. And I can think about how our children’s children will despise us for wasting all the future’s fuel, and probably screwing up the climate, and how spoiled and stupid and selfish and disgusting we all are, and how modern consumer society just sucks, and so forth and so on.

You get the idea.

If I choose to think this way in a store and on the freeway, fine. Lots of us do. Except thinking this way tends to be so easy and automatic that it doesn’t have to be a choice. It is my natural default setting. It’s the automatic way that I experience the boring, frustrating, crowded parts of adult life when I’m operating on the automatic, unconscious belief that I am the centre of the world, and that my immediate needs and feelings are what should determine the world’s priorities.

The thing is that, of course, there are totally different ways to think about these kinds of situations. In this traffic, all these vehicles stopped and idling in my way, it’s not impossible that some of these people in SUV’s have been in horrible auto accidents in the past, and now find driving so terrifying that their therapist has all but ordered them to get a huge, heavy SUV so they can feel safe enough to drive. Or that the Hummer that just cut me off is maybe being driven by a father whose little child is hurt or sick in the seat next to him, and he’s trying to get this kid to the hospital, and he’s in a bigger, more legitimate hurry than I am: it is actually I who am in HIS way.

Or I can choose to force myself to consider the likelihood that everyone else in the supermarket’s checkout line is just as bored and frustrated as I am, and that some of these people probably have harder, more tedious and painful lives than I do.

Again, please don’t think that I’m giving you moral advice, or that I’m saying you are supposed to think this way, or that anyone expects you to just automatically do it. Because it’s hard. It takes will and effort, and if you are like me, some days you won’t be able to do it, or you just flat out won’t want to.

But most days, if you’re aware enough to give yourself a choice, you can choose to look differently at this fat, dead-eyed, over-made-up lady who just screamed at her kid in the checkout line. Maybe she’s not usually like this. Maybe she’s been up three straight nights holding the hand of a husband who is dying of bone cancer. Or maybe this very lady is the low-wage clerk at the motor vehicle department, who just yesterday helped your spouse resolve a horrific, infuriating, red-tape problem through some small act of bureaucratic kindness. Of course, none of this is likely, but it’s also not impossible. It just depends what you want to consider. If you’re automatically sure that you know what reality is, and you are operating on your default setting, then you, like me, probably won’t consider possibilities that aren’t annoying and miserable. But if you really learn how to pay attention, then you will know there are other options. It will actually be within your power to experience a crowded, hot, slow, consumer-hell type situation as not only meaningful, but sacred, on fire with the same force that made the stars: love, fellowship, the mystical oneness of all things deep down.

Not that that mystical stuff is necessarily true. The only thing that’s capital-T True is that you get to decide how you’re gonna try to see it.

This, I submit, is the freedom of a real education, of learning how to be well-adjusted. You get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn’t. You get to decide what to worship.

Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship–be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles–is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.

Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they’re evil or sinful, it’s that they’re unconscious. They are default settings.

They’re the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that’s what you’re doing.

And the so-called real world will not discourage you from operating on your default settings, because the so-called real world of men and money and power hums merrily along in a pool of fear and anger and frustration and craving and worship of self. Our own present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The freedom all to be lords of our tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the centre of all creation. This kind of freedom has much to recommend it. But of course there are all different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious you will not hear much talk about much in the great outside world of wanting and achieving…. The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day.

That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.

I know that this stuff probably doesn’t sound fun and breezy or grandly inspirational the way a commencement speech is supposed to sound. What it is, as far as I can see, is the capital-T Truth, with a whole lot of rhetorical niceties stripped away. You are, of course, free to think of it whatever you wish. But please don’t just dismiss it as just some finger-wagging Dr Laura sermon. None of this stuff is really about morality or religion or dogma or big fancy questions of life after death.

The capital-T Truth is about life BEFORE death.

It is about the real value of a real education, which has almost nothing to do with knowledge, and everything to do with simple awareness; awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over:

“This is water.”

“This is water.”

It is unimaginably hard to do this, to stay conscious and alive in the adult world day in and day out. Which means yet another grand cliché turns out to be true: your education really IS the job of a lifetime. And it commences: now.

I wish you way more than luck.

Nuclear Countdown (The Good Kind)

2010-03-24T22:06:00.004-05:00

Good news:

The U.S. and Russia agreed to a historic deal Wednesday to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the former Cold War rivals, the most significant pact in a generation and an important milestone in the decades-long quest to lower the risk of global nuclear war.

The New York Times reports on some of the details:

The new 10-year pact would replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991, or Start, which expired in December, and further extend cuts negotiated in 2002 by Mr. Bush in the Treaty of Moscow. Under the new pact, according to people briefed on it in Washington and Moscow, within seven years each side would have to cut its deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 from the 2,200 now allowed. Each side would cut the total number of launchers to 800 from 1,600 now permitted. The number of nuclear-armed missiles and heavy bombers would be capped at 700 each.

Neither the White House nor the Kremlin formally announced the agreement on Wednesday, pending the final telephone call between the presidents. A Kremlin official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there was an agreement on the text of the pact, although not all the wording had been given final approval. Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said, “We’re very close.”

On the one hand, a world in which the USA and Russia still have over 1500 active nuclear weapons each will still be a somewhat frightening place. On the other hand, a 25% reduction over 7 years is an impressive move in the right direction.

The reduction of its nuclear stockpiles will not hurt America militarily (for all practical purposes, 1550 nuclear warheads are just as deadly as 2200), but it will help it strategically. When America shows the world that it is fulfilling its reduction obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it gains the credibility to lead the diplomatic effort against further proliferation in places like Iran.

Moreover, a world in which nuclear stockpiles are being reduced is one where non-nuclear states all over the world would be less inclined to develop nuclear weapons at all. When America and Russia reduce their stockpiles, China feels less threatened by both, and so doesn't expand its own arsenal. So neighbouring India doesn't feel threatened by China, and doesn't expand its arsenal either, which means that rival Pakistan doesn't have to worry as much, and so on.

In fact, if the two leading nuclear powers were to go far enough with their cuts, they could conceivably convince others to begin to reduce their own arsenals as well. But it's not clear that we'll get there anytime soon, and the arms reduction negotiations will certainly be a lot more complicated when all the nuclear powers are at the table together. "Global Zero" is still a distant and unlikely hope, but it's getting a little bit closer today.

The Books That Brought Me Here

2010-03-22T19:33:00.007-05:00

Up in the higher echelons of the blogosphere, many of the big-name bloggers are posting lists of the top ten books that influenced them. The idea was triggered by Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution, and was taken up by some of my blogging favourites like Matthew Yglesias and Ta-Nehisi Coates. They've all listed some very smart books, the vast majority of which I haven't read and many of which I hadn't even heard of before now.

My own list is nowhere near as sophisticated. I agree with Red Dave that "most influential" refers to the list of books that had the greatest effect on my life, which does not necessarily coincide with books that were written by ancient and modern luminaries. The latter would belong on a generic list of "greatest" or "most important" books I've ever read.

So here, in chronological order of when I first read them, are the books that I believe contributed the most to who I am today (Am I really writing this down and publishing it?):

The Qur'an. This one is obvious. Central to my upbringing and essential to my faith, I can't even remember when I first started reading it (although I didn't actually read it cover to cover until my teens).

Spacetrail Guide by the London Planetarium. When I was ten years old, my family visited the London Planetarium in England. I can't remember the planetarium itself, but I remember the 32-page booklet they gave out there. By the end of that summer, I knew all the basic facts about every planet in our solar system (size, distance from the Sun, period of its orbit, average temperature, etc.) and had memorized the blurbs on Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, among others. It may well be that my love of space and science started before that year, but that booklet marks my earliest memory of being in awe of the universe.

ملف المستقبل (The Future File) by Nabil Farouk. As a kid studying at a British school in Kuwait, I was inspired to keep reading and writing in Arabic because of this sci-fi series. These short stories fired up my scientific imagination, and introduced me to my favourite childhood heroes: Noor, Salwa, Ramzy, and Mahmoud. Whether chasing a time-travelling villain through the ages, leading a resistance movement against alien invaders, travelling to alternate dimensions, or befriending the last surviving android from Atlantis, Noor and his team exemplified nobility, honesty, courage, and intelligence.

Anne of Green Gables by Lucy Maud Montgomery. I met Anne when I was 13, and was thrilled to find a literary character who saw the world as I did. Montgomery's classic book is why I admired the beauty of the East Coast before ever setting foot in Canada. At my age at the time, it was also fascinating to read a book that was not about Christianity per se, but in which the characters' faith came up naturally in their day-to-day lives. That was definitely when I began to understand how different faiths actually have much in common.

A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. I'm a nuclear scientist/engineer, and I still understand this book only marginally better today than when I first read it in high school, which was the point when my choice of becoming a scientist/engineer was pretty much sealed.

Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder. In this novel, which I was assigned in high school, each major philosopher from Western history is discussed in a different chapter. This is the book that made me really start to read philosophy, and also indirectly helped fuel my life-long love of history.

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read this book in the first semester of undergrad, and then, over the course of about a year or so, read the vast majority of Rand's fiction and non-fiction works. The forceful logic of Atlas Shrugged challenged me to check pretty much all of my premises, and Rand's critique of society remains very instructive both for what she got right and what she got very wrong.

حياة محمد (The Life of Muhammad) by Muhammad Hussein Heikal. Anyone who went to school in a Muslim country can summarize the life of the prophet of Islam. But of everything that I've read about Muhammad, it was this particular biography that brought home the idea that he can only be fully understood as a very real person whose life existed in a very real set of social and historical circumstances.

Western Muslims and the Future of Islam by Tariq Ramadan. This book, like the rest of Ramadan's writings and speeches, is less about his specific issue-by-issue opinions and more about understanding how literalism and intellectual rigidity weaken faith rather than strengthening it. Of Ramadan's many writings, I've listed Western Muslims simply because it was the first that I read.

That's only nine books, I know, and while I thought of adding one more to complete ten, I couldn't think of any others that influenced me as strongly as the ones above. But, for the record, my list of runners-up would include Matilda by Roald Dahl, My Teacher is an Alien (and the rest of that four-book series) by Bruce Coville, Catch-22 by Joseph Heller, Orientalism by Edward Said, and The Autobiography of Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley.

Feel free to list any of your most influential books in comments.

The Problem With Settlements

2010-03-20T00:51:00.007-05:00

Let's pretend for a moment that we live in a world where all other issues preventing Israeli-Palestinian peace (holy sites, refugees, security, and resources) have been resolved, and all that remains is to decide on the borders dividing the states of Israel and Palestine. In such a world, would a two-state solution be possible? Consider the following map of the West Bank (from Wikipedia, seen more clearly here):

The dark purple areas represent Israeli settlements, the light purple areas represent areas closed off by the Israeli military, the green line represents the pre-1967 line (aka the 'Armistice Line' or the 'Green Line') separating Israel and the West Bank, and the black line represents the completed and projected route of Israel's "separation wall" or "security barrier".

Let's assume that the final borders agreed upon between the Israelis and Palestinians are to lie somewhere between the green and black lines, and that the agreement on those borders were to be signed and implemented today. If both sides agree to the green line, then that leaves 450,000 Israeli settlers on Palestinian land. If they agree to the black line, then most Israeli settlers remain part of Israel, but that still leaves 70,000 in the newly-formed Palestinian state, ten times as many as the number removed from the Gaza Strip by Ariel Sharon's government in 2005.

Anyone serious about a two-state solution ought to ask themselves: what will happen to the tens to hundreds of thousands of Israelis who currently occupy the future state of Palestine?

Considering the religious-nationalist fervour that drives the settler movement and the decades of Israeli-Palestinian hostility, it is hard to imagine the settlers leaving the West Bank voluntarily, or accepting Palestinian sovereignty, just as it is hard to imagine the Palestinians accepting them as citizens. And considering the difficulty the Israeli government and military faced in removing 7000 settlers from the geographically tiny Gaza Strip, it is hard to imagine them successfully repeating that process tens of times over the larger West Bank.

And the challenge that the settlements pose to the two-state solution is only becoming greater. Since the peace process began in 1993, the West Bank settler population has grown from over 250,000 to over 450,000. Even Ariel Sharon's Gaza disengagement did not stop the net settler population from growing during his time as prime minister.

The problem that Israel faces is basically this: over 40 years ago, the West Bank settler movement was conceived in order to ensure that no Palestinian state would be possible. Then, about 15-20 years ago, Israel started accepting the notion that a Palestinian state was necessary to its own long-term survival. These two ideas are antithetical to one another, but no Israeli politician in power will actually make the hard choice between them.

Some Israeli politicians want a two-state peace, whereas others don't. But whatever the convictions of its leadership, every Israeli government since 1993 has simultaneously tried to balance the support of the international community and the majority of Israelis who want a two-state solution on the one hand, and the support of the influential settler movement on the other. That's what politicians do: they try to be all things to all people in order to stay in power.

Unfortunately for Israelis and Palestinians, the cost of politics as usual is much higher for them than it is for most of the world's people. And so what matters today is not how offended Joe Biden was during his visit, or how mean Hillary Clinton was over the phone, but whether the parties to this interminable conflict can produce leaders more committed to their people's well-being than their own inevitably temporary grip on power. A two-state solution would be difficult enough to implement given the best leadership. With the actors on the stage today, the difficult is becoming nearly impossible.

Remembering Sheikh Tantawi (1928-2010)

2010-03-11T00:22:00.004-05:00

The Sheikh of Egypt's Al-Azhar University, Mohamed Sayid Tantawi, passed away on March 10th while on a trip to Saudi Arabia.

I had no intention of writing an obituary of Sheikh Tantawi, but I do feel the need to comment on the different obituaries written by various media outlets. Usually, when dealing with people of note, there is a common consensus on the things for which those people will be remembered. This is even true of controversial figures, where the disagreement is not on what issues defined the person's career, but rather whether the person will be remembered positively or negatively in light of those issues (eg: George Bush will be remembered for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for the controversies surrounding both of those wars, the Dalai Lama will be remembered for his campaign to free Tibet and for his books promoting Buddhism, etc.).

But in the case of Tantawi, you get very different impressions of what his career was about depending on which obituary you read. Let's start by dismissing the blatantly inaccurate, in this case CNN:

He played a similar role in the Sunni Muslim world as the pope does for Catholics, involving life issues.

[...]

Although appointed by the Government, Tantawi was regarded as the spiritual leader of about one billion Sunni Muslims worldwide.

It is a gross misrepresentation to say that the Sheikh of Al-Azhar is similar to the Pope. Whereas the Pope sits atop the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and so can speak for the Church as a whole, the Sheikh of Al-Azhar ultimately speaks for just one Sunni institution (albeit the most historically revered one) among many. Most of the "one billion Sunni Muslims worldwide" would be very surprised to be told that Tantawi was their spiritual leader.

The Egyptian state-run Al-Ahram naturally does not mention any of the controversies that surrounded Tantawi's tenure as Sheikh of Al-Azhar. The only part of his record which they emphasize is his positive relationship with the leadership of Egypt's Christian community. Needless to say, any role that Tantawi played towards nurturing religious harmony in Egypt is to be lauded, but his record is much broader than this one area.

The BBC was almost as selective in its discussion of Tantawi's record. They make a vague reference to the fact that "he was always forced to negotiate a careful path between his religious imperatives and his government position" without talking about how or why this was the case. Instead, they just run through a short list of the religious opinions which garnered the most attention in the West, almost all of which were of course on women's issues (circumcision, hijab, and niqab). All these issues are surely important, but again they only constitute one part of the picture.

The CBC also considers his positions on women's issues to be the most significant part of Tantawi's legacy, but they do a much better job in offering a more extensive account of his personality and his positions on a number of other issues. Both outlets, though, assess Tantawi through a simple moderate-vs-extremist world view.

If you read his obituary on Al-Jazeera, on the other hand, you would think that Tantawi would be remembered almost solely for being friendly to Israel over the Palestinians.

It is only by going to the non-state Egyptian media that you really begin to understand what some of the other outlets merely hinted at: the main question regarding Tantawi is not the degree of his moderation or extremism, or whose side he was really on in the conflicts of our day, but rather the extent to which he was an independent scholar. Ad-Dostoor's obituary, while comprehensive, drips anti-Tantawi bias. To their credit, though, they are the only ones who make mention of two of the Sheikh's most problematic domestic fatwas. The first of these was his call for writers who publicly discussed president Mubarak's health to be flogged (Ad-Dostoor's editor Ibrahim Isa was one such writer; the floggings never happened, though there were trials and imprisonments followed by a presidential pardon). The second was his religious interjection in the debate over the regime's referendum to change the constitution so as to weaken the viability of electoral opposition, where he publicly condemned as "sinful" those who tried to organize a boycott of the referendum.

While they do not mention these two problematic edicts, The Daily News Egypt and Al Masry Al Youm have the best overall obituaries, discussing Tantawi's biography, the role and significance of the institute he headed, his relationship to Egypt's political leadership as a presidential appointee, and the broad range of domestic and international issues on which he generated controversy. Tantawi's history should be remembered fully. It is only by avoiding the temptation to reduce people to one "camp" or another (whether that camp is "moderate vs extremist", "pro-Arab vs pro-West", etc) that we can begin to understand and discuss the complex interplay of power, politics, bureaucracy, culture, and religion in the Middle East.

Finally, however the Sheikh's legacy is judged, may he rest in peace, and may the family who survived him find patience after his passing.

Olympic Recount (Winter Edition)

2010-03-01T22:20:00.002-05:00

During the last Summer Olympics in Beijing, I suggested that the Olympic rankings could be improved using a point system. In the Summer Olympics, rankings were determined in order of the most gold medals, followed by the most silver, then the most bronze, such that a team with only one gold medal overall would have outranked a team with seven silvers. The alternative I suggested at the time would have ranked teams by total points, where teams would have gotten 4 points for every gold medal, 2 for every silver, and 1 for every bronze.

In the just completed Vancouver Winter Olympics, the countries were ranked according to total number of medals. This is arguably fairer than the Summer Olympic system, but can still produce unfair situations where a country with, say, six bronze medals would outrank a country with five gold.

So, if we take the rankings of the Olympic teams as they are now:

United States 37 medals total (9 gold, 15 silver, 13 bronze)

Germany 30 (10, 13, 7)

Canada 26 (14, 7, 5)

Norway 23 (9, 8, 6)

Austria 16 (4, 6, 6)

Russia 15 (3, 5, 7)

South Korea 14 (6, 6, 2)

China 11 (5, 2, 4)

Sweden 11 (5, 2, 4)

France 11 (2, 3, 6)

Switzerland 9 (6, 0, 3)

Netherlands 8 (4, 1, 3)

Czech Republic 6 (2, 0, 4)

Poland 6 (1, 3, 2)

Italy 5 (1, 1, 3)

Japan 5 (0, 3, 2)

Finland 5 (0, 1, 4)

Australia 3 (2, 1, 0)

Belarus 3 (1, 1, 1)

Slovakia 3 (1, 1, 1)

Croatia 3 (0, 2, 1)

Slovenia 3 (0, 2, 1)

Latvia 2 (0, 2, 0)

Great Britain 1 (1, 0, 0)

Estonia 1 (0, 1, 0)

Kazakhstan 1 (0, 1, 0)

And apply that same 4-2-1 point system, we'd get the following results (teams that climb from their original rankings are highlighted in green, teams that drop are highlighted in red):

United States 79 points

Canada 75

Germany 73

Norway 58

South Korea 38

Austria 32

Russia 29

China 28

Sweden 28

Switzerland 27

Netherlands 21

France 20

Czech Republic 12

Poland 12

Australia 10

Italy 9

Japan 8

Belarus 7

Slovakia 7

Finland 6

Croatia 5

Slovenia 5

Latvia 4

Great Britain 4

Estonia 2

Kazakhstan 2

There are basically five changes going on here: (1) Canada passes Germany, (2) South Korea jumps ahead of both Austria and Russia, (3) Switzerland and the Netherlands both jump ahead of France, (4) Australia leaps ahead of Italy, Japan, and Finland, which is also (5) passed by Belarus and Slovakia.

Of course, the idea that these alternate rankings are "fairer" presupposes that a gold medal is worth twice as much as a silver, which is worth twice as much as a bronze. Intuitively, it seems fair to say that there should be a premium for winning. Then again, in some races, the difference between first, second, and third can be less than a second. Does it make sense to say that a gold is worth four times as much as a bronze under those circumstances? And once you start assigning points to results, why does it make sense to only apply them to first, second, and third place? What about fourth- and fifth-ranked competitors who come very close to winning a medal?

I would argue that these critiques of the point system say more about the arbitrariness of assigning rankings at these events in general, as opposed to the specifics of how you assign those ranks. Once you accept the idea that someone has to win gold, someone silver, and someone bronze, and that you're going to rank teams by some measure of their medal counts, I do think that a point system is fairer, even if it is still not a perfect indicator of performance.

The Latest From Karzai

2010-02-24T23:52:00.004-05:00

Give due credit to John Geddes at Maclean's for reporting on this matter almost a week before it actually happened. Unfortunately, Geddes' sources turned out to be correct: Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai has now used a presidential decree to seize control of the Electoral Complaints Commission. That would be the same commission that brought to light the fraud involved in Karzai's re-election to the presidency last year, and which was expected to reveal any problems with the parliamentary elections due later this year. Now, Karzai has given himself the right to replace three independent, UN-appointed committee members (out of five in total) with anyone of his choice. The Economist reports:

Foreign activists were astonished by the president’s chutzpah. A former member of the ECC said he was too angry to comment. However, those diplomats who had once claimed that reform of the commissions was a non-negotiable condition were muted in their criticism. They know that in their various tussles with Mr Karzai over the years they have nearly always ended up on the losing side.

It is this latter point that ought to give us pause. Karzai is only president today because of the NATO-coalition that drove out the Taliban and that continues the often Sisyphean effort of keeping that movement's fighters at bay. How is it that the West appears to have little leverage over Karzai in this matter, when democracy in Afghanistan is supposed to be high on the list of goals of our mission there?

The problem is that the only thing with which the West can threaten Karzai is the withdrawal of its support, and he knows that threat is not credible. We have gone so far in convincing ourselves that a return of the Taliban is unacceptable that we seem more fearful of the movement that aims to topple Karzai's government than Karzai himself. The Afghan president, after all, has made it clear that he would like to come to terms with his enemies and include them in his government.

This is not to deny how bad the Taliban were and are. But if the endgame in Afghanistan, even with us there, is starting to look like a sham democracy that includes those much-reviled extremists, then we ought to seriously ask ourselves how much worse things would be if we were to withdraw ourselves from the situation completely. It is only by recognizing how much or how little we have to lose in abandoning a "friend" like Karzai that we can know whether we have any real leverage over him, and whether we really can stand up for Afghanistan's democracy or are going to end up fighting to impose a dictatorship there.

What To Do About American Torturers?

2010-02-17T22:15:00.009-05:00

U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, on January 16th, 2009:

Former U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney, on February 16th, 2010:

Article 4 of the UN Convention Against Torture, which has been signed and ratified by the United States:

Article 4
Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Theoretically, Dick Cheney is no more and no less than an American citizen, entitled to the same rights and subject to the same laws as any other American citizen. Practically, though, it turns out that - unlike pretty much all other American citizens - Dick Cheney can confess to breaking the law on national television without fearing any repercussions.

After all, if "waterboarding is torture", if "all acts of torture are [criminal] offences" as is "complicity or participation in torture", and if Dick Cheney in his capacity as vice president was "a big supporter of waterboarding", then the case against him is obvious. It is equally obvious, however, that this case will never be prosecuted. Even though the attorney general is supposed to implement the law apolitically, Eric Holder is an Obama appointee, and he knows that putting a Republican former vice president on trial would derail Obama's presidency.

Jonathon Bernstein goes further to argue that, even if we accept the necessity of sacrificing Obama's presidential agenda for the moral imperative of opposing torture, prosecutions would not achieve the desired goal of preventing torture by future American administrations (emphasis added):

If Obama and Holder decide to prosecute, there's little question of the results: Republicans of all stripes would rally around their now-persecuted friends from the Bush administration. Republicans of all stripes would feel the need to justify the actions that the torturers took, and to do so they would double down on tales of how effective torture was at supposedly stopping all sorts of nasty terror attacks. Republicans, I tend to think close to unanimously, would refuse to have any part in any Truth Commission. They wouldn't serve on it, and they wouldn't accept its results; they would brand it a partisan witch hunt. Torturers and those who worked with torturers wouldn't testify. How could they? They'd be incriminating themselves and their coworkers. So the commission might demonstrate some of the truth, but would achieve no reconciliation at all. The deterrent factor for the future would rest on one thing alone, the ability of the Justice Department to obtain convictions and serious sentences, although such sentences would be gone, at least for policy makers once the next Republican president was sworn into office. And yet even then, the more Republicans solidify into the torture party, the more they would be likely to change the law and treaty obligations once they win the White House. In my view, a not at all unlikely result of prosecutions is withdrawal from Geneva during the next Republican administration.

[...]

OK, what happens with pardon plus commission? Hard core supporters of torture, including Dick Cheney, will certainly continue to press their case. But there's a real chance that they can be marginalized within their own party. Once his son is no longer in legal jeopardy, and assuming that his personal views are anti-torture (which I think is likely), then George Herbert Walker Bush might well be persuaded to speak out publicly and privately on the issue. Other Republicans respected by Washingtonians -- Lugar, James Baker, Dole, former CIA, FBI, and other government leaders, perhaps McCain -- might follow. As I've said before, I think it's realistic to hope that some of the Bush folks might join that chorus, perhaps even the former president himself. As Andrew Sullivan has done, Republicans could invoke Ronald Reagan (not to mention George Washington and other American heroes) in making their case against the acts that took place -- as long as they do not also have to condemn the people who performed those acts. With them on board, and with the threat of prosecution no bar to testifying, a real Truth Commission could function. Such a commission (and all commissioners, Democrats, Republicans, and others) would take it as a given that the United States should abide by Geneva, and therefore could consider evidence of any possible gains from torture in the proper context.

Basically, I think criminal sanctions on past war criminals are far less likely to prevent future war crimes than would a restoration of the American consensus against torture. I can't guarantee that pardon plus commission would achieve that, but every bit of political instinct that I have says that prosecutions would prevent it. If one is really against torture, it seems to me that preventing future torture is far more important than punishment of the torturers -- the latter should only happen if it is a means to an end, not for revenge, and not even for justice. The current best path toward that end is a generous pardon, as hard as that might be to swallow for opponents of torture. Separate the acts from the actors, and the chances of preventing future acts are much, much, better.

Bernstein's analysis is as strong a case as I've seen made against prosecuting war crimes. To address just one point, though, I think he overestimates the ability of future administrations to come out in full support of torture, or at least their ability to get away with such a thing. "[W]ithdrawal from Geneva during the next Republican administration" might seem feasible in a purely domestic American political calculus, if we take the pessimistic view that Americans either don't care or can be easily fooled into fully rejecting international law, but such an act would spell disaster for American foreign policy.

As powerful as America is on its own, it cannot project its power in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Iran, or North Korea (to mention just a few examples), without the support of the international community, and most importantly the rest of the "Western world" (i.e.: NATO). America's ability to lead alliances is determined by (1) its position as the leading military and economic power in the world, and (2) its status as a member in-good-standing of the law-abiding international community.

Because America is, as Madeleine Albright famously put it, the "indispensable nation", it can maintain its "law-abiding" status despite a number of violations of international law. But it is unlikely that even America could summon the military and intelligence cooperation of countries like Germany, Britain, France, or Canada if it formally removes itself from the international legal framework. After all, those governments would then be answerable to their own citizenry and to institutions like the International Criminal Court (America is the only Western country that does not recognize the ICC), who would hold them complicit for co-operating with a regime that openly rejects international law. The Bush administration eroded many of America's strongest alliances over the Iraq war, but I doubt any administration would be willing to risk those alliances entirely over torture.

The question of formal withdrawal from Geneva and/or the UN Convention against Torture notwithstanding, Bernstein's broader point is well worth considering. What is the most reliable way to prevent future U.S. administrations from re-imposing the Bush administration's system of torture: deterrence through prosecution or consensus-building through pardon? It's hard to say. What is clear, however, from watching Dick Cheney boasting of his criminal behaviour and promoting its adoption by his successors, is that the Obama administration's suspend-torture-while-pretending-it-never-happened approach is as ineffective in the long term as it is morally reprehensible today.

The Joy of Physics

2010-02-05T15:16:00.006-05:00

Let’s say you’re sitting in your office looking out the window and onto a construction site. A crane is repeatedly lifting a heavy metal weight and dropping onto a pole, driving that pole into the ground. It looks something like this:

Watching the crane do its work, you notice something unusual happening. You can see the weight hit the pole a few split seconds before you hear it, like a movie where the video and audio are just slightly out of sync. Of course, this makes perfect sense. You see the weight hit when the light reflected off of it reaches your eyes, whereas you hear it when the sound it produces reaches your ears. The speed of light is approximately one million times faster than the speed of sound (about 870,000 times faster in dry air at room temperature, to be more precise), and so the light gets to you first. This is the same reason why you see lightning before you hear thunder, except that the clouds are much farther away and so the two are separated by seconds rather than a fraction of a second.

And you can use this knowledge as your own measuring stick.

That’s right: I offer you here a simple physics recipe for measuring distance using nothing more than a cell phone and an internet connection.

Step 1: Go to the stopwatch on your cell phone (it probably has one).

Step 2: Look out of your window and closely watch the crane. Start your stopwatch when you see the weight hit the pole, and pause it when you hear the noise. Do not resent your stopwatch.

Step 3: Repeat step 2 numerous times (at least 20) so as to average out some of the error caused by your reaction time.

Step 4: Using the calculator on your cell phone (it probably has one), take the total time measured on your stop watch, and divide it by the number of repetitions.

Step 5: Use your internet connection to go to Wikipedia and look up the speed of sound (343 m/s in dry air at 20oC). If you want to get fancy, look up and apply the formula for correcting the speed of sound for temperature (331+0.606 x Temperature-in-degrees-C).

Step 6: Multiply the number you get in Step 4 by the number you get in Step 5.

Voila! You now know the distance between you and the crane. Bon appétit.

Bonus extra fancy recipe: for more fun, you can attempt to determine the sources of error in this experiment and apply them to your results.

For example, if you’re looking at the crane through a window, your numbers are going to be slightly off because the glass will affect the speed of sound.

Also, while the averaging technique used in Steps 3 and 4 helps if the error in your reaction time is random, it wouldn’t help with a systemic error. If, for example, you consistently anticipate sight but consistently react to sound, your time measurements are all going to be slightly too high, causing you to overestimate the distance.

Feel free to throw in any other sources of error you think suit this experiment.

Obama Proposes A Spending Freeze

2010-01-26T23:52:00.004-05:00

Transcript of a call from the President of the United States to the Ghost of Fiscal Sanity:

POTUS: Hello? Ghost world? Is the Ghost of Fiscal Sanity there?

GOC: Hang on. I’ll check.

GOFS: Hello?

POTUS: Hey there, Ghost of Fiscal Sanity. How’ve you been?

GOFS: Well, Mr. President, it looks like we've survived the financial collapse, but the stimulus has only added to our long-term deficit.

POTUS: Don’t worry. I’m just about to announce a spending freeze that’ll bring the deficit under control.

GOFS: Great Milton’s glasses! Do you have any idea how long I’ve been waiting for an administration serious about deficit reduction? This is great!

POTUS: Yeah, I know! But, hey, you know I’m going to have to make one or two exceptions. Pick my battles and all that.

GOFS: But you’re still taking on all the big programs that are ballooning out of control, aren’t you?

POTUS: Well, we can’t touch entitlements. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all written into law.

GOFS: But that’s more than 60% of spending right there. And it’s the fastest growing part of government spending!

POTUS: Those programs would have to be reformed by Congress. Do you want to hold your breath waiting for that to happen?

GOFS: How do you think I became a ghost?

POTUS: But discretionary spending we can hit. We’ll have a freeze pretty much across the board there.

GOFS: “Pretty much”?

POTUS: Well, freezing defence is out of the question.

GOFS: Uh-huh. Because half of the discretionary budget isn’t enough for defence?

POTUS: We’re at war! I have to be a strong leader!

GOFS: Where have I heard that before? What else?

POTUS: That’s about it, really. No major exceptions beyond that … (mumbles indistinctly)

GOFS: What was that?

POTUS: Well, homeland security, foreign aid, and veterans affairs will be exempt.

GOFS: Oh, come on!

POTUS: What do you expect me to do? Have you seen the news? Some guy just tired to bomb us with his underwear!

GOFS: Let me see if I’ve got this straight, then. All the programs you’re freezing add up to less than 15% of the budget?

POTUS: Well, I’m not actually freezing all of those programs. We’re going to be smarter than that. By pledging to keep that 15% of the budget frozen overall, I can still increase spending in some parts of it, and use my commitment to an overall freeze to cut other, more wasteful parts. So I can still increase spending on education, while cutting farm subsidies to compensate.

GOFS: And you’ll actually stand up to those special interests?

POTUS: Once I’ve got Congress on board.

GOFS: …

POTUS: Are you still there?

GOFS: Give me the bottom line. Out of the projected 9 trillion dollar deficit we’re expecting to accumulate in the next ten years, how much is this “freeze” of yours going to save?

POTUS: About 250 billion.

GOFS: Less than 3%.

POTUS: Let’s call it 250 billion. 250 is a bigger number than 9. Haven't you noticed?

GOFS: And you expect this to help the economy?

POTUS: Well, actually, the economy is still in trouble, which means that we’re going to need to spend another 150 billion dollars in stimulus over the next few months.

GOFS: And under your new system of discretionary offsets, what programs are you going to be cutting later on to make up for those 150 billion?

POTUS: No, no, no. The freeze doesn’t take effect until October. We’ll be spending the 150 billion before that.

GOFS: I give up.

POTUS: You can’t give up on me. I’m all about hope and change.

GOFS: Wait a minute. You’re talking about the need to stimulate the economy because it’s at risk, and yet you want to “freeze” spending. How do you know the economy won’t need another stimulus package after October?

POTUS: Oh, yeah, that reminds me. Is the Ghost of Change still there?

GOFS: Hang on. I'll check.

Reforming Democracy: Thank God for Third Parties

2010-01-20T22:23:00.003-05:00

Let me see if I've got this straight: This time last year, the Democrats controlled the presidency and 58 out of 100 seats in the Senate. This was considered to be a sweeping mandate for them to enact whatever agenda they saw fit. To sweeten the deal, over the next few months, Democratic control in the senate expanded to 60 seats. Now, with Republican Sam Brown winning the late Ted Kennedy's seat, the Democrats have dropped to 59. Still holding the presidency, and with one more seat than what they had this time last year, the consensus is that they should now panic and realize that they no longer have the mandate or ability to accomplish anything in Washington.

The fact that the party that still maintains a solid legislative majority is now paralyzed emphasizes the silliness of America's senatorial filibuster, whereby a single senator can indefinitely delay a vote on legislation unless he or she is voted down by a 60-senator super-majority. So, if Republicans choose to filibuster every major Democratic piece of legislation, as they will with health care reform, the Democrats' majority becomes ineffectual.

The longest and most famous filibuster in US senate history was that of Republican Strom Thurmond, who spent over 24 hours talking on the senate floor holding back the vote on the Civil Rights Act (the 1964 law which extended equal voting rights to African Americans). So can we expect to see Republican senators giving speeches that go on for hours and hours just to prevent health care reform from being enacted into law? No, because this is where the system gets really silly. In the modern conventions of the senate, senators are no longer required to filibuster in order to filibuster. All the opposition has to do is declare its intent to filibuster, at which point the majority tries to whip up a super-majority for cloture. If a cloture vote fails, then the filibuster is assumed to be in effect and the bill is assumed to be on hold, even if the 'filibusterer' isn't doing any talking.

But this idea of filibustering without filibustering is just a recently adopted convention, one that can be changed in an instant by Democratic senate majority leader Harry Reid. If Reid were to announce tomorrow that anyone wishing to filibuster the health care reform bill would have to actually stand and talk non-stop, or think up pointless amendments to the legislation and force a vote on every one of them (as filibustering legislators of the past have had to do), then the Republicans would have no choice but to play by his rules. They would only be able to filibuster for so long, and the Democrats' desired legislation would pass. Alternately, since the Democrats knew they would lose their super-majority sooner or later, they could have properly reformed the system by getting rid of the filibuster entirely.

Why won't Reid set a tough precedent on filibusters, and why didn't Democrats try to reform the system when they had the chance? One reason is that they know that sooner of later, they will lose power, so any changes to the rules that hurt the Republicans today will eventually come back and hurt the Democrats. This is the disadvantage of America's two-party political system: each party knows that, at any given time, it is either the ruling party or the ruling-party-in-waiting. There is little hope for institutional reform because any unfair advantage that one party has at a given time will eventually come to the other party, and vice versa.

Here in Canada we have our own institutional problems, where the prime minister's ability to unilaterally prorogue parliament has been abused twice in the past two years. The Liberals, under Michael Ignatieff, could have proposed to change the system to make prorogation more difficult for the prime minister, but they haven't. After all, they expect to be the governing party again at some point, so why would they want to limit their own future powers? Similarly, Harper's Conservatives spent years complaining about the unelected Canadian senate when they were in the opposition. Now that he is in power, Harper still pays lip service to senate reform, but he has taken little action to reform the institution, and has in fact been appointing a number of unelected Conservatives to the body. Once again, parties that are either governing or expecting to govern show little genuine interest in institutional reform.

However, we Canadians are at an advantage in that we have more than two parties in parliament, even if only two parties exchange government. But it is precisely because Jack Layton doesn't expect to be prime minister that the NDP is the party proposing to change the rules on prorogation so as to limit the prime minister's power. And, for all the other situations where I would criticize the NDP, they should be praised for making this effort. So here's to smaller parties. America, you should look into them.

Prorogation And Cynicism

2010-01-15T22:46:00.000-05:00

In a way, democratic government is a very cynical system. Or, to rephrase in a way that is more precise and less depressing: democratic government is based on a clear-eyed view of the cynicism of politicians. We recognize that politicians are primarily concerned with achieving and maintaining power. Therefore, we set up a system whereby, to get what they want, they have to win our approval. If we're informed enough, winning our approval entails serving our interests. The point is that we don't expect politicians to just do what's best for us; we fully expect them to do what's best for themselves. We just try to craft a system that forces them to serve our interests in trying to serve their own.

This is why I'm glad to see that Stephen Harper's outrageous decision to once again suspend Parliament as a way of escaping his political troubles is costing him in public approval. None of the weak and shifting excuses offered for this year's prorogation ('It's just a routine procedure', 'We need time to implement our economic plan', 'We need to focus on the Olympics', 'Chretien did much worse in the 90s', and my personal favourite: 'Parliament destabilizes the markets') have fooled people into seeing this as anything but an attempt to shut down the debate on the mistreatment of Afghan detainees transferred from our custody.

But, considering the degree to which a prime minister can abuse his power to suspend Parliament (the limits of which Mr. Harper seems keen on testing), the loss of a few points in the polls seems too mild a disincentive. One possible remedy would be, as has been suggested elsewhere, to require a House of Commons vote before prorogation can be requested from the Governor General. This way, prorogation can no longer serve as a means of avoiding Parliament, unless Parliament wants to be avoided.

Whether our system needs to be changed depends on whether this kind of behaviour is to be expected from any prime minister, or whether Mr. Harper's hostility to accountability is exceptional. For all the cynicism expressed in my introduction, I don't think that politicians are driven purely by the lust for power. Some politicians will still draw lines for themselves, with respect to certain ethics or traditions, that they will not cross. If this were not the case, given the amount of power a prime minister theoretically has, especially with a majority, we would have been in a lot of trouble a long time ago.

Which is to say that the best way to deal with the Prime Minister's insult to Parliament is, in this case, to replace the Prime Minister. Were we to set this example, we can expect future prime ministers to know better than to disrespect our democratic institutions.

The Second Annual Kirmalak Awards

2009-12-31T18:21:00.002-05:00

Hearty thanks to all who offered their nominations for this year. I look forward to hearing from you about the final picks.

Political Success: Manmohan Singh

The former finance minister had already surprised the world in 2004 by winning election as India's first non-Hindu prime minister. This year, he turned what was supposed to be a close and difficult election in the world's largest democracy into a major victory, becoming only the second prime minister to win re-election after a full term (the first was the one and only Nehru). I am not informed enough to judge his ability as a prime minister, but his success as a politician speaks for itself.

Political Failure: Mahmoud Abbas

Many were surprised when, earlier this year, the Palestinian Authority president announced that he would not run for re-election. Their reaction speaks volumes about the state of Palestinian leadership. In any system emphasizing accountability, the real surprise would be for Abbas to attempt to hold to his seat. As president, he did not bring the Palestinians any closer to freedom. As party leader, he oversaw Fatah's electoral trouncing by Hamas. He has failed at starting any real negotiations with Israel, failed at maintaining Palestinian unity, and failed at standing up for his people's most basic rights. And it is not that his failures far outweigh his achievements, but rather that he has no real achievements to which he can point.

Dictator: Ali Khamenei

Was the Iranian presidential election stolen? If so, who exactly stole it, and how? We'll never know. But by refusing to address the serious questions raised in the vote counts last summer, and instead attempting to secure Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's position by invoking a mandate from God and unleashing a campaign of repression, Iran's Supreme Leader revealed his heretofore thinly-veiled tyranny.

Activists: The Green Revolutionaries

Even as the Iranian regime has managed to arrest or intimidate the movement's known leaders and sympathizers, tens of thousands of Iranians continue to take to the street. Ever since the summer's election, they have used every opportunity - every holiday, funeral, or other event - to fight for their freedom from dictatorship. It is worth remembering that, in 1979, it took a whole year of protests to topple the Shah. It is too early to say whether the Green movement will similarly succeed, but my heart is surely with them.

Pioneers: The Nobel Peace Prize Committee

Their decision to award the Nobel Peace prize to a president who, while speaking admirably about peace, is fighting two wars (and who has since started a third campaign in Yemen) would have made Orwell either laugh or cry. In stretching the boundaries of "peace" beyond credulity, they are pioneers .. of sorts.

Unexpectedly Important Person: Michael Jackson

His career changed pop music and celebrity culture. His death didn't change the world, and yet the whole world seemed transfixed by it, making him the most unexpectedly important person of this year.

Media person: Jon Stewart

Those who don't get The Daily Show thought that it would have nothing to satirize after the Bush years came to an end. But for Jon Stewart the real joke has always been "the absurdity of the system", as he calls it, with the failed media being his most relished targets. His take-down of Jim Cramer remains, on several levels, the most brilliant television interview of the year. Beyond that, he has continued to excoriate the news networks not just by mocking them but by providing a counter-example, underneath all the humour, of how real journalism could be done.

Bloggers: Iranian Twitterers

It is not clear how much using Twitter to communicate information within and outside the country has helped the Iranian protesters. Nevertheless, for using what has mostly been an inane indulgence for some measure of practical good, these micro-bloggers deserve credit.

Athlete: Roger Federer

If he had a winning record against his top rival, Raphael Nadal, few would contest Federer's status as the greatest player in the history of tennis. As it stands, a number of experts have already declared him to be so, and almost everyone acknowledges that he is at least the best player around today. He beat Pete Sampras' career Grand Slam record at a young enough age to be able to win a few more still. And he has been a class act against his opponents, on and off the court.

Artists: The Makers of Sesame Street

In humble gratitude for four decades of sunny days and funny learning.

Most Significant Country: Iran

Yes, this is the fourth Iran-related award, which might indicate an overemphasis on my part. Then again, with its nuclear programme remaining a key security question, its proxy war with Saudi Arabia in Yemen increasing the danger in the region, and the internal turmoil within its borders constituting the most significant regional uprising in some time, I maintain that Iran was the country to watch this year.

Peacemaker: Malaysia

The government of Malaysia, whose other successes and flaws are best discussed elsewhere, deserves credit for quietly pushing to broker a deal in the decades-long internal conflict in the Philippines.

Aggressor: Israel

As in the case of last year's award recipient, Russia, the term "aggressor" might not be the best in that it implies that the responsibility for the latest round of Israeli-Palestinian fighting rests solely on one side. This is not the case, and yet Israel's wholesale destruction of Palestinian lives and infrastructure while supposedly aiming only to defeat or weaken Hamas was unconscionable. Moreover, Israel has exacerbated the outrage by fighting against any calls for introspection on its part, most notably the report of Richard Goldstone. Israel is not, by any fair assessment, among the worst of the worst when it comes to human rights violations. But by laying claim to the rights and respect of a modern democracy, while mimicking the actions of rogue countries and despots, it continues to play a large role in undermining the very idea of international law.

Scientific Achievement: Bombing the Moon

The LCROSS mission, while getting its fair share of hype beforehand, was not that impressive on TV, and so many people probably didn't give it much attention overall. But its results have been significant. As part of a larger mission to observe and study the moon, and prepare for potential future manned missions, NASA decided to slam a robotic spacecraft into a Cabeus lunar crater and observe the resulting plume for water. And water they found, with all its potential uses for future space exploration. Oh, and bombing the moon is just plain cool.

Cultural Achievement: International Domain Names

The idea of opening up communications to the whole globe is central to the point of the internet. People from all over the world can start websites in just about any language of their choice. And yet domain names remained a barrier. For example, while I can write in Arabic on this blog, the name kirmalak.com in the address bar has to be in the Latin alphabet. But this year, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers opened the doors to Internationalized Domain Names, allowing web hosts to start domains in any other alphabet. Hopefully, this serves as a step to expand internet use to even more people around the world.

And with that, we bring this year's awards to a close. Happy Tens, everyone.

Top 10 Reasons to Want to Be Alive, Healthy, and Rich Years from Now

2009-12-07T20:26:00.005-05:00

Somewhere on that list: being able to see Earth from outer space.

It's fair to say that some of our most significant technological advances are ones that the vast majority of us never saw coming, like the Internet. Space travel is different. We've been predicting the normalization of space flight ever since the first cosmonauts and astronauts escaped from our planet's atmosphere. And we're not just talking about futuristic science fiction like 2001, Star Trek, and Star Wars. Roald Dahl imagined wrote about space tourism in Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, his 1972 sequel to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Now, Richard Branson is about to make that dream a reality. Granted, SpaceShip Two will only enter space long enough to allow its passengers to experience 6 minutes of weightlessness. And it won't even start to do that for another year or two at the earliest. And it costs $200,000 a ticket. But once a technology is out in the market, it has a way of improving in quality and dropping in price. Which means that, in another ten or twenty years, the opportunity to orbit the Earth could be available to you for tens of thousands of dollars. Which means that more of us may just be able to afford the trip of a lifetime.

Update: Over at Maclean's, Colby Cosh throws cold water over the Richard Branson announcement. Apparently my nerd license is in want of checking.

Road to 2010: Day of the Draw

2009-12-05T10:22:00.001-05:00

The qualifiers are over, the 32 entrants into the 2010 World Cup finals have been decided. This coming June, the world's most popular sporting tournament will be on in South Africa. And yesterday, FIFA made the draw to determine the eight groups of four for the first round.

The draw is not purely random. The teams are already divided into four pots of eight, such that no two teams from the same pot can end up in the same group. This arrangement is meant to skew the odds towards (1) better football, and (2) more diversity. So, by putting all the strongest qualifiers in the first pot, FIFA ensures that the best teams don't eliminate each other before the knockout stage. Similarly, by allowing only one team from each confederation (continent) into each group (with the exception of Europe, from which no more than two teams may be in the same group), the likelihood of a more diverse distribution in the knockout stage is increased.

Here's how it worked out:

Group 1: South Africa, Mexico, Uruguay, France

Group 2: Argentina, Nigeria, Korea Republic (South Korea), Greece

Group 3: England, USA, Algeria, Slovenia

Group 4: Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana

Group 5: Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Cameroon

Group 6: Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia

Group 7: Brazil, Korea DPR (North Korea), Côte d'Ivoire, Portugal

Group 8: Spain, Switzerland, Honduras, Chile

After playing a full round-robing, the top two teams from each group will make it to the knockout stage.

The first member of each group comes from the first pot of the top seeds. South Africa is not a top seed - in fact, they're one of the weakest teams in this tournament - but the hosts were put in the first pot to improve their odds of moving to the knockout stage. This means that former champions France, who arguably should not be in the cup to begin with, have lucked out on this draw.

The second group should be interesting. The Argentines are two-time cup winners, but haven't been playing at their best lately. The Greeks are not a great team, but they are former winners of the European Cup (sometimes known as the second World Cup, since Europe hosts most of the best teams anyway). But African soccer has been getting stronger in recent years, and Nigeria is a good representation of that. They'll be looking to repeat Cameroon's surprise upset of Argentina in 1990.

There's a lot of talk that 2010 really could be England's year. They played brilliantly in their qualifiers, and this third group draw will give them little cause for complaint. In 2006, England had one of the best defensive records in the World Cup, but in this year's qualifiers they had the highest scoring record. If they dominate their group, they'll come out with a lot of confidence in the second round. For fans of Arab soccer: sorry, but coming out ahead of England and the USA is a very long shot.

The fourth group, like the second, is a middling group. Three-time winners Germany have seen better days, which means that the reasonably good Australia, Serbia, and Ghana all have a shot at an upset. Germany will still most likely make it to the second round, but the fight for that second spot will be intense.

Anyone who's listened to me talk about international football for more than ten minutes has heard me say that the Netherlands are the most deserving team never to have won a World Cup. Their exit from the 2006 Cup was painful (the Netherlands-Portugal match must have been one of the ugliest in the history of the game), but they were the first team to qualify for 2010, and did so almost flawlessly. Their game against Cameroon could end up being quite a battle, though.

In the sixth group, the Italy-Paraguay game should be a tough one, but neither team should have too hard a time winning through to the knockout stage.

Brazilian football is, of course, the most timeless of any country's (they always seem to range from pretty great to amazing), and Côte d'Ivoire couldn't have had a tougher draw than the one that pits them against both the five-time World Cup winners and Portugal. With North Korea at the bottom, this seventh group must be the most unbalanced.

Reigning Euro-champions Spain are another top contender for the 2010 World Cup. They also powered through the qualifiers, and should be able to top their group without too much trouble.

So there you have it. It's going to be quite a June.

Nominations Now Open: Announcing the Second Annual Kirmalak Awards

2009-12-01T06:55:00.002-05:00

Last year, just for the fun of it, this blog celebrated the end of 2008 with the "Kirmalak Awards", a way of noting notable achievements, good and bad, and the achievers who achieved them.

This year, come December 31st, a new list of award winners will be announced. But rather than thinking through this one by myself, I thought it would be fun to ask for nominations from you the readers.

Here's the list of categories, with last year's winners (you can read the full post here):

Political success: Barack Obama

Political failure: Stéphane Dion

Dictator: Robert Mugabe

Activist/Dissident: Amy Balliett

Pioneer: Amal Suleiman

Unexpectedly Important Person: Henry Paulson

Media Person: Barry Blitt

Blogger/Alternate Media: Nate Silver

Athlete: Usain Bolt

Artist: Heath Ledger

Most Significant Country: Pakistan

Peacemaker: Turkey

Aggressor: Russia

Scientific Achievement: The Large Hadron Collider

Cultural Achievement: The Beijing Olympics

So, who do you think best embodied all things politically successful this year? Or all things athletic? Feel free to be creative with your nominations. For example, just because an award went to a person last year, doesn't mean it can't go to a group, party, organization, or country this year. And, of course, you don't have to fill out the full list of categories, just the ones that interest you. You don't have to justify your nominations, but a word or two of explanation wouldn't hurt.

You can make your nominations here in the comments section, or by e-mail at kirmalak-at-gmail-dot-com. Nominations made by e-mail will be kept anonymous.

Have fun! Nominations are open until the list of winners is published.

Switzerland's Ban On Minarets (57 percent? Really?)

2009-11-29T22:40:00.004-05:00

"I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work." - Kent Brockman, The Simpsons

"The foundations of Switzerland's direct democracy have failed." - Andreas Gross, Swiss parliamentarian and president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

(Apparently life does imitate art from time to time.)

There is no such thing as a pure democracy. That is to say, there is no country where all or even most political and legal decisions are made by national referendum. The practical reason for this is that such a system would be highly inefficient. But the more important principled reason is that, in a pure democracy, minorities are highly vulnerable to the prejudices of the majority. This is why the different branches of government - executive, legislative, and judicial - do not act merely as checks and balances on each other, but also (and somewhat paradoxically) as buffers against the very popular impulses from which they draw their legitimacy.

Today's referendum in Switzerland, where 57% of voters (with an estimated 53% turnout) voted to ban the construction of minarets in their country, demonstrates the need for such buffers. A plurality of the country, in an apparent message of fear and hostility towards its 5% Muslim minority, chose to single out a single form of architecture with prohibition. While I am unfamiliar with the details of the Swiss or European legal systems, it is hard to imagine that such a blatantly discriminatory attack on freedom of religion and expression, with no practical justification, would be upheld by any court that respects basic human rights.

Even if the ban were to stand, however, it would be of little immediate consequence. There are only four minarets in all of Switzerland, and minarets are in no way religiously required for a mosque to be complete. No, what is disappointing about today's vote is not what it means for Switzerland's minarets but what it says about Switzerland's population. The fact that millions of people came to see an innocuous form of religious expression as an intolerable social and political threat suggests that anti-Muslim bigotry in Europe is very real. Does anyone really believe that this will help Swiss Muslims become more integrated into society, rather than more alienated from it?

Like I said, I still believe that Switzerland and Europe's institutions are strong enough to protect Muslims' rights from this kind of attack on their freedom, and am hopeful that Swiss Muslims will put their confidence in these institutions as well. What I am growing less confident about is Swiss society's capacity for tolerance and respect, and what these kinds of moves against religious practice may portend for Europe in general.

Hard Lessons

2009-11-28T08:20:00.000-05:00

In 1985, disaster struck the European Cup final between Juventus and Liverpool when rioting English fans caused a dividing wall to collapse at Heysel stadium, killing 39 fans and injuring over 400. Two days later, England's Football Association banned all English teams from playing in Europe. The decision was backed by Margaret Thatcher, and was announced in front of Number 10 Downing Street.

If only the Iron Lady's fortitude were with us today. Instead, as Egyptian and Algerian fans have competed to see who can act the most outrageously, the Egyptian leadership has not only failed to take a stand against this behaviour, but has in fact been actively fanning the flames. We have government officials and a once-again visible president's son hitting the airwaves with the most outrageous statements, claiming to defend the honour of Egypt and her children.

At first, I thought that the stone-throwing against the Algerian team's bus in Egypt, or the attacks against the Egyptian fans in Sudan, or the attempted riot on the Algerian embassy in Egypt were motivated by an unhealthy obsession with football. My reaction then was to say "People, I'm upset over Egypt's failure to qualify for South Africa, too. I've been dreaming of seeing Egypt return to the World Cup ever since, as a child, I watched Shobeir, El-Kas, and the Hassan twins play in Italy in 1990. And I know what a shame it is that a line-up that includes Treika, Hadary, and Zidane may never get to play in the world's greatest sporting tournament. But in the end, it's still only a game."

That was then, when I still thought this was about football. But it now seems that the events of the past few weeks have only torn the lid off a deeper problem, a twisted form of nationalism that prefers to reject what lies outside its borders than to reform what lies within them. As disappointing as the hooliganism of a small minority or as the recklessness of our leadership are all the anti-Algerian slurs and stereotypes that have so quickly become accepted into our dialogue, and the fantastical conspiracy theories that have so easily been believed. Have things in Egypt really become so bad that we have to describe our fellow Arabs as murderers and thugs just to feel better about ourselves?

In the end, this outrage will pass. I'm even optimistic that the bad blood between Algeria and Egypt may dissipate as easily as it appeared. But we ought to draw some lessons from this experience, and try to understand how a simple game set off such a firestorm. Because a public that is this easily distracted from real issues can easily stay oppressed, and a nationalism that can be manipulated into such a frenzy can be used to dangerous ends.

The Making and Unmaking of Radical Islamists

2009-11-16T19:52:00.003-05:00

Johann Hari has produced a not-to-be-missed piece of journalism on "ex-Jihadis" in Britain. A sample:

His journey towards Islamism began, he says, at the sandy edge of Essex, in the dilapidated coastal town of Southend-on-Sea. It is an old, elegant Victorian resort town drooping under a century of disrepair, reduced to a smattering of tatty arcades and a long, neglected pier that reaches into a filthy sea. Maajid's parents were mildly prosperous first-generation immigrants from Pakistan. "My upbringing was completely liberal from the start," he says. "In fact, I didn't even have a Muslim identity." He went to mosque only once, when he was 11, and an imam hit him with a stick for speaking too loudly.

Asian families were a rarity there in the 1980s, but he had a large group of white friends and felt no different to them. Yet when Maajid turned 14, a strange political shift was taking place in Southend. It began – for him, at least – one evening when Maajid, his brother and his friends were at the funfair, leaping on and off the rides and eating candy floss. A group of young skinheads spotted them and started making Nazi salutes and shouting "Seig Heil".

Maajid and his mates "ran the hell out of there", but a white van pulled up and seven skinheads piled out, wielding machetes. They cornered Maajid and one of his white friends. To his astonishment, they turned to the friend and stabbed him repeatedly with a carving knife, shrieking: "Traitor! Traitor! Race traitor!" They drove off, leaving Maajid covered in his friend's blood.

The story of what happened next is buried in yellowing cuts from the local newspapers. A pack of unemployed young men who had been kicking around on Southend's beaches had joined the Neo-Nazi group Combat 18, named after Adolf Hitler's initials: A is "1" in the alphabet, H is "8". They targeted Maajid's friends one by one for befriending a "Paki". Over the next two years, three of his friends were stabbed, and one was smashed up with a hammer. Maajid began to distance himself from his white friends, out of guilt. He drifted instead towards a group of young black people who were also being terrorised by Combat 18. They would meet at house parties and marinate themselves in hip-hop, Public Enemy, and cannabis fumes. He says: "Feeling totally rejected by mainstream society, we were looking for an alternative identity, and we found the perfect, cool, fashionable identity through listening to hip-hop and speeches by Malcolm X."

One day, his brother came home bearing a sheath of leaflets saying Muslims were being massacred all over the world, from India to Bosnia to Southend. He had stumbled on a stall in the High Street manned by a group called Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT). They said he would never be accepted in irreparably corrupt, decadent and racist Britain: Combat 18 were the snarl hidden behind every net curtain. Western society was merely a purgatory for Muslims, and the only escape could be to migrate to a renewed and perfect caliphate somewhere in Arabia. He joined up that day.

Through further encounters, Hari arrives at a general point:

Ed Husain, a former leader of HT, says: "On a basic level, we didn't know who we were. People need a sense of feeling part of a group – but who was our group?" They were lost in liberalism, beached between two unreachable identities – their parents', and their country's. They knew nothing of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or the other places they were constantly told to "go home" to by racists.

Yet they felt equally shut out of British or democratic identity. From the right, there was the brutal nativist cry of "Go back where you came from!" But from the left, there was its mirror-image: a gooey multicultural sense that immigrants didn't want liberal democratic values and should be exempted from them. Again and again, they described how at school they were treated as "the funny foreign child", and told to "explain their customs" to the class. It patronised them into alienation.

"Nobody ever said – you're equal to us, you're one of us, and we'll hold you to the same standards," says Husain. "Nobody had the courage to stand up for liberal democracy without qualms. When people like us at [Newham] College were holding events against women and against gay people, where were our college principals and teachers, challenging us?"

Without an identity, they created their own. It was fierce and pure and violent, and it admitted no doubt.

To my surprise, the ex-jihadis said their rage about Western foreign policy – which was real, and burning – emerged only after their identity crises, and as a result of it. They identified with the story of oppressed Muslims abroad because it seemed to mirror the oppressive disorientation they felt in their own minds. Usman Raja, a bluff, buff boxer who begged to become a suicide bomber in the mid-1990s, tells me: "Your inner life is chaotic and you feel under threat the whole time. And then you're told by Islamists that life for Muslims everywhere is chaotic and under threat. It becomes bigger than you. It's about the world – and that's an amazing relief. The answer isn't inside your confused self. It's out there in the world."

But once they had made that leap to identify with the Umma – the global Muslim community – they got angrier the more abusive our foreign policy came. Every one of them said the Bush administration's response to 9/11 – from Guantanamo to Iraq – made jihadism seem more like an accurate description of the world. Hadiya Masieh, a tiny female former HT organiser, tells me: "You'd see Bush on the television building torture camps and bombing Muslims and you think – anything is justified to stop this. What are we meant to do, just stand still and let him cut our throats?"

But the converse was – they stressed – also true. When they saw ordinary Westerners trying to uphold human rights, their jihadism began to stutter. Almost all of them said that they doubted their Islamism when they saw a million non-Muslims march in London to oppose the Iraq War: "How could we demonise people who obviously opposed aggression against Muslims?" asks Hadiya.

There's much more in the full article, and since I really want you to read it, I won't comment at length. I'll just mention the key two points that I took away:

1) While this article is thought provoking in its depth, its scope is limited to the radicalization and subsequent de-radicalization of a small minority of native-born British Muslims. Many of its lessons are probably applicable to other parts of Europe, and some may even be relevant here in North America. It is of limited value, however, in explaining the different causes of radicalism in different parts of the Muslim world. These observations are not meant to criticize, by the way, but rather to focus on where the conclusions of the article are most useful.

2) The strongest weapon that the Western world has against the potential radicalization of its Muslim minorities is its own set of values. By being proudly pluralistic, where proud pluralism implies not just being inclusive of all cultural groups but to expect people of all cultures to respect that spirit of inclusiveness, we give members of our minorities a place to belong. And by standing up for human rights and the rule of law both here and around the world, we rob radical groups of their ability to take advantage of those who do feel lost.

Will The Palestinians Declare Statehood? Should They?

2009-11-14T14:54:00.007-05:00

Rumours of quiet negotiations have been flying for at least a week now, but it was only today that a senior Palestinian Authority official admitted it on the record:

The Palestinian Authority is considering seeking recognition from the United Nations Security Council of a Palestinian state along 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital, senior negotiator Saeb Erekat told Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam in a report published Saturday.

Erekat said that the Palestinian Authority has already received support for the idea from other Arab states and added that Russia and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon have also apparently expressed support for the plan.

Erekat also said that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is trying to garner additional support for the proposal during his current visit to South American countries.

These statements should be taken with a grain of salt. Just ten days ago, Saeb Erekat was warning that the PA might abandon the idea of a state entirely due to lack of progress in peace negotiations with Israel. As is the case with Mahmoud Abbas' resignation, it is too early to tell whether this effort is genuine or whether it is just a way to force Israel back to the negotiating table.

But, if we run with the assumption that the Abbas and his crew are serious about gaining international recognition of statehood, and not just desperately trying to stay relevant, I can think of a number of reasons why they shouldn't, and an overriding reason why they should.

The first problem with establishing a state today is that the Palestinians have no government. There is certainly the appearance of a Palestinian Authority, and Mahmoud Abbas still travels around the world acting as the Palestinian president. Except that the authority is divided between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. And Abbas refuses to recognize that his term as president ended at the beginning of this year, just as Hamas' Ismail Haniyeh refuses to recognize that Abbas dismissed him as prime minister over two years ago. Abbas now claims that he will resign after the elections that he called for January of 2010, except that there is growing evidence that these elections will be delayed. There is no one with a clear mandate to govern a Palestinian state, and few institutions still standing with which to govern it.

Speaking of institutions, how would this Palestinian state enforce its borders and drive out its occupiers? Needless to say, no Palestinian security force or militia is equipped to take on the IDF. Even if the world were to recognize a state of Palestine, no one is going to try to force Israel out of its lands. And since it is guaranteed that Israel will not recognize Palestinian sovereignty, there is no reason to think that Israel would peacefully end the occupation by withdrawing its forces from the West Bank and lifting its siege off the Gaza Strip. If the occupation doesn't end, how will the Palestinians build their institutions or establish an independent economy? How would they even receive aid from the world if Israel decides to seal the borders of the West Bank as it has done with Gaza?

Which brings us to a key point: even given a state, the Palestinians would need to negotiate a peace with Israel in order to actually control their territory. Palestinian statehood does not necessitate Palestinian liberation. The Golan Heights demonstrate Israel's willingness to hold onto sovereign foreign territory for decades. A negotiated peace, like the 30-year old Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, is the most reliable and durable way of getting Israel out of Palestine.

So why should the Palestinians try for a unilateral declaration of statehood? Well, they shouldn't if it is a proclamation that is cheered on by many but not formally accepted by the international community. That is to say, this should not be a repeat of Yasser Arafat's hollow declaration of independence in 1988. But, if there is enough international support to gain formal recognition by the U.N., and if the United States can be persuaded not to veto such recognition in the Security Council (a U.S. veto, while likely, might not be guaranteed), then the Palestinians have an opportunity which should not be wasted.

We are so used to hearing the phrase "two-state solution" that many of us assume that it is only a matter of time before the Palestinians have their own state. But it is by no means a sure-thing. The present Israeli prime minister, when pushed hard to endorse a two-state solution, grudgingly gave a speech in which he envisioned a Palestinian "state" that would have some measure of governing autonomy but would lack territorial contiguity and would remain at the mercy of Israel. The present Palestinian government or government-in-exile in Gaza accepts the idea of a two-state solution as no more than a long-term truce.

It is tempting enough to dismiss this kind of rejectionism as being on the wrong side of historical inevitability, but the truth is that this "inevitability" seems to grow less viable the more it is deferred. For the U.N. to formally recognize a Palestinian state would place the rejectionists not just on the wrong side of a moral cause but of the law. This would not immediately stop them, but it would make it easier for the international community to stand against them.

Whenever and however the Palestinians achieve statehood, whether through bilateral negotiations or unilateral proclamation, the work that comes before and after this achievement will be difficult and complicated. But these complexities do not change the fact that Palestinian independence is a right. And if it is a right, then no opportunity to officially recognize and enshrine it should be missed.

Bon Jubilé, Astérix et Obélix!

2009-10-29T22:38:00.004-05:00

Et merci pour les bons souvenirs!

Canada: Let Sawiris In

2009-10-29T21:33:00.004-05:00

One of the things that used to annoy me whenever I visited Egypt is the ubiquitousness of cellphones. It seems that, some years ago, the cellphone market broke into every class and age group of Egyptian society. While Egypt is not an affluent society on average, and yet I saw cellphones spread much faster there than I've seen it happen here in Canada. I'm sure number of cultural explanations and criticisms of this phenomenon can be offered, but the simple materialistic logic of it is that cellphones became cheaper, and so more people bought them.

Similarly, when a university job allowed me to work closely with a number of newcomers to Canada from Japan and South Korea, I was regularly told that all of the "new" cellphone models in Canada were in fact at least two years old. This probably comes as no surprise, as we're used to associating the Far East, particularly Japan, with high-tech gizmos. But, really, with globalization being what it is, why would it take new technology so long to reach here?

The answer is simply lack of competition. You might think, from all of the telemarketing and junk mail that you get trying to get you to buy a new cellphone, that our domestic Canadian carriers are in hard competition to provide the best service possible. But, despite these intra-Canadian squabbles, cellphones and wireless service here remain high in price and lacking in quality (there are places in Kingston where I'll get a "Welcome to the United States" text message since the signal across the lake is stronger than the one here).

This situation, hardly dire but certainly disappointing, is not helped by the CRTC's decision to bar Globalive from becoming Canada's fourth cell phone carrier. The reason for this rejection is that Globalive is "not Canadian enough", as it is mostly backed by Naguib Sawiris' Orascom. For those who don't know the name, let me say briefly that the Sawirises are a huge Egyptian business dynasty. Naguib Sawiris is a multi-billionaire and his Orascom company is involved in a number of industries including telecommunications, where it is one of the biggest competitors on the international stage.

The introduction of a large multi-national competitor into the Canadian market is surely a frightening prospect for the Canadian telecommunications industry, and they must be breathing easier now that the regulator has chosen to support them with its protectionist decision. Good for them, and bad for the rest of us. The telecom industry may have more competition than other important industries here in Canada (airlines and railways, anyone?), but if it were enough, then we wouldn't be so afraid from letting Sawiris join the market.

The Fight For "Real" Islam

2009-10-29T21:15:00.003-05:00

The Daily News Egypt carries a quality article by Dr. Meena Sharify-Funk of Wilfred Laurier University here in Canada. The whole thing is definitely worth reading, but I just have to draw special attention to this awesome passage:

Among non-Muslims as well as among Muslims, it seems that everyone has become a stakeholder in the future of Islam, with everyone attempting to label groups with different perspectives: conservative Muslims compete with progressive Muslims for airtime, traditionalist Muslims denounce self-hating Muslims and Islamophobes alike. Meanwhile, moderate Muslims challenge militant Muslims, putative Muslim refuseniks denounce Muslim extremists, and would-be reformists repudiate apologists who refuse to embrace the need for change.

Why Google Might Just Rule The World

2009-10-29T18:58:00.004-05:00

Maybe it's strange that this never occurred to me before, but in this news story about OneBox, Google's newly introduced competitor to iTunes, these lines jump out:

According to Google, the words "music" and "lyrics" are among the top 10 search terms of all time.

"At Google, we see millions of music-related queries every day," said the company's vice president of search Marissa Mayer at the launch in Los Angeles.

"It is clear to us that for our users music holds a very special and particular place."

Translation: We know exactly what products to make. After all, the whole world is our marketing survey.

No, Obama Doesn't Deserve The Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-10T08:32:00.008-05:00

They say that if you establish a reputation as an early riser, you can sleep half the day every day. Not that the president of the United States slept in on Friday. No, Mr. Obama was up early enough in the morning to hear that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize, give a short but gracious speech accepting the award, and meet with his "war council" to discuss future strategy in Afghanistan.

I should mention that, despite pointing out the irony of the president's schedule, I meant no irony in describing Obama's speech as gracious. It was:

He seems sincere in his recognition that he does not deserve the award, just as most of his words and many of his deeds over the past year seem to reflect a sincere desire for a more peaceful world. But not every peace-loving individual, assuming Obama is such a person, deserves the world's highest award for peace, no more than every physicist deserves an award for physics. A sustained commitment and a record of achievement are required, and Obama is, to date, too light on both. Granted, he has so far outdone his predecessor in that he hasn't launched any bombing campaigns on any new countries (the moon doesn't count), but that's not saying much.

There is always a chance that the committee's choice will prove an inspired one. Maybe, as Obama put it, the "call to action" which this award represents will be answered by other leaders. Maybe those of us who are criticizing his win will apply some of our lofty standards for peace to ourselves. And maybe Obama will meet at least some of the high hopes that so many have in him as an agent of change and global harmony.

Or maybe his inner peacemaker will start sleeping in more often.

The Original Kings of Sketch Comedy

2009-10-07T21:15:00.004-05:00

Monday marked 40 years since the first episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus was originally aired. To this day, that crazy troupe still sets the bar:

Be sure to spread some Python laughs this week.

Reclaiming Stolen Steles

2009-10-07T17:21:00.002-05:00

I understand, and agree with, the Egyptian government's insistence that the stolen artifacts in the Louvre be returned. If the museum really did knowingly buy those steles on the black market, then they have no business making a profit by displaying them.

That's the easier, more clear-cut case. The more difficult question is how to deal with the fact that a big reason why museums all over the world have any ancient Egyptian artifacts at all is that those items were taken from the country during decades of British occupation.

On the one hand, tourists seeking a glimpse of ancient Egypt provide the modern Egyptian economy with an important source of revenue, revenue which shouldn't have to suffer from the legacy of colonialism. On the other hand, as I discovered most recently at the Louvre, it's pretty amazing that you can walk into art and history museums across the world and pretty much always find an ancient Egyptian section. The contributions of the ancient Egyptians to world history should be on display in more places, not fewer.

It's a complicated issue, and not one on which I'm ready to give a clear answer. But for now, I'm glad to see that the Louvre is working on returning those steles.

Cool Science: The Kepler Mission

2009-10-03T09:53:00.006-05:00

Hey, guess what? It's been over a year since we had our first "cool science" post here on Kirmalak. I think we're due, no?

Let's start with an imperfect analogy:

Looking outside my window, I see that the leaves are changing colour. Every tree has turned into a mix of green, yellow, orange and red. Over time, more and more of the greens will turn, as the leaves continue the fall which marks the season.

If I wanted to report on how quickly the leaves are falling, how would I go about finding that number? I could go out and count all the leaves on all the trees on this street (neighbourhood, city, province?), and then do the same thing tomorrow, and the day after that, figuring out the change in the number of leaves in a given day. But that's a lot of leaves. A simpler way would be to pick one branch on one of the trees, and keep track of that, on the assumption that the leaves on this one branch are typical or representative of leaves in general.

That's kind of the approach taken by NASA's Kepler mission, launched in March of this year with the goal of searching for habitable planets in our galaxy. But since the size of our galaxy is literally astronomical, its search will be restricted to a tiny sliver of the Milky Way, as shown in yellow in the artist's rendering below:

That's about a 3000 light year length (yes, astronomers like to measure distances in 'years'), covering about 100,000 stars, out of a galaxy that is about 26000 light years across and contains anywhere from 100 to 400 billion stars. That is to say, we are looking at about one one millionth of the galaxy. Tiny on the galactic scale, but still huge enough (3000 light years is almost twenty million times the distance from here to the Sun; again, the numbers get very big when we're talking about astronomy) that trying to spot planets as small as ours in such an area is like trying to spot a needle in a field of haystacks.

How will Kepler do it? This is where the science gets really cool. Check out the home-made diagram below:

If a planet's orbit is aligned right with respect to us, it will pass between us and its star. This is known as a 'transit'. When the Moon passes between the Earth and the Sun, because they are both quite close to us (relatively speaking), the result is an eclipse. In the case of a planet coming between us and its own star, where both are light years away, the result is a reduction in that star's observed brightness. While this reduction is tiny, it is also (1) measurable, (2) periodic, and (3) unique for each planet in that star system.

By measuring the frequency of the transits, Kepler can determine the orbital period. By measuring the magnitude of a transit's effect on star brightness, Kepler can determine the size of the planet. The aim is to find planets the size of which is anywhere from 1/2 to double Earth's, and whose transits occur four times during the 3 1/2 year Kepler mission. The latter criterion would demonstrate that that planet's year is approximately equal to our own, which would indicate that it lies in the habitable region of its star system, i.e. neither so close as to be too hot nor so far away as to be too cold.

Most star systems won't be so conveniently aligned as to have transits that we can observe, and of course we can't just assume that what we see in this one sliver of star systems is representative of the rest of our galaxy (to say nothing of the billions of other galaxies in our universe). There's a decent chance that the mission won't yield a single positive result.

And yet, even if it's a long shot mission with limited scope, its potential ramifications are staggering. We've known for centuries that our planet is but a tiny, and not at all central, part of the universe. But it is the only part we've seen that is capable of sustaining life. Can you imagine finding even one other such oasis out there?

What'd I Miss?

2009-09-30T22:47:00.002-05:00

In the last month, I've watched the news on TV a grand total of twice (once on a train, the second time in a hotel room), listened to the news on the radio a total of twice, and read no newspapers, magazines, or news-blogs. For a political addict like myself, that's quite something. It seems that I missed a number of events including a major Obama speech on healthcare, a general election in Germany, the re-ignition of the Iranian nuclear debate, and the conclusion of the sorry Farouk Hosni affair. For more on that latter topic, be sure to read this quality piece from Sirgo's Labyrinth, the newest blog on the fancy links bar to your right.

Anyway, having learned that I can actually get by just fine without following what's happening in the world around me, and that the world can get by just fine without me commenting on it, I will now ignore those two facts and get back into blogging mode. Because, hey, I love it.

Salma Ya Salama ...

2009-09-15T20:02:00.004-05:00

... as this lady would say:

Yes, I'm back from France/Germany/England, and yes that is a statue of Dalida located not too far from her house in Paris. It's great to be home, even if I've come back to more stress and less free time than ever. But the end of September is only two weeks away. Here's hoping that it ends in, ahem, triumph.

Welcome Back(-ish)

2009-09-05T16:02:00.003-05:00

Yes, my non-blogging week came to its expected end with the book review posted earlier today. For the coming week, I'm hopping the pond, and I'll try to blog some of my trip as it happens. In the meantime, let's all heave a sigh of relief for the Pharaohs pulling off a much-needed win in today's qualifying match against Rwanda. Here's hoping they improve their game, and that Treika, Zaki, and Zeidan recover and come back. Because, my God, do we ever need an offensive line. The road to 2010 is still looking pretty bumpy right now.

Book Review: How to Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror by Reza Aslan

2009-09-05T05:12:00.000-05:00

A copy of this book was provided by Random House of Canada.

In October 2001, while an American-led alliance was invading Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith - Al-Qaeda's most prominent spokesmen at the time - declared that "There are thousands of the Islamic nation's youths who are eager to die just as the Americans are eager to live". Shortly thereafter, Jay Leno drew loud cheers from his audience by replying "That can be arranged!"

In the immediate aftershock of the 9/11 attacks, if there was one thing that was clear to virtually everyone here in the West, it was that retaliation against this act of mass murder was not only justified but necessary. However, with the declaration of the "Global War on Terror", it became apparent that the Bush administration did not merely seek to fight those who had attacked America but rather to rid the world of terror and evil (as defined by that selfsame administration, of course).

What this approach amounted to, argues author Reza Aslan, was giving the terrorists the all-out, open-ended war they so desperately coveted. America had not simply committed itself to fighting the terrorists, but had in fact drawn itself into a "cosmic war".

Reza Aslan is probably a familiar figure to anyone who was following this summer's post-election uprising in Iran through the American news media. His first book, No god but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam, was a brief but useful primer on the history of the religion of Islam, and the modern-day consequences of that history. Published in 2005, it established the Iranian-born writer as a respected public commentator on issues pertaining to the Muslim world within the American discourse.

Now an assistant professor at the University of California, Aslan is back with his second book, How to Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror. Unlike his first offering, the goal of this book is not so much to introduce the reader to a subject as it is to argue a point. It is not so much a reference as it is a thesis.

A cosmic war, as defined by Aslan, can be characterized as a religious war in its purest sense. Regular wars can often involve the use of religion as a rallying cry, but they are nonetheless fought mostly for specific worldly goals. These are the wars that are fought by most religious and nationalist movements in many parts of the world, including the Muslim world. But for a few movements, Al Qaeda being the clearest example, war is fought for "cosmic" goals; namely, the defeat of all who stand against God.

This is how a movement like Al Qaeda can seek to fight, with equal fervour and despite the apparent contradiction, both the former Soviet Union and the United States, both followers of Saddam Hussein and Muqtada Al Sadr, and both Israel and Hamas. When the goal of the war is as vague and as unachievable as the eradication or subjugation of all of God's enemies, the geopolitical consequences of the fight become irrelevant.

Following this idea, Aslan then argues that the greatest error the United States made in response to 9/11 was to adopt this same attitude. By framing the War on Terror as an open-ended cosmic war, one in which "God is not neutral" (to quote George Bush) and which is fought against any and all "evildoers", America drew itself into an unwinnable fight, undermined its own foreign policy interests, and gave Al Qaeda all the propaganda tools it needed to increase and inflame its following.

Needless to say, this argument is not an entirely new one. There have been increasing calls for the West to better understand the nuances of the Muslim world (if only there had been more such calls between 2001 and 2003). The strength of Aslan's contribution is in the thoroughness with which he makes his case. He takes us through the history of modern political Islamism and Islamic activism, and shows how, bit by bit, minorities within various movements grew more radicalized and turned to violence, and then how minorities within those minorities grew even more so, until this distilled form of unbounded, uncompromising terrorism was produced.

This is where Aslan is most in his element, taking a long and complicated history and producing a coherent narrative out of it, while explaining to the reader the significant distinctions between various terms and groups such as at-takfir, al-wala' wa al-bara', jihadi, and so on. For anyone looking for an introduction to the history and development of what is broadly - and often crudely - referred to as "radical Islam", Aslan's work is worth reading for these sections alone.

Overall, this is a good and informative book, with an important and well-presented message. With its emphasis on war, it might have been more timely six or seven years ago, when more reasoned voices might have helped spare us much grief. But even now, with a new administration seeking to redefine America's relationship with the Muslim world, Aslan's knowledge and perspective are welcome contributions to the debate.

Time Off

2009-08-28T04:27:00.000-05:00

As previously mentioned, my blogging routine will remain a little erratic until the end of September. In that vein, there will be no posts for this weekend and the coming week (at least).

The Monster In The Room

2009-08-27T22:12:00.002-05:00

Ever since it was announced on Monday of this week that the U.S. Justice Department would be launching an investigation into prisoner abuse by CIA interrogators during the Bush years, torture has resurfaced as a subject of discussion. Sadly, the public discourse on this matter seems to get caught up in all the wrong places. "What if there were a nuclear bomb about to go off and you had captured the one guy who knew the time and place of the attack?" "It's not torture if you waterboard someone only once a day rather than three times a day." "A large-scale investigation into the past administration would be too politically divisive."

But the big picture is this:

For years, torture of prisoners in U.S. custody during the "War on Terror" was widespread and systemic. In Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, and a number of CIA "black sites" whose exact locations remain unknown, prisoners were beaten, waterboarded, shackled to walls and deprived of sleep for days on end, forced to wear diapers that would keep them in their own excrement, and subjected to a number of other abuses. Many of these prisoners, after all they were put through, were found to be completely innocent and were subsequently released. Over a hundred of them died while in custody.

How can we look at what happened as a whole and not be shocked? How can we not demand a full investigation so as to determine who was responsible for mainstreaming these crimes?

This Onion parody of the current discourse should be funny, but it comes a little too close to the truth to me and so is just kind of sad:

Is Using A Minotaur To Gore Detainees A Form Of Torture?

The Stagelight Trio

2009-08-27T04:44:00.004-05:00

Long before they starred in Al-Mutazawwigoon together, Sameer Ghanem and George Sydhom were part of the comedy group known as Thulathy Adwa Al-Masrah (The Stagelight Trio), with the late Ed-Daif Ahmed. To people of my generation, many of their musical skits would find new fame when they were released in the audio album Kutumutu back in the 1990s. Here they are performing their song Cupid Li El-Bei' (Cupid for Sale):

(Yes, the tall, balding one is Sameer Ghanem, who appears to have a full head of hair in the scene I posted yesterday. Go figure.)

A Question On Healthcare

2009-08-26T22:59:00.004-05:00

On the one hand, you have people in Canada worrying about the dangers of a "two-tier" healthcare system, where we would have both guaranteed public health insurance but also the option to buy faster service for those who can afford it. Under such a system, the worriers worry, all the doctors would want to work under the private system, where they would presumably be better paid, and so the quality of the public system would suffer. Thus, the introduction of a "private option" would undermine the viability of public healthcare.

On the other hand, you have people in the United States worrying about the dangers of introducing a "public option" to their healthcare system, such that those who can't afford private insurance or who don't have health insurance through their employer would have the option of buying into a government-subsidized insurance plan. These latter worriers worry that a government-subsidized plan, being cheaper than the private alternatives, would be so popular that it would undermine the viability of private health insurance.

Which of the two is right? Is there some way that both might be?

Power Eater

2009-08-26T04:45:00.002-05:00

If you're fasting 15 hours, you're going to want to start your day by really loading up on proteins (first and foremost) and carbs. Before dawn comes at around 5am, you'll want to have eaten roughly as much as - if not more than - what you typically eat for breakfast and lunch combined, since that's what has to sustain you till sunset at around 8pm.

And do wake up early enough to give yourself time to eat, or else you might end up like George Sydhom in this famous scene from Al-Mutazawwigoon (The Newlyweds):

Poor George. While it's obvious that he wasn't actually eating an entire egg with each bite, as the audience is meant to think, I still can't imagine having to do that scene every night for the whole highly successful stage run this play had.

Jawad Goes Home. What About Khadr?

2009-08-25T05:21:00.003-05:00

Yesterday in Afghanistan:

One of the youngest people ever held at Guantanamo was welcomed home Monday by Afghanistan's president and joyful relatives after almost seven years in prison — freed by a military judge who ruled he was coerced into confessing to wounding U.S. soldiers with a grenade.

Mohammed Jawad, now about 21, flew to the Afghan capital in the afternoon and was released to family members late in the evening. Turbaned men, many who had traveled to Kabul from villages in a nearby province, greeted him with a flurry of hugs and wide smiles.

Jawad was arrested in Kabul in December 2002 and accused of tossing a grenade at an unmarked vehicle in an attack that wounded two U.S. Special Forces and their interpreter. Afghan police delivered him into U.S. custody and about a month later he was sent to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

A federal judge ordered Jawad released last month after a war crimes case against him unraveled over lack of evidence and concerns about his age.

This is undoubtedly good news, since a child soldier - as Jawad was when he was arrested - should not have been charged with war crimes in the first place. But what about the only other person arrested as a minor still being held at Guantanamo? Today in Canada:

The federal government will go to the Supreme Court in a bid to overturn court rulings that would require Ottawa to press for the return of Canadian Omar Khadr from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, CBC News has learned.

The government has decided to fight a Federal Court of Appeal decision this month that upheld a lower court ruling, unnamed sources told CBC parliamentary reporter Julie Van Dusen.

The Justice Department has filed a motion for a stay pending appeal, Van Dusen said. No minister was available to comment Monday evening, but the government told CBC News "its position remains unchanged" that "Omar Khadr has been accused by the U.S. of serious crimes including murder."

The Supreme Court will have to decide whether to review the case, Van Dusen said.

The Toronto-born Khadr, now 22, was arrested in Afghanistan in July 2002 when he was 15 years old. He is alleged to have thrown a grenade that caused the death of a U.S. soldier. He has been held at Guantanamo Bay since October 2002, awaiting trial on charges of murder, conspiracy and support of terrorism.

Making The Colonel Cry

2009-08-24T19:32:00.002-05:00

Most people would probably argue that southern fried chicken isn't exceptionally healthy in any quantity, but I would still contend that you have to fall a long way to go from this:

to this:

The Vancouver Sun has more details. Really, KFC: as a long term investment plan, what good does it do you to sell people this sandwich if they don't survive their second visit?

You Knew This Was Coming

2009-08-23T20:46:00.004-05:00

Yesterday, I made reference to the classic comedic duo that was Fouad El-Mohandes and Showeikar. Here they are in a TV skit about, of all things, fasting:

The late Fouad El-Mohandes, also known as Ammo Fouad (Uncle Fouad) to a whole generation of kids, was arguably the greatest comedian to hit the Egyptian screen and stage. But whereas his independent career was brilliant in its own right, Showeikar was never really successful as an entertainer without her husband. No matter, though. Together, the two of them gave us decades of incredible entertainment. What more could we ask of them?

Uri Davis: Israeli Anti-Zionist

2009-08-23T18:16:00.004-05:00

The Guardian has written an interesting profile of Uri Davis, the first Jewish person to be elected to the Revolutionary Council of Fatah, the Palestinian nationalist movement once led by Yasir Arafat and now headed by Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas. Davis' life story, like his politics, is unusual to say the least.

I actually got to hear Davis speak in Kingston a few years ago. He speaks gently, but that only helps to emphasize the firmness of the positions he takes. When he refers to Israeli apartheid, he does not just restrict that term to the situation in the occupied territories, but argues that the discrimination against the Arab citizens of Israel itself also warrants the label. And whereas the conventional wisdom sees the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict taking the form of two states along the 1967 borders, Davis maintains that the only legal and sustainable way to resolve the conflict would be to implement the 1947 UN partition plan. Under this plan, there would still be two separate states, but along different borders than 1967, and with Jerusalem becoming an international city.

When he explained this solution to the conflict, Davis joked that it would give him an additional passport to go with his Israeli and British ones, since he was born in Jerusalem a few years before the state of Israel was established. But his most memorable line of the evening came when an audience member asked him how the 1947 plan could satisfy Israel's security concerns. His answer was polite but unequivocal. Security concerns, he said, are only legitimate if what one is trying to secure is itself legitimate.

Quote For Today

2009-08-22T22:25:00.003-05:00

Guest-blogging for Andrew Sullivan over at The Daily Dish, Conor Clarke discusses Quentin Tarantino's latest film, and manages to write a near-perfect (to my mind) summary of the writer/director's work in general:

I'd take the position that it's too easy to over-intellectualize a Tarantino film, which is probably just an empty (but extremely well crafted) vessel studded with encyclopedic and occasionally annoying references to films the director likes.

Nice.

Layla & Anwar

2009-08-22T21:53:00.002-05:00

It seems that Layla Murad post was somewhat prescient on my part. This year, one of the anticipated musalsalat (the TV series that saturate the Arabic airwaves during Ramadan) is Ana Alby Daleeli (My Heart Is My Guide), a drama about Murad's life. I never have the opportunity to follow the musalsalat anymore, but I still feel inspired to post another video. This one is from the movie Anbar, with Murad's frequent co-star and real-life husband, the inimitable Anwar Wagdy:

Between the two of them, Wagdy was probably the better actor (certainly the funnier one), but the truth is that they were both always at their best when they worked together. Come to think of it, with the exception of Fouad El-Mohandes and Showeikar, did any on-screen couple have better chemistry?

It's That Time Of Year Again

2009-08-22T04:44:00.003-05:00

Enjoy the good times while they're here. Ramadan only lasts a month, after all.

The Canadian Citizenship Test

2009-08-20T18:49:00.005-05:00

I became a citizen of this country in March of 2002. Five months prior, I had to take the Canadian citizenship test*, a twenty-question long, multiple choice quiz on Canada's history, geography, and politics. You have to score at least a 12 out of 20 to pass. The good news is that (1) the test is not too hard, and (2) a few weeks prior to the test you receive a package in the mail which includes a study guide. If you've read the guide, you've read the answers to all the test questions and more. I remember that I walked out certain that I had gotten at least a 19 out of 20, with only some doubt on one answer. I don't know that for a fact, of course, since they only tell you if you passed or failed (a few weeks after the test), but don't give you your score.

Last week, I found an online copy of the test on the CBC website, and re-took it. This time, I scored an 18 out of 20, so I guess I still remember most of the basics that I learned. For fun, you can take the test here, and find out if you would pass. The good news is that (1) the test is not too hard, and (2) if you fail, you don't have to leave the country.

* Funny story (well, funny in retrospect): the day of my citizenship test coincided with a course midterm. I had to take the test in my dear old Halifax, Nova Scotia, the place to which I officially migrated, even though I was going to university in Kingston, Ontario. When I let my professor know about the conflict, his first suggestion was that I move my citizenship test to another date. Fortunately, I was able to convince him that that wasn't an option.

How To Wipe Out The U.S. National Debt

2009-08-19T16:48:00.004-05:00

The Onion reports on the new plan:

U.S. Government Stages Fake Coup To Wipe Out National Debt

(Now watch it a second time just to focus on the newsticker.)

Baheyya's Back

2009-08-18T03:58:00.002-05:00

And in coming back she reminds us why, even if she only posts once or twice a month, she remains the #1 must-read Egyptian blogger. In a typically thorough and incisive post, she breaks down the debate over Egypt's political future after the aging Hosni Mubarak. A sample:

Mubarak’s management of his succession has led to a most unintended effect: a vital public debate about who should rule Egypt. By resolutely refusing to appoint a vice president and then choreographing his son’s political rise, Mubarak unwittingly opened up the question of what (and who) are the most legitimate sources of political authority. Debating such foundational questions is rare for any society; most political discussions focus on politicians’ actions, public policies, sometimes the rules governing the political game. This public discussion that’s been happening in Egypt for years now gets to a much more fundamental question: what kind of political game should we have in the first place? The debate has now crystallized into three camps: advocates of parliamentary rule, hereditary rule, and military rule. But let’s be clear: debates are one thing and who will actually assume power something else entirely. Yet no matter who eventually captures the presidency after Mubarak, Egyptians won’t stop debating the issue until they get to have a say in who rules them.

Read the whole thing. It's worth your time.

Run, Usain, Run

2009-08-17T10:21:00.004-05:00

It seems Usain Bolt isn't slowing down anytime soon. Watch him here as he cuts his own 100-metre world record from 9.69 seconds to 9.58 seconds in Berlin on Sunday.

When I was a kid, only the rarest of sprinters could run 100 metres in under 10 seconds. Today, the 9.5-second barrier looks like it's ready to be broken, and Bolt looks like the man to do it. Wow.

My Kind of Blog

2009-08-15T13:49:00.003-05:00

Here's something cool: a new blog dedicated specifically to analyzing Middle East news that doesn't get enough play in North America. It's called "Underreported", of all things. In today's post, blogger Yasser El-Shimy talks about the rising tension between Israel and Lebanon, and gauges the likelihood of a repeat of the 2006 war.

Let's Start At The Very Beginning (Arabic Edition)

2009-08-14T16:44:00.003-05:00

When you read you begin with ... abgad hawwaz:

Layla Murad and Naguib El-Reihany. How can you go wrong?

Hiatus / Change of Pace

2009-08-13T11:05:00.007-05:00

Regular readers know that my blogging pace tends to change significantly. While my average frequency is between 1 to 2 posts per week, sometimes I'll post on a daily or near-daily basis, and sometimes I'll disappear for two, three, or even four weeks at a time. Usually, when I'm not blogging for that long, I'm still trying to write, but just can't find the time to read up on, analyze, and write about the topics that I like to discuss here. That tends to stress me out, as I'll have three or four posts built up in my head, but no time to look up some relevant facts and put the whole thing to writing. And I'll end up putting up one or two short posts about how "regular blogging will resume soon."

This time, I won't do that. I already know that, due to a number of circumstances, I won't be able to blog as usual for some weeks. I have a series of personal and professional commitments that'll stretch through till the end of September. As a result, until that time, Kirmalak is officially on 'hiatus'. With the exception of one upcoming book review, there won't be any of the big and wordy posts that are typical around here. There will still be some posting, though, in the form of photos, videos, interesting links, etc. Who knows? Maybe it'll even be a chance for me to be a bit more fun than I usually am around here, though I make no promises.

So that's the plan for now. Here's hoping it goes well.

Book Review: Lucy Maud Montgomery: The Gift of Wings by Mary Henley Rubio

2009-08-08T22:32:00.000-05:00

Note: A copy of this book was provided by RandomHouse Canada

This is a superb book, one of the best that I've read in a long time. Rubio has written a definitive account of one of Canada's most significant literary figures.

For over a century, one of Canada's most beloved ambassadors to the world has been the fictional Anne of Green Gables, described by Mark Twain as "the dearest, and most lovable child in fiction since the immortal Alice." Less is known today of Anne's creator, Lucy Maud Montgomery, to whom Twain wrote these words in correspondence.

While her works have continued to be widely read, critiqued, and studied through her life and after her death, Montgomery's personal life was not the subject of much discussion until the publication of her journals in 1985 (five volumes would be published through 2004). In the introduction to her current biography, Rubio discusses the publication of these journals, which she co-edited. Most notable to her, and most disappointing to Montgomery's personal acquaintances who read the journals, was how much darker and more depressed the person in those journals was than the "Maud" they knew, and how inconsistent her personality seemed with the joyfullness that her writings and her characters exuded.

In time it became clear to Rubio that, perhaps counterintuitively, Montgomery's own journals could not be seen as the definitive account of her life. It is worth noting that Montgomery achieved instant fame with the 1908 publication of Anne of Green Gables. In 1910, the Governor General of Canada, Earl Grey, travelled to Prince Edward Island with the express purpose of meeting the author to express his admiration of her work. Montgomery remained a much sought-after public figure for the rest of her life.

Not only did Montgomery know that her personal journals would eventually come to light, she requested that her son eventually publish them, but only long after her death (Stuart E. MacDonald, Montgomery's younger son, died in 1982 and so never saw the publication of the journals himself). Rubio thus argues that, for all of their extensiveness and usefulness as a primary source, Montgomery's journals are heavily influenced by the storyteller's desire to be remembered in a certain light.

Rubio has been researching Montgomery since the 1970s, and the thoroughness of her work shows in every page. While continuously drawing from Montgomery's journals, she goes far beyond them to interviewing the author's surviving family, friends, and associates, studying her correspondences, and even examining her financial and legal records. Her critical approach and the care with which she weighs all of the information available on any given incident or period are what makes Rubio's work such an outstanding account of Montgomery's life.

And it is, of course, the fascinating subject matter of Montgomery's life that should draw readers to this book as much as the quality of scholarship which has gone into presenting it. Admirers of Montgomery's many books, the most famous of which are of course the Anne of Green Gables and Emily of New Moon series, will enjoy many details of the creative process, as well as the publication and reception, of these works. No less enjoyable are the details of the times in which Montgomery lived (1874-1942), which saw two world wars, the influenza pandemic, the Great Depression, the rise of feminism, and the invention the automobile the airplane. Rubio does an excellent job in familiarizing us with the evolving social, religious, cultural, and even legal, scientific, and political dimensions of the period.

But Rubio is at her best when she explores Montgomery's inner character through her responses to the people and events in her life. A question that keeps coming to mind in reading the details of Montgomery's life is: what inspires a mind to be so creative within the confines of an often mundane and sometimes troubled life? Authors, after all, are not ethereal muses but rather exist in the real world. And Montgomery's life did not lack for real world concerns. As much as she loved writing for its own sake, often escaping into it, it was also her family's primary source of income. She pushed to produce more books when money was in short supply, worked to address more mature themes when - in later years - modern critics started to dismiss her work as mere children's literature, and even got into a years-long legal battle with her original publisher L.C. Page over rights and royalties to Anne and her stories.

Maud's personal life also came with its share of burdens. As they aged, she and her husband both suffered from depression. Due to the medical ignorance of the times, they were both unhealthily overmedicated. In fact, Montgomery would ultimately die of a medical overdose (intentional or not, we can never know for sure). Her first son, Chester, was a regular disappointment to her due to his embarassing misbehaviour as an adolescent and a grownup, his lackluster efforts in higher education and professional life, and his unfaithfulness to his first wife (moreover, after his mother's death, Chester would be arrested for fraud).

Through all of the ups and downs of her life, Maud's imagination, her "gift of wings", would often allow her to soar high above her troubles, but could sometimes instead carry her ever deeper into them. Her emotions, even when they did not show, ran deep; compliments and slights alike could significantly affect her. In establishing the narrative of Montgomery's life not just through actions and events but through her thoughts and feelings, Rubio brings us as close as we can get to understanding the author's mind.

And it is that engaging search after the real Lucy Maud Montgomery that makes her story such a pleasure to read. Whether you're already a reader of historical biographies or are considering trying one for the first time, I would strongly recommend this book.

Obama's Cairo Speech - The Word Cloud

2009-07-14T18:20:00.002-05:00

I should be getting back to longer, regular posts soon. In the meantime, let's take another look at Obama's June speech in Cairo, previously discussed here. Using the magic of Wordle, I made the word cloud you see below (right-click on the object to open it a new tab and see it more clearly):

It's kind of a cool idea, representing word frequency by font size (Obama's really fond of talking about "people" isn't he?), although it's less than perfect in some ways. For example, on the left half of the cloud, you can see the words "country" and "countries" separately (both are between the larger "many" and "world"). Wouldn't it be more repesentative to count bundle both those words into one. The same would go for "America" (near the right hand side) and "America's" (near the bottom-left). Of course, it would take a more complicated code to recognize words that are similar but not identical.

Still, it's an interesting way to look at a speech, no?

Google Vs. Microsoft: It's On

2009-07-09T09:31:00.005-05:00

Ever since Google released its Chrome web browser, many people have wondered when the company would make its own operating system and try to take on Microsoft for real. Well, now its official. Google Chrome OS is on its way.

But first, Microsoft has released its new search engine, Bing, which is supposed to beat Google on the latter's own home turf.

So, what do you think? Will Microsoft be defeated by this guy?

Or will Google lose out to this fellow?

What?

Marwa El-Sherbini, RIP

2009-07-07T22:51:00.002-05:00

The tragic death of Marwa El-Sherbini has not seen heavy coverage in the Western media, although it has dominated the Egyptian news.

32 year-old El-Sherbini was an Egyptian citizen who migrated to Germany with her husband four years ago. In August 2008, while at a playground with her son, her 28 year-old neighbour Axel W. (authorities have not released his last name) called her a "terrorist." El-Sherbini filed a complaint, and Axel W. was fined 780 euros, a fine against which he appealed.

On Wednesday, July 1st of this year, outside the courtroom at which she was due to testify, Axel W. stabbed El-Sherbini eighteen times in front of her husband and three-year old son. She was four months pregnant. Her husband tried to stop the murder, but was stabbed multiple times himself and shot by a security officer who tried to intervene. His present condition is unclear.

The case, and the lack of attention it has received, has sparked considerable outrage in Egypt, where Monday's funeral for El-Sherbini in Alexandria turned into a massive protest. While anger is the justified reaction to such a heinous crime, it is unfair to broadly associate the German government or German society with the bigotry behind this murder. It is worth remembering, after all, that the whole reason why El-Sherbini was in that courthouse in Dresden was because German law was penalizing Axel W.

But in this instance it is even more important to remember that hatred of Muslims - blatant, unapologetic, dangerous hatred - does exist. We can and should debate how widespread it may be, and how best to address it. But every once in a while, it is also necessary to simply recognize and condemn it for what it is.

What's Happening With The Uighurs In China?

2009-07-07T22:31:00.001-05:00

The most important thing we know about what's happening in China's Xinjiang province is that we really don't know what's happening. Note the Wall Street Journal's report:

Chinese security forces clamped down on large parts of this city of 2.4 million Monday, a day after long-simmering ethnic tensions erupted in rioting that authorities said left 156 dead and more than 1,000 injured.

The fatalities, if confirmed, would represent one of the deadliest outbreaks of violence in China in decades.

The government said more than 20,000 security personnel were deployed in Urumqi, capital of the Xinjiang region in northwest China. Armored cars patrolled the streets late Monday and squads of paramilitary People's Armed Police marched through narrow alleyways where rioting had occurred.

Tuesday morning, security in the city remained tight, as work crews continued to clean debris from the streets. At one point, a crowd of several dozen protestors approached a group of foreign journalists who were being shown around the city by government officials. Police tried to forcibly keep the protestors away, and shoving broke out between them and the protestors.

Police have arrested 1,434 suspects in connection with the riot, the official Xinhua news agency reported. "The police have started interrogations with the suspects," Xinhua quoted Li Yi, a spokesman for the Communist Party in Xinjiang, as saying. The unrest grew out of protests by Uighurs, a Turkic-speaking and mainly Muslim ethnic group, against what they see as discrimination against them by the Han Chinese majority. Violence appeared to have been widely distributed around the city's Uighur district, with shops or vehicles destroyed on many different streets.

The bulk of what we see out of Xinjiang, including what is being reported by the mainstream international media, is coming to us through the filter of the Chinese government, which we know works hard to control the flow of information in and out of the country. So while it appears that there is widespread inter-ethnic violence taking place in the country, and that it's bad enough to force China's president to abandon the G8 summit currently taking place in Italy, it remains unclear how and why these clashes began, or what is happening right now.

So rather than offer unsubstantiated opinions and speculations, let's just consider some background that can help us to understand current events as the facts hopefully come to light. I'd recommend this entire Q&A from the BBC, from which I've selectively quoted below:

In the early part of the 20th Century, the Uighurs briefly declared independence. The region was brought under the complete control of communist China in 1949.

Officially, Xinjiang is now described by China as an autonomous region, like Tibet to its south.

[...]

Since the 9/11 attacks in the US, China has increasingly portrayed its Uighur separatists as auxiliaries of al-Qaeda.

It has accused them of receiving training and indoctrination from Islamist militants in neighbouring Afghanistan.

However, little public evidence has been produced in support of these claims.

[...]

China is accused of intensifying its crackdown on the Uighurs after street protests in the 1990s - and again, in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics.

[...]

Beijing has also been accused of seeking to dilute Uighur influence by arranging the mass immigration of Han Chinese, the country's majority ethnic group, to Xinjiang.

[...]

The activities of local and foreign journalists in the region are closely monitored by the Chinese state and there are few independent sources of news from the region.

Some time ago, Aljazeera English did a report on the Uighurs in China:

And finally, here's the CBC's Rex Murphy commenting on the case of Huseyn Celil, a Canadian-Chinese citizen arrested in Uzbekistan at China's demand. Celil was tried and sentenced to a life sentence. Canada's consular representatives in China have not been allowed to see him, during or after his trial. I commented briefly on Celil's case last year.

Abousfian Abdelrazik: A Cautionary Tale

2009-07-03T22:49:00.007-05:00

Last week, on June 27th, Abousfian Abdelrazik performed the remarkable feat of taking a commercial flight from Khartoum, Sudan, to Toronto, Canada. For the thousands of people flying in and out of Canada every day, this might not seem particularly impressive, but for the 46 year-old Sudanese-born Canadian, this trip was the culmination of a six-year struggle to get back home.

In 2003, Abdelrazik travelled to Sudan to visit his mother, who was ill at the time. While he was there, he was arrested by the Sudanese government, reportedly on suspicion of links to terrorism. No specific charges were brought against him, but he was interrogated and, he reports, tortured. In 2004, he was released from custody, only to be arrested again in 2005, and re-released in 2006. At this point, he tried to return to Canada.

This is where the story gets bizarre.

During his detention, the Bush administration designated Abdelrazik to be a supporter of Al-Qaeda, which meant he was placed on the UN's no-fly list. As a result, when he attempted to renew his passport at the Canadian embassy in Sudan, he was told that he was not allowed to do so. It is worth mentioning that, as of this writing, no one has presented to the public, or even to Abdelrazik himself, any evidence linking him to terrorism.

In fact, the RCMP and CSIS each investigated Abdelrazik, and both cleared him of any ties to terrorism. But that didn't matter. The Canadian government continued to refuse to issue him a passport. He was not permitted to buy a ticket to any commercial flight. When the Sudanese government, no longer interested in keeping him, offered to fly Abdelrazik back to Canada on a private plane at its own expense, Canada refused.

Out of money and out of options, Abdelrazik moved into the Canadian embassy in Khartoum. Eventually, the story became public. A number of opposition members of parliament, including former liberal minister Irwin Cotler and NDP member Paul Dewar, fought with the government to try to repatriate Abdelrazik. Members of the press and concerned citizens questioned the government's logic in barring a Canadian citizen from entry into Canada when our own security services had no evidence against him.

Abdelrazik's lawyers insisted that the government had a legal obligation to bring him home, and the UN concurred that the restrictions of the no-fly list did not bar repatriation; i.e.: if he couldn't get on a commercial flight, the Canadian government could simply put Abdelrazik on a private plane home with any of its travelling diplomats if it wanted to do so. However, while the government admitted that it was legally required to issue him temporary travel papers (in lieu of a passport), Abdelrazik was told that no such papers would be issued until he produced a travel itinerary; i.e.: until he purchased a commercial flight ticket to Canada.

But, of course, his inexplicable inclusion on the no-fly list did not allow him to do so. So, in April of this year, 200 people here in Canada came together, chipped in, and bought Abdelrazik a ticket. But upon having its bluff called, the government refused to issue Abdelrazik the travel documents it had previously promised.

On June 4th, a federal judge ruled that the government's continuing refusal to repatriate Mr. Abdelrazik was a violation of his rights as a citizen, and ordered his return to Canada within 30 days. For two weeks, the government was questioned about this court ruling during Question Period, and refused to comment. Until June 18th when, in response to a question from Irwin Cotler, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson simply responded "Mr. Speaker, the government will comply with the court order."

And so, finally, on June 27th, Abousfian Abdelrazik came home.

Ultimately, then, one could argue that the system worked, if by 'worked' you mean that Abdelrazik lost six years of his life between prison and limbo. In truth, this story should seriously worry all Canadians. As Cotler phrased it in a May piece for the National Post:

Let the lesson to all Canadians be clear: Do not let your name fall on to a UN watchlist. It will not matter if our security agencies believe you to be innocent. It will not matter if the country in which you are stranded is willing to let you come home. It will not matter if the parties representing the majority of your elected officials beckon for your return. The government will not help you, and it will absolve itself of all responsibility for not helping you.

But of course, you have no real way of knowing how to avoid having "your name fall on to a UN watchlist." Maybe you have the wrong friends, or the wrong name. Maybe you once visited the wrong country, the wrong mosque, or the wrong website. Who knows?

Abousfian Abdelrazik is now home, and that is good news. But until the causes of his ordeal have been addressed, until something is done about this new international 'legal' system that allows people to be detained and punished without evidence or due process, then it is only a matter of time before someone else suffers as he has. This issue is by no means resolved.

An Impossible Choice in Iran

2009-07-02T10:09:00.005-05:00

In today's New York Times, Roger Cohen speculates that the Iranian regime's next move will be an attempt at reconciliation with the United States, and urges Obama not to engage:

Khamenei and Ahmadinejad may begin to unclench their fist, as isolation and sullen defiance grow, in a bid to deliver what they would not allow the reformists to initiate: détente with America.

Obama must leave them dangling for the foreseeable future. He should refrain indefinitely from talk of engagement.

To do otherwise would be to betray millions of Iranians who have been defrauded and have risked their lives to have their votes count. To do otherwise would be to allow Khamenei to gloat that, in the end, what the United States respects is force. To do otherwise would be to embrace the usurpers.

The slow arc of moral justice is fine but Iran is gripped by the fierce urgency of now. Obama, the realist on whom idealism is projected, is obliged to make a course correction.

I say all this with a heavy heart. Non-communication between America and Iran is bad for both countries and the world. It complicates and undermines every U.S. objective from Gaza to Afghanistan. It’s dangerous and it’s unnecessary.

I’ve argued strongly for engagement with Iran as a game-changer. America renewed relations with the Soviet Union at the time of the Great Terror and China at the time of the Cultural Revolution. Operation Jackboot has not, as yet at least, involved mass killings.

But the Iran of today is not the Iran of three weeks ago; it is in volatile flux from without and within. Its Robespierres are running amok. Obama must do nothing to suggest business as usual. Let Ahmadinejad, he of the bipolar mood swings, fret and sweat. Let him writhe in the turbid puddle of his self-proclaimed “justice” and “ethics.”

(Emphasis added. As explained earlier in the column, "Operation Jackboot" refers to the clumsy election theft of June 12th.)

I agree with Cohen's characterization of the dilemma facing the international community, especially America, with respect to Iran. As I said before, it comes down to a choice between standing up for ideals and those who fight for them on the one hand, and trying to keep the world that much less dangerous on the other. Which is the better choice? Which is the more moral one?

I don't know, but I do take Cohen's point that, right now, the situation in Iran is too volatile for any kind of engagement to begin. Such an implicit endorsement of the regime could kill the opposition movment, which despite being weakened is still active.

So let the regime, as Cohen puts it, writhe for a while. Let Khamenei wonder just how big a blunder he made, as every embarassment caused by Ahmadinejad is now directly associated with the leader who handed him the presidency.

Happy Canada Day!

2009-07-01T10:10:00.004-05:00

You may be 142 years old, but you're just as beautiful as the 129 year-old country I first met.

Have a peaceful, orderly, and well-governed day, everyone!

Iran: Does the Green Revolution Have a Future?

2009-06-30T19:29:00.005-05:00

Time Magazine's Scott MacLeod makes the case that Iran's opposition is currently "down but hardly out":

[T]he June 12 election fraud, in the eyes of millions of Iranians, has exposed Khamenei as a partisan factional player in what is widely viewed as a maneuver to consolidate the power of the ruling clique regardless of the verdict of the electorate.

The result has been a stunning breaking of taboos: Mousavi made an unprecedented challenge to Khamenei's authority by rejecting an election result deemed a "divine assessment" by the Supreme Leader, and he also defied Khamenei's orders to end protest action by insisting on his supporters' right to peacefully oppose electoral fraud. Even Ali Larijani, the speaker of parliament who is at once loyal to the Supreme Leader and hostile to Ahmadinejad, publicly questioned the objectivity of the Guardian Council, the clerical body that oversees elections. However it calls the result, the regime has been discredited by the June 12 election, which has sapped its legitimacy and left it vulnerable to future acts of political defiance.

All of this echoes my own thoughts/wishes. However, the cynic in me is doubtful as to how "vulnerable to future acts of political defiance" the regime really is. If, as it seems, the regime survives this crisis, its first priority will now be to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. As Baheyya notes in a typically insightful post, that's exactly what the Egyptian government did following the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimeen's) surprisingly good showing in the 2005 parliamentary elections:

Recall the last elections in 2005. The first phase proceeded relatively smoothly, as Hosni Mubarak’s government watched carefully to get the lay of the electoral land. When voters spurned the ruling party’s hacks and preferred Ikhwan and other opposition candidates, the guns and tanks rolled out. Opposition candidates were obstructed and their campaign teams arrested. Voters were blocked from reaching polling stations, pelted with rubber bullets, and sometimes live ammunition. Judges counting the ballots were pressured or assaulted. Ballot boxes were energetically stuffed, and failing that, burned or hurled into creeks.

[...]

Recall the election aftermath. The whole world gasped and screamed because the Ikhwan netted 19.8% of the seats in parliament. Ya khabar eswed! Mubarak and his government swung into gear to make sure that this never happens again. In 2006, protestors rallying on behalf of wronged judges were brutally beaten and arrested, and variously abused while in detention. Later that year, the Ikhwan’s top leaders and asset-holders were arrested and referred to a military tribunal to deprive the group of its best strategists and bankrollers. In 2007, the government went for the jugular, rewriting the constitution to remove annoying clauses about judicial supervision of elections, minimum guarantees against arbitrary use of government power, and all that stuff. Then they wrote in explicit prohibitions against religious-based political mobilisation.

There, that should do it, no more opposition from now on. But wait, let’s not forget the 2008 municipal elections. Delayed for two years so that the government get a breather from the blow of the 2005 general election, when the time came, virtually all 52,000 seats went to the venerable National Democratic Party. Why so much fear about lowly municipal polls? Because the 2005 law organising direct presidential elections stipulates that any independent candidate for president must get the endorsement of at least 140 municipal council members.

Given all of the above advance preparations, it’s very likely that the 2010 elections will have none of the dynamism and sense of possibility that marked the 2005 poll. Aborting judicial supervision alone is probably enough to deflate the hopes of independent candidates and voters. Why go through the hard work of running or voting when the Interior Ministry will have control over the process?

Now, in fairness to Iranians, and with all due respect to my fellow Egyptians, the current uprising in Iran seems far more potent, widespread, and determined than any popular movement that has arisen in Egypt in my lifetime. But if the government managed to keep the people at bay when they were out by the hundreds of thousands, they stand a good chance of being able to tighten their hold on power after the people have returned to their homes.

Besides, Egypt's example is not the only relevant one here. This month has seen the twentieth anniversary of the Tiannamen Square protests in China, protests which the Chinese government crushed with shocking brutality. Even though the people of China and the world bore witness to this naked oppression on the part of China's ruling regime, and can recall it still, and even though China has some more freedom today than it did in 1989, the regime's authority seems as unshakeable as ever.

But just as Iran 2009 is not Egypt 2005, so it is not China 1989. The world is more open, protestors have more tools at their fingertips, the country's leadership itself at least appears more divided, and the regime is more vulnerable to (careful) external economic and diplomatic pressure. One would hope that, over time, these factors work out in favour of the opposition. Even a slow green revolution would be welcome.

Iran: What Happens Now?

2009-06-29T22:23:00.001-05:00

As expected, Iran's Guardian Council, after carrying out its "partial recount" of 10% of the votes, today reconfirmed the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president. There are reports that some people have taken to the streets to protest the announcment, but nothing of the scale of the protests following the election on June 12th. There has been no comment from Mir Hossein Mousavi, and while Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (head of the Assembly of Experts) did finally break his public silence, it was only to issue a mild statement calling on the regime to "fairly review and study" the allegations of electoral fraud.

It seems that the crackdown of the past ten days has had its desired effect. Through a campaign of murder, violence, and intimidation orchestrated against its own people, the Iranian regime appears to be secure, at least for the time being. If this is indeed the case, if the Iranian people do not surprise us with a revival of their uprising, what happens now?

Part of me wishes, strongly, that all countries around the world would refuse to recognize Ahmadinejad as president, and refuse to deal with anyone in the Iranian regime until there has been accountability for what has happened in these past days. Anything less would feel like a betrayal of those who have fought and died for their rights on the streets of Iran.

But the unfortunate truth is that we have to deal with the Iranian regime, irrespective of who is in power. The U.S. is in the process of withdrawing from Iraq, even as the violence there increases, and NATO is still fighting a dangerous and uncertain war in Afghanistan. An unwillingness to deal with Iran, a large and influential neighbour to both of these countries, may well endanger both of these countries and our soldiers who are fighting there. And of course, if we are to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon while averting war, diplomatic engagement with the regime is necessary.

Our governments can and should continue to speak out against the regime's vile actions. But the only chance of real change in Iran has to come from the Iranian people. Despite the costs and lack of an apparent victory, they've already proven that they can rattle even supreme leader Ali Khamenei, and have dealt a severe, if not fatal, blow to the regime's long-term legitimacy. Let's hope that, whether it happens sooner or later, they will continue on this path until they win their country back.

Day 14 In Iran: Dignity

2009-06-26T22:18:00.002-05:00

Even as it seems that the regime has the upper hand, protesters in Iran found a beautiful and dignified way to keep hope alive on Friday:

These people deserve a free country, but ultimately only they can win that for themselves. What we can do for them is to keep drawing attention to their struggle against oppression.

Michael Jackson, 1958-2009

2009-06-25T20:28:00.008-05:00

He was the King of Pop, a genre which is now so vaguely defined that it is easy to forget how Michael Jackson pioneered it as a new artform, just as it is easy to forget - amid all the controversy surrounding him - how talented this artist really was. His voice was remarkable, his dancing unmatched. His most successful album, Thriller, is still the highest-selling by any artist in history, and his music videos set a standard which no one after him has met.

For better or worse, Michael Jackson was a cultural icon, among the last truly universal ones. People in and out of the United States often saw him as representing all that is wrong with American culture, whether it be in terms of celebrity worship, decadence, or sexual oddity. I recall a joke in high school about how "only in America could a poor black boy grow up to become a rich white woman". But again, it was his talent and success that made Jackson impossible to dismiss; as a kid I remember watching classmates try to imitate the moonwalk even as they mocked his character and behaviour, and everyone knew and enjoyed at least some of his songs. I still enjoy many.

It's tragic that after his career peaked, his life grew increasingly miserable, declining through divorces, lawsuits, criminal charges, and near-bankruptcy. Many will pity him, many others will hate him, and many others still will admire him. Everyone who witnessed his life and his art will remember him.

Is Iran's Revolution Dying Out?

2009-06-25T20:18:00.004-05:00

The protesters are still taking to the streets, but in smaller numbers. Mousavi is still defiant in his statements, but hasn't been seen in public in over a week. The country's politicians are still divided, as demonstrated by the refusal of the majority of parliament to attend Ahmadinejad's victory celebration. Since Friday's speech by Khamenei, the regime has proven as brutal as expected, with an unknown number of Iranians dead, injured, and arrested. The national strike that was supposed to begin this week never materialized.

Is the 'Green Revolution' done for?

It is worth remembering that the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in fact started in January of 1978, requiring an entire year of protests, strikes, and days of mourning before the Shah was finally deposed. Then again, that revolution had a clear leader - Ayatollah Khomenei - who had the clear goal of ending the Shah's regime.

Mousavi is not really leading a revolution, it is the revolution that has rallied around him. The people on the streets are defying of every authority in Iran, upto and including the supreme leader. Would Mousavi and his political allies dare to act against Khamenei? There are still no signs of that. Mousavi's only clear demand is for a re-election. However, given that Khamenei has effectively staked his political and religious authority on the June 12th election, it is hard to see how the election results can be overturned without all but destroying the supreme leader's power.

Again, will they dare to go as far as the people on the streets, the ones who are being killed and beaten while fighting for their freedom, need them to? We can hope that they will, or that the protesters will re-energize themselves and force them to. But at this point, as frustrating as it is to admit, and as painful as it is to watch brutality and oppression succeed in repressing the will of a nation, the regime seems to be winning.

An Islamic Revolution Vs. The Islamic Regime

2009-06-23T07:23:00.002-05:00

One aspect of the Green Revolution which I've neglected to mention so far is what the protestors have been doing by night. Every night, large numbers of people have been gathering on their rooftops and crying "Allahu Akbar" into the darkness. You can find a number of videos of these this happening every day, inlcuding this one dated to last night:

Often times, when we see footage of large numbers of Muslims crying "Allahu Akbar" ("God is Greater/Greatest"), it's coupled with a report of a foreign embassy being stormed or some other such event. But this is Allahu Akbar as it was meant to be: a cry of faith against tyranny and oppression, a declaration that however brutally they are victimized, these people can and will overcome. How inspiring to see these words reclaimed by ordinary Muslims from a totalitarian regime.

Day 10 in Iran: The Crackdown

2009-06-22T21:12:00.010-05:00

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
- From George Orwell's 1984

Today, Iran's Guardian Council completed its review of the election results with this announcment from spokesoman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei:

"Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80-170 cities are not accurate -- the incident has happened in only 50 cities," Kadkhodaei said.

Kadkhodaei further explained that the voter turnout of above 100% in some cities is a normal phenomenon because there is no legal limitation for people to vote for the presidential elections in another city or province to which people often travel or commute.

According to the Guardian Council spokesman, summering areas and places like district one and three in Tehran are not separable.

The spokesman, however, said that the vote tally affected by such issues could be over 3 million and would not noticably affect the outcome of the election.

So, yes, the regime's official line is now that the results might indeed be wrong by millions of votes, but just not wrong enough to change the results (Ahmadinejad supposedly won by 11 million votes). But by continuing to protest over the past two days, even after supreme leader Khamenei demanded an end to protests on Friday, the Iranian people have demonstrated that they do not simply reject the electoral fraud perpetrated against them, but also the authorities who perpetrated it.

Having lost the fight for legitimacy, all that is left for Khamenei is to rule as the Shah did before the Islamic revolution: holding on to power for as long as possible by force of arms. Many people predicted, following Khamenei's Friday speech, that a crackdown on the protestors was about to begin, but that does not make the footage coming out of Iran any less shocking. The governments troops are now engaged in full street battles with the demonstrators, some of which the demonstrators win:

and others of which they don't:

Eyewitnesses said hundreds of riot police were used to drive the protesters from the [Haft-e Tir] square on Monday.

BBC Persian TV received an e-mail from one person saying: "There are lots of people but they are scattered, and lots of police guards. They are firing bullets in the air and using tear gas against the crowds."

The regime's thuggery is also being felt in the halls of power. Five family members of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the head of the Assembly of Experts and Khamenei's most powerful political opponent, were detained by the authorities on Saturday (but have since been released). Yet these arrests, along with those of a number of dissident politicians and even clerics, do not seem to have dissuaded the opposition. Mir Hossein Mousavi has called for another day of mourning on Thursday for the victims who died in Saturday's demonstrations. Just as significantly, perhaps, there are rumours that a nation-wide strike may begin on Tuesday or Wednesday of this week.

Again, we can only find out where this is leading one day at a time. But now that these protests have turned into a fight between the opposition and the entire regime (not just the president), there is as much cause for fear as there is for hope.

Khamenei Doubles Down

2009-06-19T06:21:00.003-05:00

The Guardian has posted a translation of Ali Khamenei's Friday sermon in Iran (their page is continuously adding updates, so scroll down to the 9:15am post). The last part is key:

"My dear people, June 12 was a historic event. Our enemies want to cast doubt on it and portray it as defeat for the regime. The presidential campaign has finished. All of the four candidates are among the Islamic system. The people have trust in the revolution and the republic. The Islamic republic is not cheating against others. There is no cheating inside the election system - it is well controlled. There may been mistakes but 11 million [votes] is not possible.

"The guardian council has said that if people have doubts they should prove them. I will not follow false allegations. In all elections some are winners and some are losers. Correct legal procedures should be followed to ensure trust in the process.

"The candidates should be careful about what they say and do"
[...]

"Some diplomats from the west are showing their real face and that they are enemies. The worst are the British.

"The street is the place of living and trading. Why are you taking to the streets? We have had the election. Street demonstrations are a target for terrorist plots. Who would be responsible if something happened?

He is certainly right that "All of the four candidates are among the Islamic system", but how sure is he that "The people have trust in the revolution and the republic" given the absurdity of what he is saying? Even before the opposition candidates meet with the Guardian Council, and even before the promised "partial recount" takes place, Khamenei has already announced that the election results will stay the same.

Most ominously, those last lines about terrorist plots and "something" happening sound like thinly-veiled threats to me. I fear that, if the protests continue, the government crackdown in about to get ugly.

Day 6: Mourning In Iran

2009-06-18T22:53:00.002-05:00

Shia Islam, the predominant religious sect in Iran, was born in part out of the deaths of two martyrs: Ali Ibn Abi Taleb and Al-Hussein Ibn Ali. The memory of Hussein, the brutally slain grandson of the prophet Muhammad, is particularly significant. As a schoolkid in Kuwait, I still remember how every year one house across from school would be fully draped in black cloth on the annual memorial of Al-Hussein's death. Among Shia Muslims, mourning the martyred is not just a ritual of grief, but an act of devotion.

So when Mousavi called for Thursday to be a day of mourning for those killed during the current Iranian uprising, he undoubtedly expected that today's rallies would be as large as ever, which they were. There is, I must say, something inspiring about watching ordinary people fighting for freedom reclaim their religion from a theocratic government.

Also encouraging is the role that IT companies have been playing in supporting the Iranian uprising, and informing the rest of the world about events in the country. Two days ago, Twitter delayed a scheduled maintenance outage after realizing that their service has been essential for protestors to communicate with one another and the outside world. YouTube has announced that videos from Iran will be exempt from their policy of removing disturbingly violent material from their website. Given the heavy restrictions placed on the domestic and international media in Iran, amateur videos have provided most of the footage from the ground.

And just a few hours ago (as reported by Nico Pitney), Google announced that they would fast-track the release of the Persian-to-English translator on Google Translate (it's already up), which should be helpful in translating blogs and media sites reporting on events. Now Facebook has released a Persian language translation of its website. Technology has been key to keeping the opposition ahead of the regime, so this is all good news.

But to come back to the religious character of this uprising, Friday will probably be a critical day in Iran. As millions of people attend prayer services all over the country at the same time, who knows what could happen? The BBC is reporting that supreme leader Ali Khamenei will be issuing a sermon. If the regime intends to begin a harder crackdown against the opposition, there will probably be a sign of that in what Khamenei says.

Day 5: Undaunted

2009-06-17T18:52:00.011-05:00

It seems that the opposition in Iran can claim the support of doctors and nurses,

garbage collectors,

the national soccer team (which was eliminated from World Cup qualification today),

and perhaps most critically, according to this report from Robert Fisk, some of the regime's troops on the ground (Hat Tip: Nico Pitney):

It was interesting that the special forces - who normally take the side of Ahmadinejad's Basij militia - were there with clubs and sticks in their camouflage trousers and their purity white shirts and on this occasion the Iranian military kept them away from Mousavi's men and women.

In fact at one point, Mousavi's supporters were shouting 'thank you, thank you' to the soldiers.

One woman went up to the special forces men, who normally are very brutal with Mr Mousavi's supporters, and said 'can you protect us from the Basij?' He said 'with God's help'.

It was quite extraordinary because it looked as if the military authorities in Tehran have either taken a decision not to go on supporting the very brutal militia - which is always associated with the presidency here - or individual soldiers have made up their own mind that they're tired of being associated with the kind of brutality that left seven dead yesterday - buried, by the way secretly by the police - and indeed the seven or eight students who were killed on the university campus 24 hours earlier.

Quite a lot of policeman are beginning to smile towards the demonstrators of Mr Mousavi, who are insisting there must be a new election because Mr Ahmadinejad wasn't really elected. Quite an extraordinary scene.

In the meantime, today's protests seem to have been as large as ever:

The regime has shut down cell phone communications and a number of websites, and yet the protestors continue to organize. They've placed a ban on foreign media reporting, and yet information continues to get out of the country. They've arrested dissidents, and yet people seem unintimidated. Mousavi has called for Thursday to be a "day of mourning" for the victims of the government crack down. But the day to really watch for is Friday. What will the clerics say at prayers? Will any stand up against the regime? What will the scale of the protests be coming out of the prayers?

Day 4 In Iran: The Regime Manoeuvres

2009-06-16T19:13:00.004-05:00

(So far, the best sources I've found on the moment-by-moment developments in Iran are: Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic, Nico Pitney at the Huffington Post, Robert Mackey at the New York Times, and Laura Secor at the New Yorker. Feel free to recommend others in the comments section.)

The first news out of Iran today was of thousands of protestors taking to the streets of Tehran in support of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, even as the Guardian Council called for a "partial recount" of votes from last Friday's election. This announcement did not seem to have dissuaded the opposition protestors in Iran, who held large rallies (though not as large as Monday's) despite a call from Mir Hossein Mousavi for them to stay home for today. Nor did the regime's attempts to ban the international and domestic press from reporting the news on the ground stop Britain's Channel 4 (Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan):

The simple truth is, we have no way of knowing what the regime's intentions are, or even how much uniformity of opinion currently exists among the power holders. Speaking of which, has anyone heard anything from Ali Akbar Rafsanjani? I'd love to know where the former president and current chairman of the Assembly of Experts (which theoretically has some oversight power over the supreme leader), who can best be described as an opposition conservative to the Khamenei/Ahmadinejad camp, stands on the current events.

But coming back to this recount: it's hard to see how a vague promise of a "partial" recount can reveal the massive and systemic fraud suspected by most people watching this election. Laura Secor has an excellent piece worth reading on this subject:

Today begins with seemingly contradictory news from Iran: the Guardian Council, a body of clerics that holds more power than the President or the parliament, has agreed to recount some of the votes from Friday’s disputed election. At the same time, the regime has expelled some members of the foreign press, forbidden Iranian journalists from leaving their offices, and arrested major reformist figures, including the former Vice-President Mohammad Ali Abtahi, the former member of parliament Behzad Nabavi, and the reformist political strategist Saeed Hajjarian. These are men with impeccable revolutionary credentials—Hajjarian and Nabavi were founders of the Islamic Republic’s intelligence apparatus—and unquestionable loyalty to the constitutional order. What is going on here?

The Guardian Council’s gambit, while not entirely without promise, should be viewed with some skepticism. First, the council is not recounting all the ballots, if they can be found; it is reviewing only disputed ballot boxes, whatever that means. Second, this is not a disinterested review of the election results; in Iranian politics, the Guardian Council is essentially the practical hand of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the organ by which he most directly intervenes in the affairs of state. Through it, he has veto power over all legislation and can disqualify candidates for public office at will. Its members are directly or indirectly appointed by the Supreme Leader, and manifestly beholden to him. So this is not a neutral intervention; it is Khamenei’s next move.

That’s what makes it interesting and, for the moment, perplexing. What are Khamenei’s options? With protesters yelling “Down with the dictator” in the streets of nearly every city in Iran, his position could not be more precarious. He has staked his very legitimacy, and perhaps that of the edifice he sits atop, on forcing Iranians to accept Ahmadinejad’s supposed landslide victory. He can continue to try to force that down their throats with a show of raw power, or he can bend, which would show the opposition that he and the system are not really so powerful after all, that they are vulnerable to pressure from below. If he takes the latter road, it would be a radical departure from his style of governance up until now. This is the regime that violently quelled protest movements in 1999 and in 2002, crushed the hopes of reformers under Mohammad Khatami from 1997 through 2005, and apparently could not tolerate even the possibility of a Mousavi Presidency. But if he chooses the path of violence, he will transform his country into a crude and seething autocracy.

This is the near-impossible balance of tyranny: to be flexible is to be susceptible to future public pressure, whereas to be brittle is to risk being broken by public outrage. Whether he ends up on one side or the other, here's hoping that the supreme leader loses his selected president, and more of his power, to the brave men and women standing up to him.

A Poem for the Green Revolution

2009-06-16T13:03:00.003-05:00

"Begin" by Rumi (from Gardenista):

This is now. Now is,
all there is. Don't wait for Then;
strike the spark, light the fire.

Sit at the Beloved's table,
feast with gusto, drink your fill

then dance
the way branches
of jasmine and cypress
dance in a spring wind.

The green earth
is your cloth;
tailor your robe
with dignity and grace.

Trivial (or not?) Question For The Day

2009-06-16T06:52:00.004-05:00

Iran is scheduled to play South Korea in Seoul tomorrow as part of the 2010 World Cup qualifiers, and faces elimination if it loses. Will the team play tomorrow? And in a country that is so passionate about football (soccer), will the game matter given what's happening in Iran right now?

The Green Revolution: Where Can It Lead?

2009-06-15T19:12:00.003-05:00

As most people know, the title 'Ayatollah' ('Ayato Allah') literally translates as "proof/sign from God". The supreme leader of Iran, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is the Faqih in "Velayat Al-Faqih", which translates as "Rule of the Jurist" and is the official system of government according to Iran's post-revolutionary constitution. He is the final and, well, supreme authority in Iran, and his rulings are supposed to represent the will of God.

All of which is to say that, when Ali Khamenei refers to the results of Friday's elections as a "divine assessment", only to reverse himself two days later and call for a probe into fraud claims, it is clear that the ground has already shifted in Iran.

Khamenei may have made the mistake of his life when he rushed to approve the election results rather than waiting for the usual three days during which candidates can file their complaints about any wrongdoing. Whatever the extent of his involvement, he is now tainted by the fraud which unleashed this massive uprising in Iran, and may have turned a protest against Ahmadinejad into a revolt against the entire regime.

So here's some speculation: the best endgame for Khamenei is to see the current rioting quiet down, or be violently suppressed, in the ten days it takes Iran's Guardian Council to carry out its probe. If this happens, the Guardian Council, over which Khamenei holds considerable sway, will see an opportunity to re-confirm last Friday's results. If, on the other hand, the protestors' resolve remains unbroken, the Council may be forced to nullify the results and call another election. It would come as no surprise for Khamenei to sacrifice his preferred president in order to protect himself and his regime.

Then again, the protests might not just continue but escalate. Today, tens to hundreds of thousands of people rallied against the regime, with the 'defeated' Mousavi present, despite an official ban from the government. Today, the regime's soldiers opened fire on the crowds killing at least one person, an escalation from the previous days' tactics which has further enraged the Iranian public. It is reported that the faculty of the University of Tehran has resigned en masse in response to the government storming the university dorms yesterday, attacking students and destroying their computers.

In short, how things play out in Iran may depend less on the machinations of the regime than the distance the people are willing to go. Even though it is obviously rallying around Mousavi, this popular uprising does not have a clear leadership or detailed agenda. Will Iranians be content to see Ahmadinejad go, or will they take on the supreme leader himself?

Keep watching.

A Green Revolution In Iran?

2009-06-14T10:21:00.010-05:00

Whatever one expects or hopes to see happen in Iran, this much is already clear: the regime that has spent the last thirty years claiming to govern with a mandate from heaven has now admitted to its own people and the world at large that it really wields power by fraud and brutality. The Iranian men and women of all ages who are bleeding on the streets for their freedom and their country will not be easily quieted, and even if they are, they will not soon forget what the government has done.

Without looking at all the evidence, one might suppose it possible that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really did win Friday's presidential election. Some have argued that the pre-election polls showing a tight race between him and former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi were all wrong, and that Ahmadinejad really does have 63% of the Iranian electorate's support.

But there are too many reasons why these election results just don't add up.

First, even if it's true that the polls underrepresented the rural and poor populations, who constitute the core of Ahmadinejad's support, how could he have won in Tabriz, the capital of Mousavi's own home province of Azerbaijan? It stretches all credulity to say that, as an ethnic Azeri who is popular in urban areas, Mousavi would have lost in Iran's fourth largest city right in the heart of Azerbaijan provice.

Second, the Iranian state media have reported voter turnout in the election at 85%. The only time since the revolution that Iranian voter turnout was so high was in 1997, when an 80% turnout drove reformist Mohammed Khatami to victory. When was the last time any electorate, anywhere in the world, turned out in record-breaking numbers just to support the status quo?

Third and perhaps most importantly, if the election was legitimate, why the immediate crackdown? Why arrest opposition members, block text messaging and internet traffic, expel foreign journalists, and send the troops into the streets to beat up protestors unless the regime has something to hide? And why hasn't Mousavi been seen (though he has been heard from) since the results were announced?

But if the election was stolen, other questions have to be answered. Who stole this election, why did they steal it, and what happens now?

Why would Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei and the clerics go to the trouble of committing fraud when they already hold almost all of the power in Iran, no matter who is president? They already bar any candidate deemed too offensive to the 'values of the Islamic Revolution' from running for office, and demonstrated their ability to block a reformist president from enacting any real reforms during the Khatami years. Did they act out of fear or arrogance, or could it instead have been the Revolutionary Guard, acting on its own accord to keep a president during whose tenure they have increased their power over Iran's economy?

Whatever happened, whoever was behind it, and whatever their motives, the results have been hellish for Iran. Read The Huffington Post and Andrew Sullivan for continuous updates on the massive riots taking place throughout Iran, and the brutal response from the regime. Popular uprisings have ended more powerful regimes than Iran's theocracy, but many others have been mercilessly crushed by governments that would stop at nothing to retain their grip on power. But whether the current riots can beat the regime or not, these protestors already humble us by the courage with which they are fighting for their rights. Whether it's days or years from now, they deserve to win their country back, and I hope that they do.

It Really Wasn't That Long Ago ...

2009-06-06T12:12:00.004-05:00

Ah, the Internet, a place where you can recover all sorts of ancient information about ... the Internet (Hat Tip: Matthew Yglesias):

"That is what I will try to do - to speak the truth as best I can."

2009-06-04T19:48:00.016-05:00

"A New Beginning" may have been the catchy title selected for Obama's much-anticipated address to the Muslim world, but an invitation to candid dialogue was the real goal and theme. You can read the full transcript of the speech here, or watch it as delivered at Cairo University below:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

It's too early to tell what impact, if any, Obama's speech will have on relations between the United States and the Muslim world. But whatever its effects, the speech should be recognized as one of the most honest ever delivered by a politician to the worldwide Muslim population. And as one has come to expect from Obama, the oratory is excellent, with strong statements and subtle nuances well-worth examining.

As I said, to me, these statements capture the central theme of the speech:

[...] I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do — to speak the truth as best I can [...]

Obama's strength as a political speaker is not that he tells us anything we don't already know. The topics he broaches and ideas he discusses are debated on a daily basis in homes, classrooms, and coffee shops around the world.

From here, of course, we move on to some praise for Muslims past and present. This part stands out:

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar University — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

The Western-centric narrative of civilization used to go (and often still goes) as follows: "First there were the Greeks and the Romans, and then for a few centuries or so there were the Dark Ages where nothing happened, and then along came the Renaissance where we picked up where Antiquity left off." More recently, more and more scholars, Muslim and otherwise, have recognized that the dark ages of Christendom constituted a golden age for the Muslim world, when many advances in astronomy, mathematics, medicine, optics, sociology, and technology were achieved. By praising these contributions to modern civilization, Obama was not just paying a compliment, he was recognizing a narrative important to Muslim identity and sense of history.

Then there's this (emphasis mine):

[...] I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.

The word "revealed" is vague enough such that it can simply mean "discovered" or "made known to people," but in a speech about religion, even a subtle reference to Islam as a revelation (i.e.: from God) is a respectful acknowledgement of the Muslim narrative.

Historical narratives matter because they define a group's identity. As individuals, you and I cannot have a very constructive discussions if I do not, at least to some extent, acknowledge that you are who you say you are. Similarly, the source of much conflict and tension in the world comes from a refusal or inability of different parties to recognize or at least respect each other's narratives. With these simple statements, Obama is laying the ground for a constructive dialogue with his intended audience.

Focusing on the freedoms Muslims enjoy in America:

That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

Are you listening, Saudi Arabia (and others)? When was the last time a church, synagogue, or temple was built within your borders? And who is fighting for the legal right of women not to wear the hijab (without which, after all, the right to wear it is meaningless)?

Moving on to some common challenges we face:

[...] we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience.

The reference to Darfur is a bold and necessary one. Rather than acting (or even speaking) out against the killings of Muslims in that region, Arab governments have rallied around Sudan's president. And of course, associating the victims in Darfur with those in Bosnia, who enjoy sympathy throughout the Muslim world, is very smart, enough so that Obama drew the audience's applause with this statement.

The president, we begin to see, is not here just to offer his audience platitudinous praise. The aim is for a candid dialogue, which necessarily includes challenging everyone in his audience to examine where we have fallen short.

It is worth noting that, as he moves to discuss seven challenges faced by America and the Muslim world, Obama starts with:

[...] violent extremism in all its forms.

Obama can employ idealism to great effect, but any close examination of his actions shows him to be an unabashed realist. He has no problem, as indeed he should not, prioritizing America's security over other matters. Let's continue:

Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al-Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

This part of the speech should really be watched for effect. Obama is forceful, almost angry even, as he confronts the denials and justifications of the 9/11 attacks. Again, the point is to be honest with his listeners, not to tell them what they want to hear. Shortly thereafter we come to the part anticipated by many:

Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.

Hardly the apology that some were hoping for, but as close to an admission of error as you are likely to get from an American president under such circumstances. "I won't say it was wrong or right, but I will say that we went about it the wrong way."

Moving on to the Arab-Israeli conflict, we come to these remarkable words:

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction — or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews — is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

It is not remarkable that a U.S. president should say this, but rather that he should say it in such a setting. For anyone to stand in the heart of the Arab world and declare Holocaust denial to be "baseless, ignorant, and hateful" should not be taken lightly. And he doesn't stop there:

For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

The intelligence of these words is that he is arguing with groups like Hamas in their own language. "Yes, you have a moral cause. I would even compare your struggle to that of my own people. Let your actions live up to your cause, and you will win."

But Obama also has some unequivocal words for Israelis:

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

He uses the word "Palestine" rather than just "Palestinians", equates the two states' rights to exist, and takes an unambiguous stance against settlement expansion. These words can't make Netanyahu too happy either:

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

So no, Mr. Prime Minister, we won't come out and halfheartedly condemn settlement expansion, while secretly telling you that it's okay. Finally, he closes this part of the speech looking forward to a day:

when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

Just as he starts by acknowledging the Jewish narrative regarding Israel's foundation, he now recognizes the importance of Jerusalem in the Muslim narrative, by referencing the miraculous encounter at the site of what is now the Al-Aqsa mosque.

Third up, Iran and nuclear weapons:

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.

Simply recognizing the Iranian government by its official name helps erase the "axis of evil" fear that America's real goal vis-a-vis Iran is regime change. It helps that Obama acknowledges America's role in overthrowing the Mosadegh government in 1952 and imposing a dictatorship on Iran for almost three decades, a wound that still pains and angers Iranians to this day. Moving along:

There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

What's notable here is what is not said. Obama does not flat out say "We will not tolerate a nuclear Iran." In fact, he says that (a) he wants to discuss various issues between America and Iran without preconditions, and (b) the issue of Iran's nuclear program is for the whole Middle East, along with America, to address.

Fourth, democracy:

America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.

Wait a minute. Did Obama just imply that he would accept an Islamist government in, say, Egypt, if it were democratically elected. Shouldn't Mubarak have him arrested or something?

[...] I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.

It seems trivial, but the line "government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people" is one of my favourite lines from this speech. 'Corruption' is such an abstract word that, in a way, it is too weak to capture the reality of millions of people being robbed by their governments on a daily basis.

Fifth, religious freedom:

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld — whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt.

This speech may be directed at Muslims, but it is surely right that, being in Egypt, the president had to show some support for the country's millions-strong Christian minority. But it is worth noting that, having spoken up for Jews and Christians, Obama does not specifically call for broader rights or greater tolerance for non-Abrahamic religious minorities. It seems that such a statement would still be a bridge too far for some conservatives.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

On behalf of the government of France (and others), let me say: Ouch. But this allows us to transition smoothly into the sixth issue: women's rights.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity — men and women — to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

The cleverness here is that, if advocates for the rights of women in the Muslim world focus, as Obama does, on fighting for equal opportunities for women rather than on trying to transform the cultures of Muslim countries, they might see far less push-back against their efforts from Muslim men and women alike.

Final topic, economics:

[...] no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas.

I wish more people would stand up in the Kuwaiti parliament and say this.

Alright, let's jump to the conclusion:

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.

I'd also be impressed if more Muslim leaders started quoting the Bible and Torah in speeches aimed to foreign or domestic audiences.

Again, what really jumps out at me throughout this speech is not the promises or specifics (there are few enough of those), but rather the simple honesty of its language. This is not a speech that heralds a revolutionary change, which is why it might not make a strong or lasting impression on those who listen to it. Instead, this speech is an invitation to a frank and sure-to-be difficult dialogue, an invitation which I hope will be answered.

إنا لله وإنا إليه راجعون

2009-05-20T07:04:00.005-05:00

Mohamed Alaa Mubarak, grandson of Egypt's president Hosni Mubarak, passed away on Monday at the age of twelve. Condolences to his family as they deal with a terrible loss.

اللهم إنا لا نسألك رد القضاء, ولكنا نسألك اللطف فيه

One Good Step For Womankind

2009-05-19T22:27:00.004-05:00

Congratulations to Masouma Al-Mubarak (seen to the right), Salwa Al-Jassar, Rula Dashti, and Aseel Al-Awadhi on becoming the first female elected members to the Kuwaiti parliament. Saturday's election marked a milestone in an ongoing struggle for women's rights in Kuwait. Given that Kuwaiti women only gained the right to vote and run for office in 2005, after at least two failed attempts to pass women's suffrage in parliament in previous years, this victory shows a definite momentum towards greater female rights and representation.

Of course, a victory for civil rights does not mean that Kuwait is suddenly without problems. This election was the third in about as many years, the product of increasing tension between the ruling family, headed by Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah, and an elected legislature which has been pushing for increased authority. While some will celebrate the fact that the Islamists, the main opposition to the royal family, lost ground in this election, it is far from clear whether this new parliament will be up to the task of guiding Kuwait through its current economic and political challenges.

Nor does the current victory represent universal suffrage in Kuwait. In fact, even given the women's vote, only an estimated 15% of Kuwait's population is currently eligible to vote, since Kuwaiti citizenship laws are highly restrictive. Given the fact that only 56% of eligible voters actually voted in Saturday's election, that implies that 2.7 million people are currently being governed according to the will of a less-than-ten-percent minority.

Still, regardless of whatever other problems beset the country, the entry of women into the Kuwaiti parliament is an event well worth celebrating on its own merits. So congratulations again to the four who crossed the threshold first. Here's hoping for more such victories in Kuwait and throughout the Gulf.

Book Review: "Hell or High Water: My Life in and out of Politics" by Paul Martin

2009-04-30T22:38:00.009-05:00

Blogger's note: A copy of this book was provided by McClelland Books for this review.

Most politicians are best remembered by the highest office that they attain in their careers. Paul Martin is a clear exception. Although he became prime minister, he is best and most fondly remembered for his role as finance minister in the government of Jean Chretien. So it is no surprise that the title to his memoirs comes from the finance minister's famous promise, made and delivered upon, to end Canada's years of deficits come "hell or high water."

There are many reasons to read (or write) political memoirs. One is to try to gain a better understanding of the people who make important decisions (Was Paul Martin's father the reason why he went into politics?). Another is to take a closer look at the way these decisions of policy and politics are made (How did Paul Martin pass his budget cuts in the 1990s?). Yet another is to get the inside scoop on personal rivalries and watch scores get settled (What did Paul Martin really think of Jean Chretien?)

If you're after the third of these reasons, this book probably isn't for you. It takes Martin over 200 pages (out of a nearly 500-page book) to get to the political split between him and Chretien, and even then his "getting quit" from the position of finance minister before becoming leader of the Liberal Party is covered in just two chapters. Before that, in describing the years he spent working in Chretien's cabinet, Martin is respectful, even praising, of the former Prime Minister (while admitting their differences).

What this book is really good for is trying to understand Martin as a person, with his perpectives on Canada, finance, leadership, and global affairs given from a vantage point that few people have shared. While not formally divided as such, the book can be seen in three parts. The first describes Martin's childhood and life before politics, where despite being the son of MP and Cabinet Minister Paul Martin Sr., our 21st prime minister had "an ordinary childhood," and grew up with a greater interest in business than public service. Indeed, before being "drawn to the flame," Martin had a famously successful career as a corporate officer and later company owner, which he outlines in fascinating and humourous detail.

In the second part, Martin talks about his years as finance minister. In some ways, these hundred-plus pages are the best of the book. Martin artfully shifts back-and-forth from general ideas and economic principles, to anecdotes of his interactions with business and political leaders at both the municipal, provincial, federal, and international level, and to discussions of where international finance and politics are headed and Canada's role in that future world. It's enough to make you realize that, even if his political career is done, this is a person whose insights should still be called upon in our national debates.

In the third part of his memoirs, constituting the latter half of the book, Martin talks about his time as prime minister. He was only prime minister for a little over two years, but Martin reminds us that to govern is to have to address a whole host of important matters, which he sums up as follows:

Transition. Cabinet selection. Sponsorship cancellation. Budget #I. Auditor General's report. Mad as Hell. Whistleblowers Legistlation. Gagliano. Health care. Child care. Cities. Kyoto. Ontario Health premium. Election call. Darfur. Haiti. Afghanistan. Debt-relief. L-20. Mexico. Russia. India. Japan. Hong Kong. China. Sudan. Lybia. Thailand. Sri Lanka. Middle East. Responsibility to Protect. Tsunami. DART. NORAD. BMD. DND. CIDA. International Policy Statement. Second cabinet. Budget #2. Sea Island. Gleneagles. Fisheries. Mad cow. Softwood. Devils Lake. Health accord. Atlantic accord. NDP budget accord. Kelowna Accord. Equalization. Pacific Gateway. Safe Borders. Maher Arar. The North. The West. The East. Quebec and Ontario.

On all of these matters, Martin outlines his decision making process and makes the case for his choices. Occasionally, on issues that are clearly important to him, he directly criticizes the current government for changing his policies, but keeps his criticisms of Stephen Harper and others limited to the issues. Because it covers so much ground in about two hundred pages, the material on Martin's premiership is fairly condensed, and so it takes some time to read through.

The book in general, while often entertaining, is no page-turner. Is it worth reading? If you're interested in politics, particularly the substance over the drama, then the answer is a definite yes. It probably won't be remembered as the defining memoir of our time, but Paul Martin's Hell or High Water is a very good book.

Torture Talk

2009-04-30T19:56:00.005-05:00

I'm going to write a more thought-out post on the issue of torture under the Bush administration (thoughts from last year here and here), an issue which is being debated again due to the declassification of the memos used to authorize the practice. For now, though, here are some videos of those who authorized the policy of torture talking (or sometimes, trying to avoid talking) about what they did.

(The videos are about 1/2 hour long in total)

Former CIA director George Tenet:

Former White House lawyer John Yoo:

Former White House lawyer, and later Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales:

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell (actual interview starts 2 1/2 minutes in):

Former National Security Advisor, and later Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice (the discussion gets heated about 3 1/2 minutes in):

Former Vice President Dick Cheney:

And finally, where the buck stops, former President George W. Bush:

A Peace Worth Keeping

2009-03-30T22:56:00.000-05:00

Last Thursday marked, with little fanfare, the 30th anniversary of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. Sure, there were reports about the anniversary in the Egyptian and Israeli media, but they were mostly focused on how little public enthusiasm there has been to mark the occasion, and how little warmth there has been between the two countries in these past years.

Egypt's president Mubarak has not made a single state visit to Israel in his 27 years in power, and the opposition Muslim Brotherhood still refuses to even recognize Israel by name. Never one to be out-extremed, the new foreign minister of Israel is a man who once threatened to drown Egypt by bombing the Aswan High Dam and more recently said that Mubarak "can go to hell". Avigdor Lieberman's first visit to Cairo should prove interesting - should it ever occur.

There are many more examples of hostile statements and outright provocations from the politicians and the media of both states. One would be tempted to think that the peace treaty has brought no good to either country. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Between 1947 and 1973, Egypt and Israel fought five wars (if you include the 1967-1970 War of Attrition), at a cost of more than ten thousand lives on each side. On the other hand, since the peace treaty, Henry Kissinger's maxim that there can be "no war without Egypt, and no peace without Syria" has held true. Even through the first and second Israel-Lebanon wars, the Israeli bombing of Iraq in the 1980s and Iraq's bombing of Israel in the 1990s, and the unceasing tragedy that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Middle East has been spared another region-wide war.

Of course, for those who still wish to see Israel destroyed, the lack of a regional conflagration is precisely the problem. During the Gaza War, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah famously called for the Egyptian military to defy (or overthrow) their government and come to the aid of the Palestinians. And when it became clear that Egypt would hold to its border agreements with Israel (maybe out of principle, or maybe because Mubarak is no friend of Hamas), anti-Egyptian protests erupted throughout the Middle East and broader Muslim world. Egyptian embassies were attacked, and pictures of Egypt's president - such as the one shown to the right - were burned alongside those of Israeli and American leaders. Today, Egypt's neighbours may view it in an even more negative light than they did in the decade that Egypt spent out of the Arab League after initially making peace with Israel.

And yet the treaty has held, and lives have continued to be saved because of it. So why the lack of enthusiasm on the parts of the benefiting populations of the two countries?

For one thing, although they are no longer threatened on their western border, Israelis have obviously not experienced peace in the past thirty years. For a time, it seemed that a broader Middle East peace was a real possibility. With the regional peace conference held in Madrid in 1991, followed by the Oslo peace accords of 1993, the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty of 1994, the Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations of the late 1990s, and Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, it started to seem that the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was just a decade or two ahead of the curve.

But of course the peace process collapsed in late 2000, and the region has been hurtling into more war and violence ever since. The election of increasingly right-wing governments in Israel suggests that Israelis now see peace as undesirable, improbable, or both. Under such circumstances, for a country that has lived under a siege mentality since its inception, it is easy to generalize "the Arabs" (and now, of course, the Iranians) as the enemy than it is to consider the different interests and rivalries that govern the conflicts of the Middle East.

On the Egyptian side, it is expected that emotional solidarity with the Palestinians will keep the public from warming to Israel so long as the occupation continues. But I suspect that, even given the situation in Palestine, the Egyptian public would be more sold on peace had its full benefits been achieved. I was born after the peace treaty was signed, and after Israel's final withdrawal from Egyptian territory. Still, I know enough about the prior years of war - from the lives lost for no gain, to the failure of the country's infrastructure due to unending military spending and mobilization, to the odious slogan that "no voice may rise above the sound of battle" - that I never want to see them return.

Egypt is in most ways better off today than it was in the 1950s and 60s. Whatever his failures, Anwar El-Sadat deserves credit for laying the groundwork for Egypt's improved fortunes in the 1980s and early 90s by drawing the country away from war and socialism. But he did fail, as did his successor, to couple peace and economic liberalization to true political reform. It may be necessary to admit, reluctantly, that it took a dictator to bring Egypt on board for a peace treaty. However, whatever the conventional wisdom of realpolitik might say, it is not true that the rigidity of dictatorship helps this peace today. Instead, oppression and corruption have kept people from experiencing the prosperity that should come with peace, and in a troubled society there will always be those who find it easier to demonize "external forces" (with Jews being at the top of the list) than to ask the tough questions needed for reform.

But in the end, external pressures and internal frustrations notwithstanding, it is difficult to imagine that either the Egyptian or Israeli governments will risk threatening the peace treaty. Still, it remains a shame that neither country has really managed to build on the success of 1979 as they should have. For all the Israeli politicians' laments that there is no new Sadat among the Arab leaders, where is their own Sadat today? When will they produce leaders unafraid to face their foes, not on the battlefield, but on the negotiating table? And when will Egypt realize that, after decades of national independence and peace, the only real barriers to freedom and prosperity are now at home?

The Not-Sure-What Of Both Worlds

2009-03-23T21:42:00.003-05:00

In politics, the key to seeming reasonable is to define your position as the middle ground between two extremes. For this reason, the Obama administration's plan to save America's troubled financial sector will probably be politically saleable. The Public-Private Investment Program (aka the "Geithner plan") doesn't rely solely on the banks to fix themselves (the free market option), but nor does it nationalize the banks outright and get the government to fix the mess they made (the 'socialist' option). Centrism accomplished.

But will it work? Short answer: How should I know? Even reputed economists have been scratching their heads at this problem since September.

In considering that question, though, let's first recall the problem. Banks are currently holding a whole lot of "toxic assets", bad investments based largely on bad mortgages, that they can't sell. Thus, money isn't changing hands, investments aren't being made, businesses aren't being financed, and people aren't finding work.

The market-based approach of addressing this problem would be to give the banks time to sort it out themselves. Eventually, the banks would be forced to sell off their assets at whatever extremely low price is acceptable to buyers. The trouble is that a lot of banks would probably go broke (as some already have) if their assets became so depreciated, which would weaken the U.S. economy even further. If you're Ron Paul, you might believe that a prolonged recession or depression is just what the doctor ordered for curing investors and consumers of their exorbitant habits, and that the economy could then come back stronger than before. But that would be a tough medicine to swallow.

Another option would be for the government to just buy out the banks, toxic assets and all, at the expense of current and future taxpayers. With an influx of government money, and under government control, the banks would proceed to provide the credit needed to get the economy going again. And once the financial sector and the economy in general stabilized, the banks could be re-privatized.

What the Obama administration has elected to do is to get private investors to buy up the toxic assets using government money, by subsidizing over 90% of the purchase cost of these assets for those willing to buy them at auction. Thus, while the market still dictates the low cost of the assets to the buyers (say, $10), the banks selling those assets get a lot more than they're worth (say, $100), allowing them to stay in business. At least, that's how I understand it.

But, you might ask, doesn't that just transfer the financial burden onto those new buyers and onto the taxpayers, causing the same problem to re-occur further down the road? Depends how toxic those assets are. The theory behind this plan is that, once lending and investment are underway again, the value of these assets will appreciate to the point where the problem is solved.

Does that make sense? Again: I don't know. Maybe for the time being a government-subsidized free market will prove to be the best of both worlds. On the other hand, maybe using an inefficient government to finance an irresponsible market will have disastrous results. But, at this point, the decision has been made and announced. Let's hope this plan works.

Three Years Old

2009-03-21T07:21:00.002-05:00

That's how old this blog is today. Looking back over some of my posts, I sometimes find myself thinking "Did I really say that?" But I've enjoyed writing every post, and hope you've enjoyed reading at least a few.

Oh, and if you know why I chose the above picture for this blogoversary, here's a whole lot of geek respect going your way.

- Khaled

Compare, Contrast, and Contemplate

2009-03-20T19:21:00.003-05:00

Six years ago this week, the United States launched its invasion of Iraq under false pretenses and with what turned out to be a terrible lack of planning. I remember watching the first reports on the start of the bombing campaign, and the then-president announce the start of this ongoing war.

But George W. Bush was not the first president to announce a campaign against Iraq from the Oval office. Here's George H.W. Bush in 1991:

And here's Bill Clinton in 1993:

And again in 1998:

(The speeches are unfortunately incomplete)

How do you think they compare? And how do you think this timeline will look ten or twenty years down the road?

To Jail A President

2009-03-15T22:05:00.003-05:00

Will Omar Bashir stand trial for war crimes in Darfur? So far, the only tangible result of the arrest warrant issued for him by the International Criminal Court is that a dozen aid organizations have been kicked out Sudan. And the Arab League has rallied around Sudan's president and decried the arrest warrant as a sign of Western imperialism. But of course, most of the dictators of the Arab world have an interest in making sure that no sitting president is ever arrested for crimes against humanity.

Then again, are Arab dictators the only problem here? Look at the map below.

The countries in green formally recognize the ICC (full list here), whereas the countries in grey do not. The U.S.A., China, and Russia refuse to recognize the Court, as they would certainly have much to worry about if their leaders/soldiers were subject to its jurisdiction. For international law to have real power, it needs an international order to enforce it. Where is that order to come from when the most powerful countries in the world refuse to recognize the law?

And yet, as easy as it would be to throw up our hands in despair and declare the cause of justice to be lost, we cannot afford to do so. To get hung up on the hypocrisies and double standards with which different countries approach international law is to forget the hundreds of thousands who have already died in Darfur, and the many more who are still threatened. Their lives are more important than abstract debates of politics or even sovereignty.

Bringing Bashir and his crew to justice is primarily a matter of saving lives, and so we should attempt to do so even if it means some cooperation with those who have themselves run afoul of the law. Let us bring an end to an ongoing crime now, while there is an opportunity to do so, and then see how we can strengthen international law so that no one is above it.

Pushing Boundaries

2009-03-14T10:04:00.003-05:00

In Jon Stewart's world, there must be a special place in hell for media personalities who act as enablers, as opposed to watchdogs, of corruption. It was Jon Stewart, after all, who single-handedly destroyed CNN's Crossfire after he eviscerated its hosts on their own show. But if you watched The Daily Show on Thursday night, you would have thought that he had gone easy on Crossfire's Begala and Carlson back in 2004.

Purely as a one-on-one confrontation, the much-anticipated interview (language warning at the link) of CNBC's Jim Cramer certainly didn't disappoint. But as Stewart kept pointing out, a single TV show and its host aren't really the point. The real issue was articulated by Cramer late in the interview:

"Cramer: It's difficult to have a reporter say 'I just came from an interview with [former Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson, and he lied his darn fool head off.' It's difficult. I think it challenges the boundaries."

Some would say that it is precisely the media's job to challenge "the boundaries". Calgary Grit appropriately says that the Stewart/Cramer interview "almost had a Frost/Nixon vibe to it." It's probably been that long since the media acted like Stewart did on Thursday. It's one thing to play "gotcha" against an ideological opponent (there's still plenty of that). But to go after an establishment figure - be it a high-ranking politician, a major CEO, or a fellow reporter - to expose his/her deception and corruption on an important issue is very different. And as difficult as it may be, doing so is an essential responsibility of the fourth estate. How unfortunate that one of the few people willing to take up that responsibility today is a comedian.

Mr. Harper Goes To America

2009-03-07T11:04:00.003-05:00

While this country was caught up in the excitement over Obama's visit to us late last month, few of us paid as much attention to our own prime minister's follow-up visit to the United States. Among other things, Harper gave two very good interviews to the CNBC and CNN, where he talked about economics, financial regulation, and the war in Afghanistan:

What impresses me in these interviews is that our prime minister, for all his frustrating politicking at home, demonstrates himself to be an effective public ambassador for Canada overseas. He consistently delivers some of the most important messages a Canadian PM should send to America right now: that protectionist policies will only undermine both of our economies, that prudent financial regulation is essential, and that government stimulus - even if one ideologically opposes it - is currently the best way to fight off this global recession.

The anti-protectionism argument is the most important one to be made right now. While Obama may himself see the necessity of open trade, he will be under pressure from the congressional Democratic majority to implement policies that give unfair advantages to his domestic industries. As the United States' largest trading partner, we're going to have to publicly and privately maintain our own pressure on this point.

Harper is at his most surprising, though, when talking about Afghanistan to CNN. As Rex Murphy pointed out on The National two nights ago, this is not the Harper who just two years ago was excoriating others for wanting to "cut and run" from Afghanistan. Now, our prime minister is flat-out saying that we're going to leave Afghanistan without defeating the insurgency there.

It's odd that Harper was more candid and reasoned in his statements outside of Canada's borders than he has previously been within them. It could be that his thinking on the economy and Afghanistan really has changed over the past few months. Or it could be that, whatever his personal political beliefs, he accepts his responsibility to act as a representative for all of Canada (i.e.: to represent the Canadian national consensus) when discussing the issues with foreign parties. Whatever the cause, our prime minister deserves credit for a job well done. I just hope we see more of that Stephen Harper here at home.

Iraq 2012

2009-02-27T20:38:00.005-05:00

American presidential campaigns are like American Christmases: once one's over, it's never too early to start counting down to the next. And I'm starting to think that Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign is either going to be really easy or really tough. Barely a month into his presidency, Obama has already made some very public promises which set some very clear criteria for judging his first term. First came the promise to shut down the Guantanamo Bay military prison within one year. Then came the promise, at the start of a recession, to cut the U.S. deficit in half by 2013.

Now we have this:

"Let me say this as plainly as I can: by 31 August, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."

Moreover, in the same speech today, the president promised to withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

A few important points bear mentioning. First, the withdrawal of an estimated 100,000 combat forces is not expected to begin in earnest until the start of 2010. Second, even after August 2010, there will be somewhere between 35,000 and 50,000 'support' troops in Iraq. To put that number in perspective, there are currently 47,000 NATO troops, combat or otherwise, fighting the war in Afghanistan, a country that is larger than (but comparable to) Iraq in terms of both population and geographic size. Granted, some would consider that latter point proof not so much of overcommitment to Iraq as undercommitment to Afghanistan. Third, the final withdrawal date of end-2011 was not decided by Obama but by the Status of Forces Agreement signed between the Iraqi government and the Bush administration last year.

The most important question, though, is this: what will this withdrawal mean for Iraq? Will the country be able to sustain itself after the last American soldier has left?

In January 2007, shortly after George Bush replaced defence secretary Donald "Stuff Happens" Rumsfeld with Robert Gates (who remains defence secretary in Obama's administration), the U.S. announced that it would be boosting the number of troops in Iraq and reformulating its strategy there in what was dubbed "the surge." At the time, the deadly violence in Iraq seemed to be uncontrollable, and an Iraqi civil war was considered a very real possibility. The goal of the surge was to bring down the level of violence so as to create breathing room for political reconciliation between Iraq's Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds.

It is now indisputable that, at least in terms of reducing violence in Iraq, the surge has worked. There are still tragic reports of killings and bombings, but the situation is nowhere near as bad as it was in 2005-2006. And there is certainly cause for optimism on the political front. The recent provincial elections went through peacefully, and there will be another federal election in the summer of 2010, just before the U.S. ends its combat mission in the country. However, it remains unclear whether the relative lack of violence in Iraq is a result of genuine reconciliation between the different sects and factions, or if it is a temporary lull artificially maintained by large numbers of U.S. troops.

The truth is, we will never really know if Iraq can stand on its own until the U.S. withdraws from there. If, come 2012, Iraqis have managed to maintain peace and make political progress on their own, they will have vindicated Bush's insistence on the surge at a time when there was immense pressure on the U.S. to withdraw. As much as the wrong decision to invade Iraq, and the horrible mismanagement of the war and occupation, unleashed a catastrophe on the people of that country, the former American president will at least have helped to fix the consequences of his mistake.

I hope that's what happens. I hope that America's withdrawal from Iraq is not followed by another breakdown into violence. But if it is, if the Iraqis squander the current opportunity to fix their country, we will at least know that nothing short of an endless military occupation - one which the U.S. has no right or reason to maintain - could have controlled the situation.

Update

2009-02-19T08:29:00.003-05:00

I'll be back to regular blogging soon, but in the meantime I just wanted to make a note regarding a previous post. Specifically, I mentioned the bombing of a UN school in Gaza in the post 'Israel Unaccountable'. The UN now says that the Israeli shells landed near - but not in - the school. The BBC has a good report on the ongoing attempts to figure out just what did or didn't happen in Gaza here.