Hi everybody! Hope y'all had a good weekend.
Lots of interesting developments in the news today, not the least of which is the fact that the Arab League voted over the weekend to increase the number of observers in Syria from its existing 165 to 300. I'm still not sold on the effectiveness of this mission--the first of its kind from the Arab League--due to the fact that the number of people killed seems to increase with each passing day, another 15 just yesterday, despite the observers' presence. The numbers of dead keep mounting. The current estimate is already at about 6,000, which is more than the number of U.S. soldiers dead in almost ten years in Iraq.
The mission is due to wrap on January 19th, just 10 days from today, with a report on whether or not Assad's regime has complied to the Arab League mandate. As I've indicated before, I am extremely skeptical of this whole mission. I just don't see how things are going to change. Assad's brutal crackdown of the Syrian people has been going on for almost a year now. What's changed? How are the protesters being helped by the Arab League? Government forces are still killing innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Homs and Hama with an alarming hubris. The Syrian army escorts the observers, making sure to steer them clear of any hotspots. I don't know, but when that report is issued on the 19th, I'd be surprised if it offers more than a perfunctory slap on Assad's wrist. Then what happens?
What particularly irks me is the fact that because of Russia and China, the U.S. and/or NATO is not considering airstrikes like they did in Libya, which had a proven rate of success. I could be wrong but from a strategic standpoint, Syria has a helluva lot more influence in that part of the world than Libya under Qaddafi ever did...and is a much greater menace. Syria essentially rules Lebanon by proxy through Hizbullah..it's agents are reputed to have been responsible for the car bomb assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005, not to mention the fact that Damascus has served as the main base of operations for Hamas, though the latter is said to be distancing itself from the Assad administration while it seeks greater international legitimacy.
While I believe that countries should be allowed to govern themselves without the participation of occupying forces, something has to be said for at least some outside assistance when and where it's due. Nation-building doesn't work--just look at the fiasco that was (and increasingly continues to be) Iraq. But in Syria's case, from an international perspective, relying solely on the dubious word of Arab League observers (however well-intentioned), headed by a Sudanese general with a proven history of human rights abuses, is like the blind leading the blind. And once the Arab League mission ends on the 19th and the observers pack up and go home, what's to stop Mr. Assad from furthering his reign of terror?
Please, people, don't let Syria be the final word on the Arab Spring.
Ciao.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Sunday Movie Review: A Dangerous Method
Hi everyone!
I went to see David Cronenberg's critically acclaimed film "A Dangerous Method" this afternoon. It stars the acting triumvirate of Michael Fassbender as Karl Jung; Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud; and Keira Knightley as Sabina Spielrein, a troubled young Russian woman who starts off as Jung's patient, becomes his lover, and then goes on to a successful career as a psycho-therapist.
Over the course of its 99 minutes, we see beautiful cinematography of the Swiss countryside and period-perfect costumes while listening to a lot of psychoanalytic babble, Freudian angst about sex, juxtaposed with not-infrequent scenes of Ms. Knightley falling out of her bodice while Mr. Fassbender "spanks" her with a belt.
I wanted to like this film. Michael Fassbender is currently one of my very favorite actors and, based on his visceral performance as a hopeless sex addict in Steve McQueen's masterpiece "Shame," one of the best youngish actors gracing our silver screens today. He was good as Jung, just as Mr. Mortensen was good as Freud, and just as Ms, Knightley was merely decent as the sexually repressed Sabina, though her Russian Jewish accent soon got on my nerves as she sounded like she was speaking with a mouthful of marbles.
There was nothing inherently wrong with any of the performances. The problem I had was that the whole production was just a bit stodgy and emotionally detached. It often felt more like I was watching a well-filmed stage play than an actual film, or a costume drama you might see on PBS or the BBC, though not nearly as good as, say, "Downton Abbey."
Another problem I had was that I got the feeling that the script was targeted more towards an audience with a pretty good knowledge of the birth of psychoanalysis and, specifically, the relationship between Jung and Freud. Toward the end of the film, Freud criticizes Jung for giving too much credence to "Shamanism" and "religiosity," neither of which we see any indication of in the film itself. What was more fundamentally problematic for me though was that I didn't believe Mr. Fassbender's Jung had any real great passion for Ms. Knightley's Sabina. For all their chit-chat about sex and violence and Sabina's fantasies about incest, when the spanking begins there's no spark, no chemistry at all between the two of them. It's all just rather bland and fairly clinical. The only real glimmer of any sort of life on screen is when Sabina slashes Jung's face with an envelope opener after he tells her the first time that they need to break things off. Oh, and there's the opening sequence when Ms. Knightley is being dragged into the sanitarium while writhing and screaming like a banshee.
I'm not necessarily saying "A Dangerous Method" is a bad film. Like I said, the performances are by-and-large quite solid and the production values are visually appealing. French actor Vincent Cassel is a standout in his brief appearance as one of Jung's patients, but he disappears all too soon. The script, while not being terrible, is serviceable but too academic to hold much interest. A ninety-nine minute running time does not make for a long film but I was ready for it to be over at around the eighty minute mark.
If you're a Michael Fassbender fan or want to see what all the hype about him is all about, I strongly suggest you check out his performance in "Shame." His performance, paired with the increasingly surprising Carey Mulligan, is truly one of the highlights of the year.
Ciao.
I went to see David Cronenberg's critically acclaimed film "A Dangerous Method" this afternoon. It stars the acting triumvirate of Michael Fassbender as Karl Jung; Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud; and Keira Knightley as Sabina Spielrein, a troubled young Russian woman who starts off as Jung's patient, becomes his lover, and then goes on to a successful career as a psycho-therapist.
Over the course of its 99 minutes, we see beautiful cinematography of the Swiss countryside and period-perfect costumes while listening to a lot of psychoanalytic babble, Freudian angst about sex, juxtaposed with not-infrequent scenes of Ms. Knightley falling out of her bodice while Mr. Fassbender "spanks" her with a belt.
I wanted to like this film. Michael Fassbender is currently one of my very favorite actors and, based on his visceral performance as a hopeless sex addict in Steve McQueen's masterpiece "Shame," one of the best youngish actors gracing our silver screens today. He was good as Jung, just as Mr. Mortensen was good as Freud, and just as Ms, Knightley was merely decent as the sexually repressed Sabina, though her Russian Jewish accent soon got on my nerves as she sounded like she was speaking with a mouthful of marbles.
There was nothing inherently wrong with any of the performances. The problem I had was that the whole production was just a bit stodgy and emotionally detached. It often felt more like I was watching a well-filmed stage play than an actual film, or a costume drama you might see on PBS or the BBC, though not nearly as good as, say, "Downton Abbey."
Another problem I had was that I got the feeling that the script was targeted more towards an audience with a pretty good knowledge of the birth of psychoanalysis and, specifically, the relationship between Jung and Freud. Toward the end of the film, Freud criticizes Jung for giving too much credence to "Shamanism" and "religiosity," neither of which we see any indication of in the film itself. What was more fundamentally problematic for me though was that I didn't believe Mr. Fassbender's Jung had any real great passion for Ms. Knightley's Sabina. For all their chit-chat about sex and violence and Sabina's fantasies about incest, when the spanking begins there's no spark, no chemistry at all between the two of them. It's all just rather bland and fairly clinical. The only real glimmer of any sort of life on screen is when Sabina slashes Jung's face with an envelope opener after he tells her the first time that they need to break things off. Oh, and there's the opening sequence when Ms. Knightley is being dragged into the sanitarium while writhing and screaming like a banshee.
I'm not necessarily saying "A Dangerous Method" is a bad film. Like I said, the performances are by-and-large quite solid and the production values are visually appealing. French actor Vincent Cassel is a standout in his brief appearance as one of Jung's patients, but he disappears all too soon. The script, while not being terrible, is serviceable but too academic to hold much interest. A ninety-nine minute running time does not make for a long film but I was ready for it to be over at around the eighty minute mark.
If you're a Michael Fassbender fan or want to see what all the hype about him is all about, I strongly suggest you check out his performance in "Shame." His performance, paired with the increasingly surprising Carey Mulligan, is truly one of the highlights of the year.
Ciao.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Saturday Book Review: Last Man in Tower by Aravind Adiga
Hi everyone!
I've decided to devote my Saturday and Sunday blogs to entertainment-related features. Saturdays will take the form of a book review, while Sundays will most likely consist of a movie or some other type of artistic review. Culture and the arts have always been a big part of my life and I kind of like the idea of taking some time off from political and current affairs analysis/discussion to focus on other passions.
I spent the bulk of this Saturday afternoon finishing British-Indian writer Aravind Adiga's latest novel, "Last Man in Tower." Mr. Adiga won the Man Booker Prize a few years ago for his novel "The White Tiger," which I own but have yet to make it past the first few pages. Based on "Last Man in Tower," however, I feel I am going to have to revisit the earlier novel because Mr. Adiga is quite the literary talent.
In brief, "Last Man in Tower" tells the story of the residents of Vishram Society Tower B on the outskirts of the vast Vakola slum in Mumbai, India. Dharmen Shah, an avuncular real estate developer whose glitzy high-rise building projects are devouring the Mumbai skyline, makes a generous offer to the inhabitants of Tower B to buy their flats for an extraordinary sum in order to raze the building to the ground for a new glamourous high-rise development. There is a hitch, however: the decision to accept Mr. Shah's offer has to be unanimous and has to accepted by a certain date or else the entire offer is rescinded.
Of course, Mr. Shah has no intention of being refused. He employs a certain Mr. Shanmugham, his "left-hand" man, to essentially strong-arm the residents of Vishram Society Tower B to accept his offer, using less than ethical tactics (bribery and extortion) to turn the residents against each other. An elderly, retired and respected schoolteacher and widower, "Masterji," ends up the last hold-out. Masterji is 'the last man in tower' and what happens to him as a result of his stubborn resistance to corporate corruption provides the basis of Mr. Adiga's novel.
"Last Man in Tower" is perhaps best described as an allegory. What happens within Vishram Tower B is no doubt representative of Indian society-at-large. The perspective is largely negative. Mr. Adiga is fairly ruthless in his portrayal of a society rife with corruption and violence, where life is cheap regardless of whether one lives in a shanty amidst desperate migrants in Vakola or a penthouse among Bollywood hotties in Bandra. The faintest whiff of money causes seemingly decent and protective mothers to smear excrement all over a neighbor's door or a young boy to beat up an elderly man in his own living room. People who have co-existed as neighbors in a more-or-less amiable fashion for decades suddenly turn on and inform upon each other and--ultimately--conspire to commit murder, all for the sake of a shot at a better life for themselves and their children.
Mr. Adiga's narrative voice is sharp. He is unstinting in his descriptions of the sights and smells of modern-day Mumbai. And while his characters often behave in ways that are objectionable at best and reprehensible at worst, the reader gets the feeling that he has a lot of affection for these people...as a result, the reader does as well.
As much as I enjoyed the novel (I read the last 100 or so pages in one sitting), I do think it could have been shortened by about 50 or so pages. I had more-or-less figured out what was going to happen before it happened and as a result I wasn't particularly shocked by the outcome. Still, Mr. Adiga's characters are so well-drawn and his descriptions so visceral, I couldn't help but turn the pages.
If you are looking for a fictional account of life in modern Mumbai...or are particularly drawn to stories that portray the shameless lengths people will go to for the sake of money, "Last Man in Tower" is a worthy investment of your time.
I've decided to devote my Saturday and Sunday blogs to entertainment-related features. Saturdays will take the form of a book review, while Sundays will most likely consist of a movie or some other type of artistic review. Culture and the arts have always been a big part of my life and I kind of like the idea of taking some time off from political and current affairs analysis/discussion to focus on other passions.
I spent the bulk of this Saturday afternoon finishing British-Indian writer Aravind Adiga's latest novel, "Last Man in Tower." Mr. Adiga won the Man Booker Prize a few years ago for his novel "The White Tiger," which I own but have yet to make it past the first few pages. Based on "Last Man in Tower," however, I feel I am going to have to revisit the earlier novel because Mr. Adiga is quite the literary talent.
In brief, "Last Man in Tower" tells the story of the residents of Vishram Society Tower B on the outskirts of the vast Vakola slum in Mumbai, India. Dharmen Shah, an avuncular real estate developer whose glitzy high-rise building projects are devouring the Mumbai skyline, makes a generous offer to the inhabitants of Tower B to buy their flats for an extraordinary sum in order to raze the building to the ground for a new glamourous high-rise development. There is a hitch, however: the decision to accept Mr. Shah's offer has to be unanimous and has to accepted by a certain date or else the entire offer is rescinded.
Of course, Mr. Shah has no intention of being refused. He employs a certain Mr. Shanmugham, his "left-hand" man, to essentially strong-arm the residents of Vishram Society Tower B to accept his offer, using less than ethical tactics (bribery and extortion) to turn the residents against each other. An elderly, retired and respected schoolteacher and widower, "Masterji," ends up the last hold-out. Masterji is 'the last man in tower' and what happens to him as a result of his stubborn resistance to corporate corruption provides the basis of Mr. Adiga's novel.
"Last Man in Tower" is perhaps best described as an allegory. What happens within Vishram Tower B is no doubt representative of Indian society-at-large. The perspective is largely negative. Mr. Adiga is fairly ruthless in his portrayal of a society rife with corruption and violence, where life is cheap regardless of whether one lives in a shanty amidst desperate migrants in Vakola or a penthouse among Bollywood hotties in Bandra. The faintest whiff of money causes seemingly decent and protective mothers to smear excrement all over a neighbor's door or a young boy to beat up an elderly man in his own living room. People who have co-existed as neighbors in a more-or-less amiable fashion for decades suddenly turn on and inform upon each other and--ultimately--conspire to commit murder, all for the sake of a shot at a better life for themselves and their children.
Mr. Adiga's narrative voice is sharp. He is unstinting in his descriptions of the sights and smells of modern-day Mumbai. And while his characters often behave in ways that are objectionable at best and reprehensible at worst, the reader gets the feeling that he has a lot of affection for these people...as a result, the reader does as well.
As much as I enjoyed the novel (I read the last 100 or so pages in one sitting), I do think it could have been shortened by about 50 or so pages. I had more-or-less figured out what was going to happen before it happened and as a result I wasn't particularly shocked by the outcome. Still, Mr. Adiga's characters are so well-drawn and his descriptions so visceral, I couldn't help but turn the pages.
If you are looking for a fictional account of life in modern Mumbai...or are particularly drawn to stories that portray the shameless lengths people will go to for the sake of money, "Last Man in Tower" is a worthy investment of your time.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Rescue at Sea: The U.S., Iran, and Basic Human Decency
Hi everybody!
I was going to keep it light today as it is Friday but I changed my mind after I started going through the afternoon's news. Earlier today, the U.S. aircraft carrier John C. Stennis rescued a crew of Iranian fishermen that had been detained since November by pirates somewhere in the North Arabian Sea. This is the same aircraft carrier that the Iranian government had indirectly warned on Tuesday not to dare enter the Persian Gulf on threat of a presumed military strike. The Stennis is on a return voyage from transporting aircraft for use in Afghanistan.
While initial reports are pretty vague, it seems the Iranian fishermen were rescued without incident and are on their way back to Iran, though how they are getting there is not publicly known. The pirates, whose nationality has not yet been released though we can probably assume they are Somalian or in the very least are backed by el-Shabab, are currently being detained on the aircraft carrier awaiting further action.
If nothing else, this is a good example of human decency on the high seas. It is common practice in sailing that when one encounters a sailing vessel in trouble one offers assistance if reasonably possible, regardless of nationality. I suppose it is more than a little ironic that in this particular case, the rescuer is American and the rescued is Iranian given the two countries' acrimonious history, especially recently. But there you have it.
I saw the initial report on CNN while I was in the gym this afternoon and then afterwards went to my trusty New York Times website to find out a little more. What set me off are the tone and content of many of the comments posted in response to the article by other readers. I know and appreciate the fact that relations with Iran aren't good and that there is still a lot of resentment toward Iran for the taking of hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979. I get that. But haven't we moved on just a little bit since then? Obviously, I can't speak for Iran but I will venture a guess that perhaps the majority of Iranian citizens don't necessarily harbor the government-perpetuated belief that America is "The Great Satan." They may chant "Death to America" in their government-sanctioned demonstrations and burn effigies of our presidents and secretaries of state but I'm inclined to think that most Iranians today don't hate the U.S. with the fervidity of the 1979 revolutionaries. I read that something close to 50% of the Iranian population is under the age of 30 which would mean that half of all Iranians weren't even born or were just out of their mothers' wombs when the Shah was overthrown and the country became the world's first true theocracy. (On a side note, for an insightful and revealing look at the lives of a group of pretty extraordinary Iranian women at the time of and just after the revolution, read Azar Nafisi's brilliant memoir "Reading Lolita in Tehran.")
Okay, it is dubious that President Ahmedinajad or Ayotallah Khamenei will issue a public outpouring of gratitude to the U.S. for the rescuing of the sailors. And if the roles had been reversed, it probably isn't too much of a stretch to imagine that Iran would detain the rescued sailors and parade them in front of the media for some sort of political purpose or use them as pawns in a ploy to alleviate or negotiate the easing of recent U.S. and European sanctions. But is it really necessary to use this as a platform for Stars and Stripes Forever posturing? One person even commented: "Take that, Iran!" Really? What purpose does that serve other than to make the average American look like a petty redneck, which pretty much confirms what most of the rest of the world already thinks.
I realize this may sound like I'm the one being petty, and that isn't my intention. I just think that many Americans have a tendency to jump on the opportunity to shove the patriotic thing down the world's throat and tell everyone how morally superior we are, which ultimately does nothing to help our standing on the international stage.
The crew of the John C. Stennis did a good and decent thing today. The Iranian sailors are appreciative even if their government is not. Let's not make this into something more than it is: an example of basic human kindness. Some things are what they are and aren't meant to be used as props for needless patriotic muscle-flexing.
Ciao.
I was going to keep it light today as it is Friday but I changed my mind after I started going through the afternoon's news. Earlier today, the U.S. aircraft carrier John C. Stennis rescued a crew of Iranian fishermen that had been detained since November by pirates somewhere in the North Arabian Sea. This is the same aircraft carrier that the Iranian government had indirectly warned on Tuesday not to dare enter the Persian Gulf on threat of a presumed military strike. The Stennis is on a return voyage from transporting aircraft for use in Afghanistan.
While initial reports are pretty vague, it seems the Iranian fishermen were rescued without incident and are on their way back to Iran, though how they are getting there is not publicly known. The pirates, whose nationality has not yet been released though we can probably assume they are Somalian or in the very least are backed by el-Shabab, are currently being detained on the aircraft carrier awaiting further action.
If nothing else, this is a good example of human decency on the high seas. It is common practice in sailing that when one encounters a sailing vessel in trouble one offers assistance if reasonably possible, regardless of nationality. I suppose it is more than a little ironic that in this particular case, the rescuer is American and the rescued is Iranian given the two countries' acrimonious history, especially recently. But there you have it.
I saw the initial report on CNN while I was in the gym this afternoon and then afterwards went to my trusty New York Times website to find out a little more. What set me off are the tone and content of many of the comments posted in response to the article by other readers. I know and appreciate the fact that relations with Iran aren't good and that there is still a lot of resentment toward Iran for the taking of hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979. I get that. But haven't we moved on just a little bit since then? Obviously, I can't speak for Iran but I will venture a guess that perhaps the majority of Iranian citizens don't necessarily harbor the government-perpetuated belief that America is "The Great Satan." They may chant "Death to America" in their government-sanctioned demonstrations and burn effigies of our presidents and secretaries of state but I'm inclined to think that most Iranians today don't hate the U.S. with the fervidity of the 1979 revolutionaries. I read that something close to 50% of the Iranian population is under the age of 30 which would mean that half of all Iranians weren't even born or were just out of their mothers' wombs when the Shah was overthrown and the country became the world's first true theocracy. (On a side note, for an insightful and revealing look at the lives of a group of pretty extraordinary Iranian women at the time of and just after the revolution, read Azar Nafisi's brilliant memoir "Reading Lolita in Tehran.")
Okay, it is dubious that President Ahmedinajad or Ayotallah Khamenei will issue a public outpouring of gratitude to the U.S. for the rescuing of the sailors. And if the roles had been reversed, it probably isn't too much of a stretch to imagine that Iran would detain the rescued sailors and parade them in front of the media for some sort of political purpose or use them as pawns in a ploy to alleviate or negotiate the easing of recent U.S. and European sanctions. But is it really necessary to use this as a platform for Stars and Stripes Forever posturing? One person even commented: "Take that, Iran!" Really? What purpose does that serve other than to make the average American look like a petty redneck, which pretty much confirms what most of the rest of the world already thinks.
I realize this may sound like I'm the one being petty, and that isn't my intention. I just think that many Americans have a tendency to jump on the opportunity to shove the patriotic thing down the world's throat and tell everyone how morally superior we are, which ultimately does nothing to help our standing on the international stage.
The crew of the John C. Stennis did a good and decent thing today. The Iranian sailors are appreciative even if their government is not. Let's not make this into something more than it is: an example of basic human kindness. Some things are what they are and aren't meant to be used as props for needless patriotic muscle-flexing.
Ciao.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
The Sane and Silent Majority: Why I Can't Get Excited About the 2012 U.S. Presidential Race
Hi everyone!
At least from my perspective, a sense of ennui seems to be hanging over the reporting of much of today's news. With the exception of continuous analysis of last Tuesday's Iowa caucus--in case you haven't heard (which is unlikely), Mitt Romney eked out a narrow victory over Rick Santorum, winning the caucus by merely eight votes--there's not a whole lot to get excited or incensed about today. I feel at least it's too early in the game to expend too much time and attention to the U.S. presidential race. I'm not a political junkie--at least not as far as U.S. politics is concerned--so I'm really not going to devote too much time in this blog to the race to unseat Barack Obama in November. If you haven't already surmised, I'm not an Obama supporter. I didn't jump onto the Obama bandwagon in 2008 when his star was on the ascendent and four years later I'm certainly not going to hitch my horse to his team.
While I would like to see a change in the White House this year, unless things go horribly wrong for Obama between now and Election Day I'm doubtful my wish is going to come true. I just can't get excited about this crop of Republican wannabes. Mitt Romney seems the best choice out of the lot--i.e. he comes across as the least offensive and appears to be, at least on the surface, an intelligent and decent guy. He had a good record as governor of Massachusetts. And the fact that he received Senator John McCain's endorsement yesterday boosts the likelihood of his chances. For the record, I liked McCain in 2008...until he chose that annoying Alaska governor as his running mate and then it was just one big downhill snowball from there, not gaining momentum particularly, just rumbling rather awkwardly to oblivion.
As for the other GOP hopefuls, Rick Santorum...really? With those awful sweater vests and that hair he looks like he's trying to channel Joel Osteen...and not very successfully. As for Ron Paul...going into New Hampshire next week, he has a surprisingly devoted fan base in the under-40s. I nominally agree with him on domestic issues. I just don't trust his foreign policy. I'm not an ageist at all, but 76 is really too old. And Newt? Whatever.
The problem is, American politics is too skewed to the far-right and the far-left, leaving those of us in the middle (the sane and silent majority) with very little to choose from. It's become less about a candidate's true stance on foreign or domestic policy and more about his/her ability to raise millions of dollars in cash to keep the campaign running and certain lobbyists happy. I've never felt any real connection to any of the candidates in any of the elections I've voted in over the years. And voting just for the sake of voting is not terribly constructive.
What if there was another choice on our nation's ballots come Election Day? What if the ballot read something like this:
___ Barack Obama
___ Mitt Romney
___ None of the Above
I'd be really interested to see what would happen if a significant percentage of U.S. eligible voters punched the bottom chad. While it's a pipe dream, I don't doubt that third option aligns more closely with how most of America really feels.
But who cares about the silent majority?
Ciao.
At least from my perspective, a sense of ennui seems to be hanging over the reporting of much of today's news. With the exception of continuous analysis of last Tuesday's Iowa caucus--in case you haven't heard (which is unlikely), Mitt Romney eked out a narrow victory over Rick Santorum, winning the caucus by merely eight votes--there's not a whole lot to get excited or incensed about today. I feel at least it's too early in the game to expend too much time and attention to the U.S. presidential race. I'm not a political junkie--at least not as far as U.S. politics is concerned--so I'm really not going to devote too much time in this blog to the race to unseat Barack Obama in November. If you haven't already surmised, I'm not an Obama supporter. I didn't jump onto the Obama bandwagon in 2008 when his star was on the ascendent and four years later I'm certainly not going to hitch my horse to his team.
While I would like to see a change in the White House this year, unless things go horribly wrong for Obama between now and Election Day I'm doubtful my wish is going to come true. I just can't get excited about this crop of Republican wannabes. Mitt Romney seems the best choice out of the lot--i.e. he comes across as the least offensive and appears to be, at least on the surface, an intelligent and decent guy. He had a good record as governor of Massachusetts. And the fact that he received Senator John McCain's endorsement yesterday boosts the likelihood of his chances. For the record, I liked McCain in 2008...until he chose that annoying Alaska governor as his running mate and then it was just one big downhill snowball from there, not gaining momentum particularly, just rumbling rather awkwardly to oblivion.
As for the other GOP hopefuls, Rick Santorum...really? With those awful sweater vests and that hair he looks like he's trying to channel Joel Osteen...and not very successfully. As for Ron Paul...going into New Hampshire next week, he has a surprisingly devoted fan base in the under-40s. I nominally agree with him on domestic issues. I just don't trust his foreign policy. I'm not an ageist at all, but 76 is really too old. And Newt? Whatever.
The problem is, American politics is too skewed to the far-right and the far-left, leaving those of us in the middle (the sane and silent majority) with very little to choose from. It's become less about a candidate's true stance on foreign or domestic policy and more about his/her ability to raise millions of dollars in cash to keep the campaign running and certain lobbyists happy. I've never felt any real connection to any of the candidates in any of the elections I've voted in over the years. And voting just for the sake of voting is not terribly constructive.
What if there was another choice on our nation's ballots come Election Day? What if the ballot read something like this:
___ Barack Obama
___ Mitt Romney
___ None of the Above
I'd be really interested to see what would happen if a significant percentage of U.S. eligible voters punched the bottom chad. While it's a pipe dream, I don't doubt that third option aligns more closely with how most of America really feels.
But who cares about the silent majority?
Ciao.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Taliban Inc. -- The Legitimization of a Terrorist Organization
Hi everyone!
So I'm a little confused. We've spent the past ten years fighting a justifiable war against the Taliban only to suddenly give them legitimacy by allowing them to open a business office in Qatar. I don't get it. Is the U.S. and NATO conceding defeat? Is the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to be remembered as another example of an occupying force's inability to gain victory over the Afghani people? It happened to the British a hundred years ago and then again, in more recent memory, to the Soviets. I remember being a kid and watching the long procession of Soviet tanks and forces marching out of Afghanistan on television. While NATO is committed to keeping troops in the country until 2014, is this latest news the first step in giving the country back to the Taliban lock, stock, and barrel?
In addition to granting the Taliban office space in Qatar, the U.S. is considering releasing Taliban detainees from Guantanamo, including one Muhammad Fazl, a former Taliban deputy defense minister. According to a report in today's New York Times, Mr. Fazl is responsible for, among many other such 'indiscretions' I'm sure, directing attacks against Shiite Muslims and killing thousands of them.
So what is this all about? We can't beat them, so we might as well play along with them? If that's the case, and if I were one of the thousands of soldiers who have given their lives and limbs to fighting the good fight in Afghanistan, I'd be pretty pissed off. The Taliban have a proven track record of medieval brutality, suppression of women, and other barbaric atrocities, not the least of which is the stoning to death of women and young girls suspected of infidelity or of merely having a voice. The Taliban embraced Osama bin Laden, or have we forgotten ten years after 9/11?
I realize there is only so much that can be done in Afghanistan. President Karzai's administration is far from trustworthy and his connections to the opium trade and feudal warlords is well- and often- publicized. Government incentives and subsidies to help poor farmers grow wheat and other 'legitimate' crops in place of poppy cultivation has proven a failure any way you look at it. But...for the first time in more than twenty years, girls have been allowed to go to school, giving them some hope for a future brighter than what they had known before. If we legitimize the Taliban by giving them the tools and resources to open an office and become something like Taliban Inc., when those final troops pull out in 2014, do we really believe they won't undo everything that has been attempted to improve the lot of the average Afghani citizen? It is not only foolish, but irresponsible, to think this way.
Sahar Gul and Sayyid Hashemi deserve better than this.
Ciao.
So I'm a little confused. We've spent the past ten years fighting a justifiable war against the Taliban only to suddenly give them legitimacy by allowing them to open a business office in Qatar. I don't get it. Is the U.S. and NATO conceding defeat? Is the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to be remembered as another example of an occupying force's inability to gain victory over the Afghani people? It happened to the British a hundred years ago and then again, in more recent memory, to the Soviets. I remember being a kid and watching the long procession of Soviet tanks and forces marching out of Afghanistan on television. While NATO is committed to keeping troops in the country until 2014, is this latest news the first step in giving the country back to the Taliban lock, stock, and barrel?
In addition to granting the Taliban office space in Qatar, the U.S. is considering releasing Taliban detainees from Guantanamo, including one Muhammad Fazl, a former Taliban deputy defense minister. According to a report in today's New York Times, Mr. Fazl is responsible for, among many other such 'indiscretions' I'm sure, directing attacks against Shiite Muslims and killing thousands of them.
So what is this all about? We can't beat them, so we might as well play along with them? If that's the case, and if I were one of the thousands of soldiers who have given their lives and limbs to fighting the good fight in Afghanistan, I'd be pretty pissed off. The Taliban have a proven track record of medieval brutality, suppression of women, and other barbaric atrocities, not the least of which is the stoning to death of women and young girls suspected of infidelity or of merely having a voice. The Taliban embraced Osama bin Laden, or have we forgotten ten years after 9/11?
I realize there is only so much that can be done in Afghanistan. President Karzai's administration is far from trustworthy and his connections to the opium trade and feudal warlords is well- and often- publicized. Government incentives and subsidies to help poor farmers grow wheat and other 'legitimate' crops in place of poppy cultivation has proven a failure any way you look at it. But...for the first time in more than twenty years, girls have been allowed to go to school, giving them some hope for a future brighter than what they had known before. If we legitimize the Taliban by giving them the tools and resources to open an office and become something like Taliban Inc., when those final troops pull out in 2014, do we really believe they won't undo everything that has been attempted to improve the lot of the average Afghani citizen? It is not only foolish, but irresponsible, to think this way.
Sahar Gul and Sayyid Hashemi deserve better than this.
Ciao.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Sahar Gul
Hi everyone!
Whew! Just got home from two weeks in the mountains of Colorado with the family...didn't have much fresh powder, but it's so beautiful up there, it doesn't matter.
Now back to business...
The other day I profiled the work of an inspiring young Afghani man, Mr. Sayyid Hashemi, who is working with the Afghani government to improve the lives of Afghanistan's 1.6 million orphans. Today I want to bring your attention to an example of the types of behaviors and conditions many young Afghanis face on a daily basis--particularly young girls and women--that unfortunately, more often than not goes unreported.
Fifteen year-old Sahar Gul was rescued last week from an insidious plot by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law to sell her into prostitution. The girl was found in the basement of her in-law's house, where she had been kept a prisoner for six months. During this time, as reported in today's New York Times, Sahar was subjected to repeated abuse and torture, which allegedly included the ripping out of her fingernails, burning her with hot irons, and breaking her fingers.
According to the article, Sahar was married around seven months ago. Her husband, whose name the article doesn't mention, is a soldier in the Afghan Army. An arrest warrant has been issued for his capture. The article goes on to say that Sahar's in-laws were involved in "criminal activities" that may have included selling alcohol and prostitution. Sahar resisted her in-law's insistence that she become a prostitute, whereupon they subsequently locked her in the basement and tortured her.
Apparently, this case has sent shockwaves through the Karzai administration. And well it should. In a tribal society where women are often treated as less than second-class citizens, where as a regular occurrence girls as young as seven and eight are married to much older men, Sahar's story is probably not all that uncommon.
If there is one fortunate thing to come out of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, it is the fact that stories like Sahar's now have a better chance of coming to the attention of international human rights advocates as well as the media. It also calls to attention the fact that much still has to be done. It may very well prove to be an impossible task to reform and "modernize" the practices of an ancient society that has never taken well to outside intervention. And while I believe that there is something to be said for letting a country be in charge of its sovereignty, there is absolutely no place in the 21st century for this kind of barbarity to be allowed to continue.
Until human rights abuses are completely eradicated from the world -- knowing full well that this is probably an impossibility -- it is our duty as human beings to bring to light stories such as Sahar's, and work to eradicate the subjugation of women and children throughout the world.
As this blog continues to evolve, I will work to bring to light both the good and the bad and remind all of us that, as citizens of the world regardless of religion or political affiliation, it is our responsibility to come together to help those who are simply not in a position to help themselves.
Our prayers are with you Sahar.
Ciao.
Whew! Just got home from two weeks in the mountains of Colorado with the family...didn't have much fresh powder, but it's so beautiful up there, it doesn't matter.
Now back to business...
The other day I profiled the work of an inspiring young Afghani man, Mr. Sayyid Hashemi, who is working with the Afghani government to improve the lives of Afghanistan's 1.6 million orphans. Today I want to bring your attention to an example of the types of behaviors and conditions many young Afghanis face on a daily basis--particularly young girls and women--that unfortunately, more often than not goes unreported.
Fifteen year-old Sahar Gul was rescued last week from an insidious plot by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law to sell her into prostitution. The girl was found in the basement of her in-law's house, where she had been kept a prisoner for six months. During this time, as reported in today's New York Times, Sahar was subjected to repeated abuse and torture, which allegedly included the ripping out of her fingernails, burning her with hot irons, and breaking her fingers.
According to the article, Sahar was married around seven months ago. Her husband, whose name the article doesn't mention, is a soldier in the Afghan Army. An arrest warrant has been issued for his capture. The article goes on to say that Sahar's in-laws were involved in "criminal activities" that may have included selling alcohol and prostitution. Sahar resisted her in-law's insistence that she become a prostitute, whereupon they subsequently locked her in the basement and tortured her.
Apparently, this case has sent shockwaves through the Karzai administration. And well it should. In a tribal society where women are often treated as less than second-class citizens, where as a regular occurrence girls as young as seven and eight are married to much older men, Sahar's story is probably not all that uncommon.
If there is one fortunate thing to come out of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, it is the fact that stories like Sahar's now have a better chance of coming to the attention of international human rights advocates as well as the media. It also calls to attention the fact that much still has to be done. It may very well prove to be an impossible task to reform and "modernize" the practices of an ancient society that has never taken well to outside intervention. And while I believe that there is something to be said for letting a country be in charge of its sovereignty, there is absolutely no place in the 21st century for this kind of barbarity to be allowed to continue.
Until human rights abuses are completely eradicated from the world -- knowing full well that this is probably an impossibility -- it is our duty as human beings to bring to light stories such as Sahar's, and work to eradicate the subjugation of women and children throughout the world.
As this blog continues to evolve, I will work to bring to light both the good and the bad and remind all of us that, as citizens of the world regardless of religion or political affiliation, it is our responsibility to come together to help those who are simply not in a position to help themselves.
Our prayers are with you Sahar.
Ciao.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)