Last night I watched a documentary on Ms. Shirley Chisholm, the first woman to have run for the presidency of the USA. She was Caribbean-American. Her career, her courage, her defense of justice for all people was lovely, beautiful and amazing. She was someone to really believe in just when people needed her (she ran in 1972). Unfortunately, and even Gloria Stienem knew it, Ms. Chisholm could not possibly have won, and I think that her loss may shed some more light on why Kerry didn't win: once a country is dragged into war, they cannot elect progress, because it is argued that wartime demands an aggressive leader who is strong on troublemaking and quite weak in almost every other regard. This would be why Nixon was re-elected in '72, despite much protest, second only to that which plagues Bush the Minor. Maybe I live in my own little world, but I would like to think that if there were no Iraq, Bush would have lost. Come to think of it, if there were no midwest (Minnesota can stay - Hi Amy and Sivie!, and so can Illinois - Big up, Barak!), Bush would have lost, because there's not enough Republicans on the coasts to have won Bush the election, but I digress, again. Ms. Chisholm was a true role model, and if all women could get on that same boat of progress, dignity, power and justice, then we could truly make a change and all this struggle for equal rights would be over and done with. If you have power and justice within yourself, no one can question you. Shirley Chisholm, rest in peace.
martes, febrero 08, 2005
lunes, febrero 07, 2005
I Can't Believe the News Today....
....because it's fairly good!!!!
Here is an op-ed from the Times, by which I was so moved, I'll go ahead and give you the whole thing instead of just providing the link and taking the lazy-ass way out.
Marking Down Bin Laden
by Thomas L. Friedman
The New York Times – 6 February
A few weeks ago it was reported that the Bush administration was considering doubling the reward for the capture of Osama bin Laden from $25 million to $50 million. I totally agree with readjusting the reward for bin Laden's capture, I just think the Bush team has the number totally wrong.
The U.S. should announce that it is lowering the reward for bin Laden from $25 million to one penny, along with an autographed picture of George W. Bush. At the same time, it should reduce the $25 million reward for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the chief terrorist in Iraq, to one pistachio and an autographed picture of Dick Cheney.
Don't get me wrong. Bin Laden and Zarqawi have murdered thousands of people. I want them brought in dead or alive - and preferably the former. If I thought $100 million would do it, I'd be for it. But these megarewards clearly are not working, and in many ways they are sending the totally wrong signals.
First, both of these guys are obviously megalomaniacs, who think the world is just hanging on their every word and waiting for their next video. All we are doing is feeding their egos, and telling them how incredibly important they are, when we not only put a $25 million bounty on their heads, but in the case of bin Laden, double the figure. We are just enhancing their status on the Arab street as the Muslim warriors standing up to America, and only encouraging other megalomaniacs out there who might have similar fantasies to follow suit. We should be doing just the opposite - letting these two losers know that we don't think they are worth more than a penny or a pistachio.
But there is an even more important issue of principle at stake. We should not be paying Iraqis or Arabs or Pakistanis to get rid of their problem. Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are a curse on their civilization. Their capture will have meaning or real value to them, to us and to the world, only if it is done by Arabs and Muslims for the sole purpose of purging their civilization of these two cancer cells.
Also, if bin Laden's or Zarqawi's own neighbors turn them in for nothing, it will have a much greater deterrent effect on others. After all, what story would you rather read after bin Laden's capture?
"Osama bin Laden was apprehended this morning after villagers turned him in to local police. The villagers collected the $50 million reward and then fled their country in ski masks, not wanting anyone to know their identities." Or, "Osama bin Laden was captured this morning after villagers tipped off local police. One of the villagers, Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed, told reporters: 'This man sullied the name of Islam, a religion of mercy and compassion. There is a special place in hell for him. I will dance on his grave.' "
What I would do with the $75 million we have budgeted as rewards for bin Laden and Zarqawi is use it instead to sponsor an essay contest for high school students in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria and Egypt. The contest entry form would say the following: "In 2,000 words, write an essay on one of these two topics: 1. Why do you believe the Arab-Muslim world is fully capable of achieving democratic, representative government and how do you envisage it coming about through peaceful changes inside your country, without any American or other outside help. 2. Write an essay about the lives of any of the great medieval Arab or Muslim mathematicians, scientists or philosophers and how their innovations helped to shape our world today."
The winners would be awarded visas and four-year scholarships to any accredited university in America to which they could gain acceptance. The winning essays would be posted on the Web in English, Arabic, Urdu, Farsi and French. What do you think would make America more secure? Rewarding one person for turning in bin Laden or putting thousands of young Arabs and Muslims through American schools?
Maybe we could even call them the "Bin Laden Scholars." I sort of like the idea of bin Laden sitting in a dark cave somewhere, composing his latest nutty video message, and suddenly learning that all the reward money we were devoting to killing him will go instead to killing his ideas - and to bringing young Arabs and Muslims closer to America rather than pushing them farther away.
I know the 9/11 families want justice and closure when it comes to bin Laden. So do I, and I can't think of any better punishment than having him turned in one day by one of his neighbors in return for a penny or a pistachio.
------------------------------------------------------------------
So I read this and then go to BBC News online, and find out that Abbas and Sharon are slated to sign a truce tomorrow ending the intifada. Of course they have to have a "summit" (why in the hell can't they just say that they're having a meeting?) first, and let's hope that neither get caught up in any nationalistic pride or anything and fuck it up. I pray that this truce will last and that it will lead to a lasting agreement for peace. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that there is hope for so many more good things to happen in the world. I have to say, I have not been this optimistic and hopeful since I heard the rumor that Bill Clinton is the choice du jour to succeed Kofi Annan, and now that I think of it, maybe the Boss' appointment of Clinton as Special Envoy for the Tsunami aid (see my previous posting) was sort of an "in" for him. While I know working for Billy Boy comes with certain caveats, I was overjoyed by that one, and I'm not going to say any more lest today be dirtied by sarcastic comments from Republican readers.
Not only that, but I heard that the MTA is going to give Metrocard holders a grace period before they hike up the fares again. Well bust my buttons. Least they can do. Comemierdas!
Here is an op-ed from the Times, by which I was so moved, I'll go ahead and give you the whole thing instead of just providing the link and taking the lazy-ass way out.
Marking Down Bin Laden
by Thomas L. Friedman
The New York Times – 6 February
A few weeks ago it was reported that the Bush administration was considering doubling the reward for the capture of Osama bin Laden from $25 million to $50 million. I totally agree with readjusting the reward for bin Laden's capture, I just think the Bush team has the number totally wrong.
The U.S. should announce that it is lowering the reward for bin Laden from $25 million to one penny, along with an autographed picture of George W. Bush. At the same time, it should reduce the $25 million reward for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the chief terrorist in Iraq, to one pistachio and an autographed picture of Dick Cheney.
Don't get me wrong. Bin Laden and Zarqawi have murdered thousands of people. I want them brought in dead or alive - and preferably the former. If I thought $100 million would do it, I'd be for it. But these megarewards clearly are not working, and in many ways they are sending the totally wrong signals.
First, both of these guys are obviously megalomaniacs, who think the world is just hanging on their every word and waiting for their next video. All we are doing is feeding their egos, and telling them how incredibly important they are, when we not only put a $25 million bounty on their heads, but in the case of bin Laden, double the figure. We are just enhancing their status on the Arab street as the Muslim warriors standing up to America, and only encouraging other megalomaniacs out there who might have similar fantasies to follow suit. We should be doing just the opposite - letting these two losers know that we don't think they are worth more than a penny or a pistachio.
But there is an even more important issue of principle at stake. We should not be paying Iraqis or Arabs or Pakistanis to get rid of their problem. Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are a curse on their civilization. Their capture will have meaning or real value to them, to us and to the world, only if it is done by Arabs and Muslims for the sole purpose of purging their civilization of these two cancer cells.
Also, if bin Laden's or Zarqawi's own neighbors turn them in for nothing, it will have a much greater deterrent effect on others. After all, what story would you rather read after bin Laden's capture?
"Osama bin Laden was apprehended this morning after villagers turned him in to local police. The villagers collected the $50 million reward and then fled their country in ski masks, not wanting anyone to know their identities." Or, "Osama bin Laden was captured this morning after villagers tipped off local police. One of the villagers, Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed, told reporters: 'This man sullied the name of Islam, a religion of mercy and compassion. There is a special place in hell for him. I will dance on his grave.' "
What I would do with the $75 million we have budgeted as rewards for bin Laden and Zarqawi is use it instead to sponsor an essay contest for high school students in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria and Egypt. The contest entry form would say the following: "In 2,000 words, write an essay on one of these two topics: 1. Why do you believe the Arab-Muslim world is fully capable of achieving democratic, representative government and how do you envisage it coming about through peaceful changes inside your country, without any American or other outside help. 2. Write an essay about the lives of any of the great medieval Arab or Muslim mathematicians, scientists or philosophers and how their innovations helped to shape our world today."
The winners would be awarded visas and four-year scholarships to any accredited university in America to which they could gain acceptance. The winning essays would be posted on the Web in English, Arabic, Urdu, Farsi and French. What do you think would make America more secure? Rewarding one person for turning in bin Laden or putting thousands of young Arabs and Muslims through American schools?
Maybe we could even call them the "Bin Laden Scholars." I sort of like the idea of bin Laden sitting in a dark cave somewhere, composing his latest nutty video message, and suddenly learning that all the reward money we were devoting to killing him will go instead to killing his ideas - and to bringing young Arabs and Muslims closer to America rather than pushing them farther away.
I know the 9/11 families want justice and closure when it comes to bin Laden. So do I, and I can't think of any better punishment than having him turned in one day by one of his neighbors in return for a penny or a pistachio.
------------------------------------------------------------------
So I read this and then go to BBC News online, and find out that Abbas and Sharon are slated to sign a truce tomorrow ending the intifada. Of course they have to have a "summit" (why in the hell can't they just say that they're having a meeting?) first, and let's hope that neither get caught up in any nationalistic pride or anything and fuck it up. I pray that this truce will last and that it will lead to a lasting agreement for peace. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that there is hope for so many more good things to happen in the world. I have to say, I have not been this optimistic and hopeful since I heard the rumor that Bill Clinton is the choice du jour to succeed Kofi Annan, and now that I think of it, maybe the Boss' appointment of Clinton as Special Envoy for the Tsunami aid (see my previous posting) was sort of an "in" for him. While I know working for Billy Boy comes with certain caveats, I was overjoyed by that one, and I'm not going to say any more lest today be dirtied by sarcastic comments from Republican readers.
Not only that, but I heard that the MTA is going to give Metrocard holders a grace period before they hike up the fares again. Well bust my buttons. Least they can do. Comemierdas!
viernes, febrero 04, 2005
The UN in the News...again
As an employee of this God-forsaken organization, I shouldn't really go on and blab about the scandal and the intrigue that goes on here, but given that it is on the front page of the NYT (a link to the article http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/international/04food.html?hp&ex=1107579600&en=ebf0c386611be17d&ei=5094&partner=homepage) and even made it to those other tabloidy NYC dailies, the Post and the Daily News, hey, it's not really a secret, is it?
I had to laugh at Mr. Annan saying that he had put his trust in these officials. NOBODY at the UN can be trusted, and other people, maybe in my own office, might put me on that list. However, I understand the feeling of meeting someone who you consider trustworthy, so you give them your confidence and come to really respect them, and then they stab you in the back or otherwise screw you hoping that you'll never find out the truth. It happens to the best of us, so Kofi, I'm with you, boss. But rest assured that the joke is on them and they will be duly punished at some point in their miserable lives. Like I always say, you get what you pay for, and that's true most everywhere else except for the UN, where those who sit on their fat asses and do nothing get the big bucks, and those who actually try to earn their keep get continually screwed. Makes me really, really wish that Kerry and Edwards could have come to the UN to give a seminar on what it means to give salary and promotions on the basis of merit, instead of allowing a guy that's washed dishes for 20 years to apply to be a Director of a Department and then get shortlisted to be interviewed for the position, just because he has 20 years work experience, and that puts him way ahead of a guy with two MBA's and one PhD on the way, because the latter candidate only has 5 years of work experience (no kidding, this really happens, and a similar thing is happening to me). I'm starting to think that it's not that certain people are just shirking their duties or playing ignorant where that's concerned. I just really think that that word "merit" is not in the UN vocabulary, and I say that because the system of non-merit based pay and promotion has made a home here, it is painfully engrained in everything that happens here, and is to blame for a lot of the problems the UN faces today, giving rise to the UN being called things like "irrelevant", so Bush wasn't completely off the mark when he said that.
And that is my tangent for the day. Fare thee well!
I had to laugh at Mr. Annan saying that he had put his trust in these officials. NOBODY at the UN can be trusted, and other people, maybe in my own office, might put me on that list. However, I understand the feeling of meeting someone who you consider trustworthy, so you give them your confidence and come to really respect them, and then they stab you in the back or otherwise screw you hoping that you'll never find out the truth. It happens to the best of us, so Kofi, I'm with you, boss. But rest assured that the joke is on them and they will be duly punished at some point in their miserable lives. Like I always say, you get what you pay for, and that's true most everywhere else except for the UN, where those who sit on their fat asses and do nothing get the big bucks, and those who actually try to earn their keep get continually screwed. Makes me really, really wish that Kerry and Edwards could have come to the UN to give a seminar on what it means to give salary and promotions on the basis of merit, instead of allowing a guy that's washed dishes for 20 years to apply to be a Director of a Department and then get shortlisted to be interviewed for the position, just because he has 20 years work experience, and that puts him way ahead of a guy with two MBA's and one PhD on the way, because the latter candidate only has 5 years of work experience (no kidding, this really happens, and a similar thing is happening to me). I'm starting to think that it's not that certain people are just shirking their duties or playing ignorant where that's concerned. I just really think that that word "merit" is not in the UN vocabulary, and I say that because the system of non-merit based pay and promotion has made a home here, it is painfully engrained in everything that happens here, and is to blame for a lot of the problems the UN faces today, giving rise to the UN being called things like "irrelevant", so Bush wasn't completely off the mark when he said that.
And that is my tangent for the day. Fare thee well!
martes, febrero 01, 2005
The UN in the news
Sometimes it really makes me happy and proud to work here. Sometimes it really tries my conscience. Today, the UN has done both.
A report on the situation in Sudan was issued yesterday by a UN-appointed panel. It accused the Sudanese government and the allied militias of atrocities, and said that there was enough "evidence" to take some of the accused to the International Criminal Court. But what is happening in Sudan is not, according to the report, genocide. Gee, what is it then? Just thinning out the troops? (I can't take credit for that comment. That was Dave.) That would be what's trying my patience. Of course, the US is having a hissy because a) they desperately want the UN to call the killings in Sudan genocide, which in all fairness they absolutely should, but with the US government, you have to wonder why they are so desperate for justice to be done, and b) they are opposed to the International Criminal Court altogether, because if they joined up, they would have to be accountable for their actions, and the US government would surely die first in a clandestine (of course) suicide pact. So adamant is the US about Sudan that the ambassador to the UN quit his new job over it after only about 6 months because procedures were not to his liking.
Today, my bossman, Kofi, appointed my hero, Bill Clinton, as Special Envoy to oversee aid to and the rebuilding of the countries hit by the tsunami. Apparently, P.O.T.U.S. Bush agrees with the decision and lent his support, in a strange show of support for something that is UN-backed. So it is true that every cloud has a silver lining. Clinton has also been asked, in his new post, to push for a resolution to the conflicts in Indonesia and Sri Lanka (rumor has it that the UN wanted to deny aid to these countries until conflict had been resolved - that's another "trying my patience" part). I for one have a lot of confidence that Billy Bob can make great advances in this regard. After all, he did mediate the most successful talks between Israel and Palestine to date. Of course they didn't work because Arafat got all nationalistic and walked out on the ballgame, but hey, Clinton tried and he came very close.
Speaking of the Israeli-Palestine affair, I hope that now that Arafat is dead, and this may sound like such an un-P.C. comment but when have I ever been P.C., there will be a greater chance for peace. In that regard, Sharon has been impressing me with his initiatives in cooperating with Abbas, but I'm still skeptical. You know, once you murder thousands of people, you kind of get a bad reputation, and it sticks. Not that the other guy isn't guilty of a few crimes here and there, but when you're talking politics and government officials, everything is relative.
A report on the situation in Sudan was issued yesterday by a UN-appointed panel. It accused the Sudanese government and the allied militias of atrocities, and said that there was enough "evidence" to take some of the accused to the International Criminal Court. But what is happening in Sudan is not, according to the report, genocide. Gee, what is it then? Just thinning out the troops? (I can't take credit for that comment. That was Dave.) That would be what's trying my patience. Of course, the US is having a hissy because a) they desperately want the UN to call the killings in Sudan genocide, which in all fairness they absolutely should, but with the US government, you have to wonder why they are so desperate for justice to be done, and b) they are opposed to the International Criminal Court altogether, because if they joined up, they would have to be accountable for their actions, and the US government would surely die first in a clandestine (of course) suicide pact. So adamant is the US about Sudan that the ambassador to the UN quit his new job over it after only about 6 months because procedures were not to his liking.
Today, my bossman, Kofi, appointed my hero, Bill Clinton, as Special Envoy to oversee aid to and the rebuilding of the countries hit by the tsunami. Apparently, P.O.T.U.S. Bush agrees with the decision and lent his support, in a strange show of support for something that is UN-backed. So it is true that every cloud has a silver lining. Clinton has also been asked, in his new post, to push for a resolution to the conflicts in Indonesia and Sri Lanka (rumor has it that the UN wanted to deny aid to these countries until conflict had been resolved - that's another "trying my patience" part). I for one have a lot of confidence that Billy Bob can make great advances in this regard. After all, he did mediate the most successful talks between Israel and Palestine to date. Of course they didn't work because Arafat got all nationalistic and walked out on the ballgame, but hey, Clinton tried and he came very close.
Speaking of the Israeli-Palestine affair, I hope that now that Arafat is dead, and this may sound like such an un-P.C. comment but when have I ever been P.C., there will be a greater chance for peace. In that regard, Sharon has been impressing me with his initiatives in cooperating with Abbas, but I'm still skeptical. You know, once you murder thousands of people, you kind of get a bad reputation, and it sticks. Not that the other guy isn't guilty of a few crimes here and there, but when you're talking politics and government officials, everything is relative.
viernes, enero 28, 2005
The pounds keep coming
It's as if Bush and Blair are trying to ruin my trip before I even land at Heathrow! The following is a link to an article in the Times about how Brits are staging a new invasion (as if they haven't invaded everything enough times already), this time of NYC in particular, because the pound is way up and the dollar way down. I really think Bush is trying to outsource the whole country and not just the jobs. By the way, I have a funny story about a techie who loved Bush and voted for him in the election. Two weeks later, guy gets a pink slip with an explanation that his job is going overseas. So much for conviction, dude.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/nyregion/28tourism.html?oref=login&8hpib
A month or so ago, I was braving my way through the crowds on Canal Street, laughing at the little teeny-boppers from Oklahoma calling mom on their cell-phones saying "Woo-Hoo" and going on about the Prada bag they got for $20 and the bootleg of Troy they got for Grandma. Little did Ms. Tulsa know that the Prada bag will fall apart as soon as she tries to pack it in with all the rest of the fake-ass brick-a-brack she bought. And poor Grandma is going to have to do some heavy squinting if she wants to see Brad's right pec. Maybe she'll get a nipple or something.
My point is that most of the accents I heard on the street that day were British and Irish. Them, I can never make fun of because they are cultured and at least somewhat aware of the world around them. I suspect this is because they tried so desperately to conquer it all, but I digress. I don't know, maybe I'd prefer it if New York City were overrun with Brits and Irish. I don't think I'd mind them half as much as the drivel that visits our city now. Maybe this is good news. Brits seem to know how to get with the program easier. You know, stand to the right on the subway escalators (if they are working, that is), walk fast lest you be run over, don't hover around looking up at the sky like blithering idiots, etc. Probably because they have their own, similar rules, like "mind the gap" and whatnot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/nyregion/28tourism.html?oref=login&8hpib
A month or so ago, I was braving my way through the crowds on Canal Street, laughing at the little teeny-boppers from Oklahoma calling mom on their cell-phones saying "Woo-Hoo" and going on about the Prada bag they got for $20 and the bootleg of Troy they got for Grandma. Little did Ms. Tulsa know that the Prada bag will fall apart as soon as she tries to pack it in with all the rest of the fake-ass brick-a-brack she bought. And poor Grandma is going to have to do some heavy squinting if she wants to see Brad's right pec. Maybe she'll get a nipple or something.
My point is that most of the accents I heard on the street that day were British and Irish. Them, I can never make fun of because they are cultured and at least somewhat aware of the world around them. I suspect this is because they tried so desperately to conquer it all, but I digress. I don't know, maybe I'd prefer it if New York City were overrun with Brits and Irish. I don't think I'd mind them half as much as the drivel that visits our city now. Maybe this is good news. Brits seem to know how to get with the program easier. You know, stand to the right on the subway escalators (if they are working, that is), walk fast lest you be run over, don't hover around looking up at the sky like blithering idiots, etc. Probably because they have their own, similar rules, like "mind the gap" and whatnot.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)