And so, it goes, the US shows the western world how to elect a minority candidate. Amazing, and truly transformational. There will be plenty of time for politics and what will happen next, but tonight, amazing. The US, after a few years, finally has a better president than Canada!
The Americans put all citizens of Japanese origin into camps for the duration of the World War. Did you know that?’She did not say anything.‘What if we place all Tamil citizens in camps for a period of one year,’ I asked. ‘We’d use that year to flush out and kill all the rebels hiding in the Wanni. You can’t blow up our cities when your bombers are not allowed free access to economic and civilian targets, pretending to be innocents.’‘That idea is barbaric. It is only a short step from there to the gas chambers,’ she said furiously and then brightened. ‘But I like the idea. When you start on it, the whole world will condemn you…. It will help our cause in other ways as well. We’ll have plenty of new recruits and funding from our expatriate community will increase immediately.’‘Oh, I understand that the idea is impractical but we don’t have many options.’”So goes the dialogue between Captain Wasantha Ratnayaka, the Sinhalese officer in the Sri Lanka Army, and Kamala Velaithan, a female cadre of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) who pretends to be an informer of the diabolical plans of the Tigers, in the much-acclaimed novel of the late Nihal de Silva titled The Road from Elephant Pass.On September 21, the Sri Lankan government almost made real this surreal scenario with its diktat that all citizens from the five districts of the LTTE-dominated North who have been living in and around Colombo (Western Province) for the past five years “re-register” themselves with the police.The professed logic of the government, or to be precise the Defence Ministry, was almost on the lines narrated by Captain Ratnayaka in the novel but with a twist. While the officer-character portrayed in the novel concurs with the illogic of its logic, the collective wisdom of the Sri Lankan establishment did not betray signs of any such reasoning. Even assuming it did, the drumbeats of war have numbed its senses to such an extent that Colombo has stopped bothering about the repercussions of its actions.The latest move by the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime is astonishing to say the least as just over a year ago the government was condemned from within and without for a similar action. Besides, it comes at a juncture when the armed forces have driven the LTTE into wilderness in its own heartland and the entire world is lined up behind the government in its war.
More on the Sri Lankan government’s astonishingly appalling treatment of Tamils. Clearly, they do not view Tamils as equal citizens of Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese state bears equal responsibility for Sri Lanka’s problems. I do not know what this sudden increase in pressure from India will do. There is some indication that the Sri Lankan government is paying attention.
A day after India officially communicated to Colombo the need for a peacefully negotiated political settlement to the Tamil issue in Sri Lanka, President Mahinda Rajapaksa telephoned Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Saturday to give an assurance that all necessary measures were being taken to ensure the safety and welfare of Tamils in the island nation.
Very empty and meaningless words. My question is, who will speak for the Tamils in a negotiated settlement. Are there any credible voices for peace on either side of the conflict?
According to the poll, conducted by the Strategic Counsel, 37 per cent of Canadians would opt to vote for the Tories were an election to be held today, compared with 29 per cent for the Liberals, 17 per cent for the NDP and 9 per cent for the Green Party.
globeandmail.com: Tory majority? Pollster takes your questions.
The interesting fact is that Centre-Left parties (Libs NDP + Green) are much more popular than the Tories, so while the country prefers left of centre politics, there is a lot of vote splitting going on. Need to learn a bit more about that, eh! If this were India, the NDP and Liberals would be running a united ticket.
I support Obama because he’s skinny, brown, liberal, young, and of course, the whole name thing. He’s the closest in American politics to me, and I identify with him quite a bit. By the same token, how the hell is he going to win a general election?
It’s the first US election in which a white person is going to have to choose between someone of her race and someone who does not look like her, talk like him, has a funny name and is most definitely African American in identity and behavior. Call me the cynical product of an Indian upbringing where caste/religion/community plays such a vital and unsubtle part in politics, but when faced with this kind of choice where one of the choices is not someone you can identify with at all, I don’t see it happening. There’s a reason why the undecided vote’s always flipping to Clinton at the eve of every primary, it’s all about racial identity, I’m afraid.
Many white people see in McCain their ornery grandfather (the one who always talks about the war – McCain reminds me of Abe Simpson, the resemblance is uncanny) or uncle, or something like that, someone they can identify with. What is Obama, but an outsider? The undecideds will tend to flip to the known quantity (vaguely senile and ill tempered older relative who used to be something) as opposed to the unknown (urbane, educated, intelligent, yet vaguely threatening black man).
Younger people, especially the college educated young can identify more with Obama because they have at least a couple of black friends, and see plenty of intelligent young black men in their peer circles. It’s all about identity and what you base it on. The idealism and energy he brings is also much better received by a younger audience. The older you get, the less likely it is that you’ve interacted with someone whom Obama can represent in racial/identity demographic. Which is why Clinton’s performance is always better among the older voters.
There, my pessimism is on record, McCain in a squeaker in November, though I’d love to be proved wrong.
Note: I am assuming that this silly extended primary will eventually go to Obama, Clinton has no shot, sorry.
Probably my first ever link free post, but hey, isn’t that what blogging’s all about? This was written in the aftermath of the Pennsylvania primary where everything that was predicted happened: Obama won the “urban” and young vote, Clinton won the rural and white vote, this just presages the general election.
PS: Obama’s at least 5 inches taller than McCain and quite a bit better looking. The taller, better looking man usually wins the election. But both choices have always been white, so what happens now? I think identity still triumphs.
The gap between the rich and poor in Canada widened significantly in a recent 10-year period partly because Ottawa spent less on cash benefits than many other developed countries, the OECD says.
It was a reversal of the trend in the two previous decades when the gap was narrowing, the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development said in a report.
via The Canadian Press: Income gap widens between Canada’s rich and poor, OECD study says
Just like our southern neighbour, of course. This is no liberal-conservative divide issue, but a consequence of the neoliberal deregulation and tax-cutting policies so popular since the mid ’90s. Inequality deepens divisions within a country and creates a ruling class that is increasingly vested in keeping the inequality going as it benefits them.
This story from the grist about a push poll arranged by Rasmussen showing 67% support for the reinstatement of offshore oil drilling in the United States reminded me of this most delightful exchange from Yes Prime Minister, still one of my all time favourite television shows and one that taught me almost everything I needed to know about parliamentary politics at a tender age. The show is about British politics through the eyes of an earnest but bumbling politician, his very experienced bureaucratic handler and his secretary with divided loyalties. The show is incredibly insightful and funny at the same time. But, before I get to my favourite part, some background…
It’s that time of the year when the republicans want to enrich their oil buddies by opening up oil drilling offshore of the U.S. This year, the high price of gas provides a convenient excuse and rallying point. After all, who wouldn’t want to pay less for gas. Of course, a U.S government study done by the Energy Information Administration in 2007 indicates that at best, you would see a 3% increase in production by 2030, and we all know how much that would affect gasoline prices this summer. Yet, here’s the first question from the “poll”
In order to reduce the price of gas, should drilling be allowed in offshore oil wells off the coasts of California, Florida, and other states
No really, what are you supposed to say? Can such reputable firms lie to you like that? Anyway, Joseph Romm from the original gristmill post breaks it down completely so I don’t have to. but after reading his post, come back and read the following exchange from Yes Prime Minister, and do listen to the actual audio clip from the show.
Yes Prime Minister – Season 1Episode 2 (warning: Strangely formatted website)
Sir Humphrey: “You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don’t want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you think they respond to a challenge?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?”
Bernard Woolley: “Oh…well, I suppose I might be.”
Sir Humphrey: “Yes or no?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can’t say no to that. So they don’t mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.”
Bernard Woolley: “Is that really what they do?”
Sir Humphrey: “Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren’t many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.”
Bernard Woolley: “How?”
Sir Humphrey: “Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Are you worried about the growth of armaments?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”Sir Humphrey: “Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample.”
That is what I think about opinion polls!
Way off topic, but war’s been on everyone’s mind of late, and the horribly devastating oil spill in Lebanon is but one example of the crazy devastation caused by war. An event that would be an international emergency by itself is only a footnote in the death of many innocent people, destruction of the happiness of entire communities and populations, not to mention all those blown up bridges, power plants and homes.
Los Angeles Times: Why Good Countries Fight Dirty Wars
The citizen-soldiers sent into the field by the United States or any other Western popular government are expected, by virtue of not so long ago having been free civilians themselves, to be more empathetic with the plight of the noncombatants with whom they come into contact. Certainly, brutal incidents like the My Lai massacre or the Abu Ghraib scandal occur from time to time, but they are widely viewed as cultural aberrations. This interpretation, however, is as simplistic as it is misleading. All too often the armies of modern democracies have tolerated and even initiated outrages against civilians, in manners uneasily close to those of their totalitarian and terrorist enemies. Israeli troops are currently demonstrating this fact in their response to the Hezbollah rocket offensive — a response most of the world community, according to recent polls, believes is taking an unacceptably disproportionate toll on Lebanese civilians. And there have been times when democratic leaders have been even more open about their brutal intentions: Speaking of the Allied bombing campaign during World War II that culminated in that consummate act of state terrorism, the firebombing of Dresden, Germany, Winston Churchill flatly stated that the objective was “to make the enemy burn and bleed in every way.”
Excellent article, there really is no moral war, no just war, no holy war, no noble war, no happy war, no easy war, and there really should be no war other than a reluctantly fought, and limited war. There are no noble warriors, no heros, only real people doing things to their fellow human beings that are for the most part, unspeakable horrors. Anyone who tries to argue with me that their war is somehow different because of a host of reasons is not going to convince me.
While history books can be cleansed to blind future generations to the actual costs of war on the people fighting it, and the damage that ensues, fighting affects everyone who fights significantly, and rarely for the better. Eventually, it dehumanizes you, how can you kill someone (except in close combat where there’s a clear survival motivation) except by dehumanizing them? You’d have to think that a whole neighborhood is somehow inhuman to drop a bomb on them that kills maybe one terrorist and 15 innocent humans.
The history we learn has a lot to do with our willingness to tolerate this much war. The science lessons we get in school are a culmination of centuries of accumulated knowledge, the mathematics we learn goes back 10-15 centuries, we are taught to be self-critical, to learn from our mistakes, to think, yet the history we learn is pure propaganda, none of these edicts seem to apply. Being a “pacifist” has gone from normal to “loony coward fringe element” in a few years. Oh well…