Hat Tip: SoSH.
Hat Tip: SoSH.
The M&Gis not the last word on these matters, but I usually find its report card to be fair and judicious, succumbing neither to knee-jerk Afro-pessimism nor to equally reactive cheerleading. The most telling grade(s) rightfully go to President Thabo Mbeki, who receives an A- for governance, but a D for leadership.
I have long argued that Africa requires certain anchor powers to maintain regional stability. South Africa is one of these regional powers. Nigeria absolutely must be another. If Nigeria descends into calamity, vast swathes of West Africa could follow.
Chait reiterates his disdain for "Perfidious Delaware" over at The Plank. He pulls no punches, calling Delaware a "sinkhole of inequity and greed." A "backward, corrupt parasite state." One that represents the "great underappreciated scandal of modern American life." You will doubt the truth he preaches only if you've never been held up for an hour on I-95 waiting to pay an insane amount of money for the ability to drive a tiny stretch of highway.
Let's leave aside Forde judging what by any measure is a spectacular accomplishment as "Pyrrhic." Let's instead look at Forde's math. I would like to have anyone explain to me where, exactly, Knight, who has won 20 games a season at Texas Tech, was going to win 120 more games than he has won in his time since his ignominious departure from Indiana. The math is impossible. Knight has coached for six seasons at Texas Tech. By my arithmetic, to be at 1000 instead of 880, in each of those seasons he would have to have won 20 extra games, an impossibility given that to do so would have required a 40+ game season. Basically Forde is arguing that had he stayed at Indiana, Knight would have had a run of six undefeated seasons (which would have had to have included six undefeated national championship runs -- given that Knight coached the last undefeated team in college basketball in 1976, the idea that he would have done so at an Indiana program that was foundering somewhat in his last few years stretches credulity) AND the NCAA would have otherwise inexplicably expanded the schedule.
It is fine to lament what we can perceive as Knight's career sabotage. It is fine to wonder what might have been. But in my mind, Forde's absurd assertion simply undermine's Forde's own credibility as a pundit. It does not add much to the Bobby Knight discussion. The reality is that whether at Indiana or at Texas Tech, Knight was likely to break Dean Smith's record during the 2006-2007 season. Some might argue that it is a shame that he left Indiana. There is no need to augment that case with implausible arguments that defy simple arithmetic.
Or as Mr. Garrison once put it, Merry F@(king Christmas. (You might want to make sure no one with delicate sensibilities is around when you play this.) Hat Tip to prodigal dcat son, RoJo.
Bob Ryan argues that history shows how NBA teams that trade away superstars always end up on the losing end of the deal. He provides seven examples. His approach is a bit historicist, and certainly is deterministic, but when it comes to basketball, Bob Ryan is like E. F. Hutton: When he talks (and writes) people should listen.
Meanwhile, apparently a number of Massachusetts high schools are using pictures posted on the web (MySpace, et al) to catch, and possibly punish, students seen in pictures using drugs or alcohol. While this approach in and of itself might be debatable, the most problematic aspect is that these schools are choosing to focus solely on athletes in meting out punishments. This approach is dubious at best and sends precisely the wrong message: That athletes are different, that they are subject to a different level of scrutiny. In this case, to be sure, athletes pay the price. But on the other hand, if we can choose to single out athletes for punishment for deeds that are either right or wrong for all students (why not punish a kid in the chorus, or the debating team, or a class officer?) then we are saying that we can also treat them favorably as a matter of official policy. It seems to me that one of the positive aspects of Buzz Bissinger's book Friday Night Lights is that it shed a light on the excesses of glorifying high school athletes. Now what some Massachusetts public schools are doing is feeding this mindset even while putting it in the context of holding these athletes to higher standards.
Finally, Jason Stearns, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, and the spy novelist John Le Carre (!?!) have a plan to get the Congo's vast mineral wealth into the hands of its suffering people. Their suggestion, an entirely sane one that I do not see happening to the extent necessary anytime soon, is that the government and international organizations must renegotiate contracts "in a way that benefits the Congolese state and people."
One of the aspects of this debate that mosts vexes me is the very term "War on Christmas." Conservatives, who love to play the whole more patriotic than thou card, are the ones proferring this nonsense, and I'm surprised that more people have not raised a simple point: In a time when we are actually at war, it is profoundly offensive to those under fire to have some ninny at Fox News claiming that saying "Happy Holidays" is somehow tantamount to war.
My view has always been that you need to know your audience. Or you need to know what you do not know about your audience. Almost every email I send out these days will have some sort of holiday greeting, even if it is professional. But when I am corresponding with an editor, or a professor, or a student, and if I do not know their religious beliefs and spiritual background, why on earth would I simply assume that they are Christians? Why would I run the risk of receiving a potentially awkward email saying "thanks, but I am actually Jewish"? And to pre-empt that most shopworn of accusations, there is nothing "politically correct" about this approach. The conscious decision not to be a solipsistic asshole is not a manifestation of pc -- it is a manifestation of common civility.
So Happy Holidays. Season's Greetings. Or, as Randy put it on My Name is Earl last week, Feliz Naviblah!
If anything shows the low place that Africa has held in the United States, this pretty much sums it up. On the one hand, anyone concerned with Africa has to be pleased that the United States is taking the continent seriously. On the other hand, what took us so long? I realize that it has only been 65 years since America began its involvement in World War II in Africa, but it is pretty flabbergasting that it has taken us this long to make some sort of permanent military commitment to Africa and its people.
In the be careful of what you ask for category, of course, I would imagine that some in Africa might be more than a little skeptical of our newfound interest in the continent. The United States has not exactly earned the trust of most Africans, and in recent years our reputation has gotten worse. Cynical observers might be moved to wonder just how much Africans will benefit, or if this is not simply another chapter of colonialism, neocolonialism, or simply of using Africa as a pawn in western games. I am inclined to hope that this signals a recognition of Africa's long-term significance, but will keep a wary eye on things as AFRICOM develops.
Rocky (underdog from Philly is going nowhere, loses his locker after a desultory fight with Spider Rico, courts a mousy pet shop worker, gets shot at title against Apollo Creed because of oddities, has self doubts, works out in greatest montage ever, goes the distance with the champ) is a legitimately fantastic movie, one of my five favorites of all time. If you don't at least like the first one, I honestly do not know if I can like you as a human being.
A lot of people like Rocky II the least, but I'll always have a soft spot for that tattered VHS tape, and in any case, I liked the idea of Rocky Balboa winning the title. Rocky III and Rocky IV (Big Russian dude with ice queen wife emerges from the labs of Moscow and seems the perfect fighting machine, Russian dude -- Ivan Drago -- kills Apollo, Rocky goes to Siberia, runs up mountains and lifts logs, Rocky helps win Cold War) were silly but they were silliness of a piece.
Rocky V did not happen. So I have no pithy plot synopsis of it.
Which leads us up to last night, which was opening night of Rocky Balboa, the sixth installment of the Rocky series, but the first sequel not to carry the Roman numeral at the end because Sylvester Stallone did not want to acknowledge Rocky V either.
You can read all of the reviews. Some have been bad. Some have been quite good. But I can give you a simple way to assess whether you will like the latest movie: Do you fundamentally buy into the character and story of Rocky Balboa? It's as simple as that. If you see Rocky as a caricature, if you see him as a dolt spouting out "Yo, Adrian" at every turn, you'll see this last (God, let's hope so) Rocky movie as absurd. But if, like me, you cannot help but like the character, if you have bought into the absurd twists and turns, if you know that beneath the mookish exterior is embodiment of the everyman as we'd like to think we are, you will really like Rocky Balboa. In a sense this is the most real movie in the series since the first sequel. Even I, with my vast blind spot for Rocky, see the third and fourth movies as basically cartoons. Cartoons that I love, but cartoons to be sure. But the first two strike me as very real. This latest one is a return to form -- Stallone wrote and directed it, and as you can see from any review, positive or not, it might be the most personal movie he has ever made. (I'll spare you plot details -- you can find them anywhere.) There are those who see Stallone grappling with his own age issues, and find that too transparent on screen. To me, that is beside the point, or more precisely, it is the point -- of course Stallone decided to look inward: old boxer seeing mortality and wants another shot at glory, spouts truisms along the way = old actor known for action movies sees mortality and wants to wrestle with it. But because Rocky is such an earnest and fundamentally likable character, the truisms themselves come across not as hackneyed, but as earned.
The movie is not perfect. But its imperfections are of a piece. If you have not bought into Rocky by now, another training montage and stylized fight are not going to seal the deal. But if you are like me, and sadly, some of you are, some of that old Rocky magic will set in. You'll ache when he tries to come to grips with Adrian's death, you'll bob and weave and throw feints during the fight, and you'll get a lump in your throat and mist in your eyes at the end when . . . well, if you are with me up to now, just go see it.
Grading the Rocky Series: Rocky: A+ Rocky II: B+ Rocky III: A- Rocky IV: B+ Rocky V: F+ Rocky Balboa: A-
And here is another thing: Carmelo Anthony did not throw a sucker punch. He just didn't. The two guys were jawing, the Knicks player, Collins, was pretty much asking for it. And in this process, Carmelo punched him (well, in the way that NBA guys punch one another, which is always one of the most amusing aspects of NBA fights to me -- they throw punches like Johnny Damon trying to get a ball back to second from centerfield). No sucker punch. In any fight, someone is going to land the first blow. Now what he did that was disgraceful was to backpedal from the melee as soon as he threw that punch. That warranted the full 15 games as far as I am concerned.
In any case, what we have learned from all of this is that modern day sportswriters, the source of the latest round of mock outrage, have not been in enough fights. It makes me respect Will McDonough all the more, as in the late 1970s when he was the Patriots' beat writer, he punched out the Pats' starting All-Pro corner Ray Clayborn. As the legend has it (and when in doubt, print the legend) McDonough knocked Clayborn into the owner and the two tumbled into a clothes hamper, at which point the South Boston-bred sportswriter asked, "Do you want another dose?"
(And here is the lead editorial in The Boston Globe today. In how many cities does baseball garner front-page and lead editorial space in December? And this is far from the first time. Pitchers and catchers report two months from tomorrow . . .)
"I don't see that. I'd love to see evidence of that; that they could know exactly what our line calls are," Brady said. "Our defense knows what our line calls are and it doesn't matter. They could say that, but I think that's a big crock of you know what. I think it's a matter of how we played. I'm sure if you asked them, it probably sounds good for them to say they have it all figured out, but they're 6-7 and we're 9-4, so go tell me who probably has it more figured out."
Dan Shaughnessy provides a somewhat glib "newcomers guide to the Red Sox" in which he does show both some of the landmines Matsuzaka faces but also shows why Boston can be a great place to play.
Take the ball every fifth day, pitch your heart out, make no excuses, say good things only about your teammates, salute the fans, sign autographs, smile, and act like you are enjoying yourself. Let the experience of pitching for the Red Sox at Fenway Park wash over you like a soft summer rain. You’re going to love it here.
The Sox pitching staff looks like it could be fantastic, but there are ample question marks. Schilling and Wakefield are elder statesmen, with Schilling indicating that this year will be his last. Beckett should adjust after a year in the tougher (for pitchers, certainly) American League but last year's performance was hardly that of an ace and former World series MVP. Lester is recovering from cancer, and while he hopes to be at spring training on time for pitchers and catchers reporting (February 16 for all of you keeping track) I think we need to give him some time, and even if healthy, Lester is young and will have growing pains. Papelbon was the season's revelation last year, but that season ended with him on the sidelines with a shoulder injury, which is always cause for concern. Now he is going to make the transition from closer to starter. Let's not burden him with expectations of greatness yet.
And then there is Matsuzaka. There is a reason why the Sox placed a $51.1 million bid on him. Every scout who is on the record is loopy for this guy. Even if rumors of the gyro ball are greatly exaggerated, Matsuzaka is supposed to be something special. Certainly his MVP performance in carrying Japan to victory in the World Baseball Classic reaffirmed all of the whispering. And his stats in the Japanese league show a young man who began good and has improved every season. But how will he adjust to the Major Leagues? How will he adjust to the longer season and the much more extensive travel and the circus that is the Boston media, a circus whose tents are about to expand with dozens of Japanese media members? What if he stumbles coming out of the gate? What if he has health issues? There are lots of questions that we will only answer once we get him to Fort Myers and to Fenway and once he gets going with what we hope will be a long and successful career.
Mathemeticians in the audience will note that I have listed six starting pitchers. There have been two recent seasons when the Sox entered the year with fans worrying about too many starters. How would we be able to integrate six starters into five spots? Those years were 2004 and 2006. And in both seasons even six starters proved not to be sufficient. As far as I am concerned we still do not have enough starting pitching. I hope we reach out to Roger Clemens and at least make a phone call to Boras to see what he might have to say about Zito. Seven starters will end up, at some point in the season, being four. Someone will go on the shelf. Someone will have the dreaded "personal issues." Someone will not work out. Someone will slump. Stickpile starters. The rest will evolve naturally.
But while looking for more top-of-the-rotation guys, the Sox need to start zoning in on closers. I do not think a big name is important. In fact, I tend to think the closing role is overrated -- I buy into the theory of Bill James that high leverage situations can crop up in any inning late in the game. That your "closer" might be best served coming out of the pen in the 7th, with someone else pitching the last inning of the game. But this is an idea whose time has not yet come, and the closer-by-committee had its hearing in early 2003 and failed, though I might point out that it was the personnel that failed more than the idea itself.
The Hot Stove is still cooking. Pitchers and catchers arrive in Fort Myers in about 55 days.
Crichton launched his noxious attack from behind the shield of the small penis rule because, I'm sure, he's embarrassed by what he has done. In researching my article, I found a man who has long yearned for intellectual stature beyond the realm of killer dinosaurs and talking monkeys. And Crichton must know that turning a critic into a poorly endowed child rapist won't exactly aid his cause. Ultimately, then, I find myself strangely flattered. To explain why, let me propose a corollary to the small penis rule. Call it the small man rule: If someone offers substantive criticism of an author, and the author responds by hitting below the belt, as it were, then he's conceding that the critic has won.I'd say that this is indeed the case. Crowley has won, and Crichton is a loser.
Whoever this Tony dude is, he can't be more than a mere menstrual stain on the thong of American political discourse.
That said, Sportsguy has me even more excited about the possibility of an AI to Boston trade, even if it is unlikely to happen.
Let out a sigh of relief and get some sleep Sox fans. I said all along that this would get done, but not without machinations and the sort of speculation that makes being a Red Sox fan the joy that it is.
But is it a good idea? Bob Ryan, at least, seems ambivalent.
My question would be: What would we give up to get him?
In baseball, an abundance of young talent serves many purposes. One of these is as trade leverage. This makes a certain amount of sense -- picking baseball talent is a more capricious game than choosing basketball talent (hell, the NBA long ago scaled their draft down to only two rounds, with the second round rarely yielding many starters in any given year). Major League teams draft baseball players knowing they have years to develop. Major League teams have 40-man rosters plus entire minor league systems. The Boston Red Sox probably have at their disposal more than 150 players, possibly more, at all levels of the system. The Celtics have one tenth of that. So oftentimes guys with talent are great bargaining tools in baseball in a way that they cannot be in the NBA because in basketball there are so relatively few of them, and those that exist are almost always already under NBA contract.
What does this have to do with anything, you ask? Because the relative paucity of fungible young player assets, coupled with the NBA's hard salary cap, means that teams cannot just line up talent and make a trade. There are huge considerations independent of basketball symmetry that go into making a trade. And while future assets can haunt baseball GM's down the road (Jeff Bagwell, anyone?) in basketball the possibility of trading youth for proven talent can haunt a team almost immediately in the NBA.
So again, the question is, what would the C's have to give up for AI? They have a ton of young talent, which, to continue the baseball anaology, means that they really ought to use some of them to trade for proven value, because all of these guys will not mature into NBA stars, and even fewer will be able to do so as Celtics given the nature of the game. The Celts can also use a trade opportunity to give away a couple of salaries that are set to disappear off the books in a year or so (disposable salaries are as important in the NBA as young talent -- remember that hard cap) such as Theo Ratliff. This will give the 76ers vaunted cap flexibility. And the Celts have lots of young athletes who would tantalize most any GM.
I have heard the name Al Jefferson bandied about. Jefferson is maybe the most tantalizing of the C's youth brigade. Two years ago he looked set to make the leap to the next level. Then last year he was injured for most of the season and the whispering about AJ's potential began. This year he has yet to answer anyone's questions satisfactorily.
There is, of course, another factor. Let's call it what it is: the Greg Oden Effect. Ohio State's precocious big man is destined to be the first pick in next year's draft and by all accounts, even though he has only played a handful of college games, he could be the next superstar to enter the NBA. A big man with serious skills is the rarest of commodities and NBA dynasties are made of such dreams. The Greg Oden Effect plays into the AI prospects because whatever Bob Ryan says, he and everyone else knows that AI instantly makes the C's better. He makes them a contender in their execrable Atlantic Division and in the Eastern Conference. But AI is not likely to get the Celtics close to a championship. And he can be death on both coaches and teammates. Fans hate to admit it, and coaches and players would not dare whisper it, but young talent or no, the Celts are not going anywhere this year, and so why not think about the draft and what it beholds? Without AI, dreams of Greg Oden may dance in our heads. Oden might mean the sky is the limit. AI might help us to win a lot more games, but the limit he brings is likely more earthbound and prosaic.
My view, though, is that winning the draft lottery is not likely either. The Celtics are not very good, but they are youthfully talented with one legitimate superstar in Paul Pierce, and that will be sufficient to keep them from being bad enough to have any realistic shot at the #1 draft pick. They may be in position to draft a good young player, but the Celtics do not suffer for want of youth.
So again, what might the Sixers be offering? Because we all know the headaches AI brings to the table. But we cannot help it. Paul Pierce provides us with the Truth. Wouldn't it be nice, just maybe, to have the Answer as well?
But, nonetheless, the Congo hasn't been this hopeful since the 1960s. And the credit goes to an intriguing coalition of European money, African diplomacy, South Asian muscle, and U.N. expertise. Although U.N. formulas require the United States and Japan to foot a significant share of any peacekeeping bill, it was mostly the Europeans who financed the elections. South Africa and Angola pressured Kabila and Bemba to respect the results. South Asian troops kept the peace.
As the United States grows allergic to nation-building in the wake of Iraq, some combination of these forces might be the world's best hope for nursing broken nations back to health. While Europeans are more reluctant to wage war than Americans, they are often more inclined to help keep the peace. In fact, the European Union is developing a 60,000-person rapid-reaction force largely for that purpose. South Asia has become the world's largest source of peacekeepers, and the numbers could grow as India flexes its international muscle.
Nonetheless, like many liberals, I still cannot help but let my idealistic side win out when it comes to the UN. For all of its flaws, the UN fills what I believe to be a necessary place within the international community. While I'd like to see the UN do much better, or while I might like to develop a new organization that from the outset avoids some of the biggest flaws of Turtle Bay, the reality is that even in its imperfect form, the UN can do some good in the world. Nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of peacekeeping, and especially post-conflict peacekeeping.
Beinart recognizes this reality:
Then there's the United Nations itself--which, while often mocked in the United States (sometimes deservedly), has become the foremost repository of peacekeeping expertise in the world. As rand's James Dobbins has pointed out, both the United States and the United Nations did a lot of postwar stabilization in the '90s. But, while the Bush administration essentially discarded that knowledge and started from scratch in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United Nations now has a cadre of officials with extensive nation-building experience. Of course, Turtle Bay can't overthrow governments. But, when it comes to ushering post-conflict societies toward democracy and peace, as Dobbins notes, the United Nations actually has a better record than the United States.
Looking at the post-Iraq world, two realities jump out. In the United States, nation-building will be a dirty word. And, across the globe, nation-building will remain desperately necessary. As Oxford University's Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler have shown, peacekeeping is the most cost-effective way to prevent a country from sliding back into chaos. Indeed, the rise of international peacekeeping deserves significant credit for the decline in civilian deaths since the end of the cold war.
If the United States no longer has much appetite for such endeavors, we should at least support those who do. Largely as a result of the Congo, U.N. peacekeeping costs have shot up, and it is easy to imagine the United States trying to rein them in. We should do exactly the reverse. To consolidate its fledgling democracy, the Congo actually needs more blue helmets--and we should help pay for them. The United States goes through missionary phases and anti-missionary phases, but, in the end, this isn't really about us. The important thing isn't who saves countries like the Congo; it is that they get saved.
From a gambling standpoint, we can definitively say the following things: Pick every underdog unless you can't live with yourself for passing up a particular favorite. Grab underdog money lines over taking the points. Avoid road favorites and teasers unless your other option is setting your money on fire. Never feel comfortable with a lead until you see three zeros on the clock, coaches awkwardly shaking hands and players forming a prayer circle at midfield. And in the words of Agent Mulder, trust no one.
Just. Stop. With. The. Gambling. Now. Please.
All international relations, even those regarding the United States when we are seen as something of a global bully, do not have to boil down to the strong exercising power against the weak. South Africa is by most measures the most powerful nation in sub-Saharan Africa, maybe even on the continent as a whole. South Africa thus has its own leverage in the relationship with the US while at the same time, South Africa wants and needs US support and investment -- US interest.
South Africans know that they will not have President Bush to deal with forever. But for now, they do. Thabo Mbeki is not about to cut off his nose to spite his face by endangering his relationship with the United States, and there is no reason why President Bush will resort to bullying behavior in a relatively brief meeting with the South African president. The "bully vs. buddy" syllogism was probably too cute for the author and editors not to use, but it does not reflect the realities of the current US-South Africa relationship.
I am not alone in my dismay. A former Carter aide, one-time executive director of the Carter Center where he has at least nominally been a senior fellow, and professor of Middle Eastern history Kenneth Stein has publicly rebuked Carter's book and resigned his fellowship. In a letter explaining his decision, Sten wrote that the book is “replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments.” (See here for the New York Times article and here for the Washington Post's coverage.)
Obviously a former president's take on a historical event is rarely going to meet the standards of scholarly history, but Stein hits the point precisely when he writes, "being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information." Stein is light on specifics because, apparently, he is preparing a review of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which should be an explosive read.
"I had fun," he points out. "I can tell you right now I did smell the roses. Any time I felt good, I completely loved playing. If I felt good during the warm-up, if I had my balance, I could definitely tell you that somebody was going to get an ass-whipping. Of course, I remember it all. I remember that first game in the Garden. There were only about 10 or 11,000 people there and I remember the place smelled like stale beer. Probably why I liked it."You can have Jordan and Magic and Lebron and Shaq, transcendental players all. I'll take Larry Joe Bird.
A young woman has journeyed from one continent to another to enter a history of which she is uncommonly ignorant. This is not the ignorance of naïveté. It is willful, and willful ignorance is indistinguishable from false witness. She has come as a determined tabula rasa. Absent are the Arab annihilationist wars of 1948, 1967, 1973. Absent are the repeated Palestinian refusals of statehood, beginning in 1948, when the United Nations proposed a partition of the land, and emerging again in 2000, when yet another Israeli (and American) appeal for Palestinians to accept statehood was answered by Yasir Arafat's murderous second intifada. "A largely unarmed people"? The English-speaking pharmacist in whose house Rachel Corrie is billeted admits to the culpable Palestinian origins of the current fighting: "Before intifada--no tanks, no bulldozers, no noise. After intifada, daily." But even this close-at-hand testimony of cause-and-effect cannot sway her. The believer is cognizant only of her belief.
For Rachel Corrie, in 2003, living and writing in the very heart of the second intifada, there is no mention of intifada, only of Israeli aggression; no acknowledgment of ongoing suicide bombings, rockets, bus explosions, attacks aimed at discos, eateries, malls, holiday gatherings; no recognition, for all her concern for children, of kindergartens inculcating six-year-olds with the beauty of "martyrdom." Or, rather, if any of these matters are argued, even in a mild and sympathetic tone (her mother's), against her belief system, she justifies in mechanical phrases what she permits herself, at least once, to call "Palestinian violence." And follows immediately with dogged, and preposterous, false witness: "The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaging in Gandhian non-violent resistance."
The mechanical lingo, with its neo-Marxist paraphernalia and hate-America jargon, is consistently on display. "I've had this underlying need to go to a place and meet people who are on the other end of the tax money that goes to fund the US military." "What we are paying for here is truly evil. Maybe the general growing class imbalance in the world and consequent devastation of working people's lives is a bigger evil." "I went to a rally a few days ago in Khan Younis in solidarity with the people of [Saddam Hussein's] Iraq." "[Children] love to get me to practice my limited Arabic. Today I tried to learn to say, 'Bush is a tool.'"
There is an old-fashioned word for this mentality, the kind of earnest temporary do-goodism that is likely to do harm: the word is slumming. For a sheltered young woman from Olympia, Washington, the intifada, as furiously enacted by Palestinians in Gaza, and the deterring Israeli response, are a shocking and often frightening experience. In Olympia there are no guns and gunmen occupying households, and no rocket launchers concealed in the forsythia bushes.
A tragic casualty of the war she chose to join, she was cut down--horribly--by an Israeli army bulldozer. Contrary to the reports of journalists, the house she was attempting to shield was not a target. The bulldozer was clearing brush to thwart cover for launchers, explosives, and ambush. A photo taken minutes before the event tells what happened: the big growling machine is perched on a great mound of earth; well below it, shut off from the driver's vision and hearing, stands a tiny figure with a bullhorn. A piteous, pointless, heartbreaking death.
The playscript includes an addendum by Tom Dale, one of the "internationals": the driver, he surmises, "knew absolutely that she was there." This version--a charge of plain murder--has, along with the notorious Mohammed al-Dura fabrication, entered the world's book of infamous fake facts. And for the opportunistic leaders of the ISM, which knows usable goods when it sees them, Rachel Corrie's death is neither piteous nor pointless: it is pure bonanza. A predatory organization that callously endangers its human shields by placing them before the hideouts of war, it purports to preach non-violence--except on its website, where it openly defends "armed struggle." Arafat, the warlord and terror chieftain who launched the intifada that was the ultimate ground of Rachel Corrie's death, lauded her as a "martyr"; for Arafat too, in the enduring propaganda blitz against the life of the Jewish state, she was usable goods. Media-savvy herself, she understood, as we have seen, the notion of a usable death: "the difficulties the Israeli army would face if they shot an unarmed US citizen." Her grieving mother and father, seeking solidarity with their daughter and her cause, journeyed to Gaza, where they were an immediate temptation to the armed kidnappers who prefer to seize Westerners; identified as the martyr's parents, they were left to themselves by the equally media-savvy gunmen.
In view of the play's manifestly political intent, and particularly in the lurid light of the editors' having concluded with an accusation of deliberate murder, the London audiences who jubilantly welcomed My Name Is Rachel Corrie, and the New York audiences who weepily do the same, should know at least this much: they have been spectators at a show trial. And there are Jews in the dock.
This group is created to facilitate consideration of connections and interactions between China and Africa, and Africans and Chinese - historic, present, and future. It draws its name from the Chinese (Mandarin, Puthonghua) for Africa, "Fei Zhou," and the name in Arabic for China, "Al Siin" (pronounced as-siin). Arabic ws chosen since it is one of many maternal languages in Africa, and one that has influenced a number of other languages on the continent (notably in the Sahel and east Africa). The main language of this list is English. Postings in other languages such as Chinese, African languages, and French are welcome but please accompany them with an English summary to assure a wider understanding.
In February of this year I wrote about this possibility. I was wary then:
This is a colossally, monumentally, stupidly bad idea. To be fair to Mbeki and the ANC, this is not an idea that comes from them, but I do hope this is not Mbeki's way of floating a trial balloon. If it is, I hope that it bursts instantly. One of post-colonial Africa's curses has been Big Man Syndrome, whereby leaders, almost always from the independence era, believe that they are indispensible and thus refuse to yield power or else engage in chicanery and heavy-handedness to change or manipulate the Constitution and thus make their naked grab for power "legal" in the narrowest sense.
In 1940 a Republican slogan was "Washington wouldn't, Grant couldn't, Roosevelt shouldn't" in opposing a third term for FDR. Whatever the merits of re-opening the discussion of the two-term limit in American presidency -- and, speaking as a historian, I am an ardent supporter of all of FDR's terms -- given the circumstances in Sub-Saharan Africa, let us get a new slogan going: "Mandela wouldn't, Mbeki shouldn't."
(This issue also emerged in the comments of another, longer entry on South African politics from this past June.)
I should note that Mbeki has continued to disavow any interest in a third term as head of state, which would in any case require a constitutional amendment. But this prospect helps elucidate why even those of us who support the ANC have always been wary of the ANC capturing 2/3 of the votes in parliament, which would allow them, if no one broke ranks, to change the constitution unilaterally if they so chose. The liberation movement has worked too hard to become the governing party only to see things go the way of oligarchy and presidencies for life. That prospect is a long way off, but the EC's recent decision at least points the way toward an inglorious future.
The fact that this motion comes from the Eastern Cape is significant as well. During the resistance struggle the eastern Cape region (it was not then its own province) provided the backdrop for some of the most intense moments of struggle. The region's leadership set much of the agenda for "making South Africa ungovernable" in the 1980s. Steve Biko and Matthew Goniwe are just two of the martyrs who emerged from the region as the result of their willingness to confront the apartheid state. The eastern Cape has a sacred place in the history of the fight against oppression. Let us hope that the same region does not prove to be the point of origination for folly in the next stage of South Africa's development.
Whether or not Madonna adopted the boy legally, her entire cultivation of Malawi shows how celebrity activism has changed. Used to be, there was only one type of celebrity do-gooder. The Jerry Lewis type--earnest, maybe annoyingly persistent, but using fame to raise consciousness about an issue, and then standing back and letting experts do the rest. Now, in an era when celebrities have become the new royalty, we have three types of famous do-gooders. The Jerry Lewis prototype still exists. We also now have a second type--celebs who take on worthy topics, but act so bizarrely they tarnish their noble causes. Say, Steven Segal, who adopted a noble cause (Tibet) and then had a monk declare the tough guy a reincarnation of a powerful Buddhist lama. Segal quickly assumed the name Terton Chungdrag Dorje--though not on film credits, of course--and supporters of the Tibet cause started wondering whether Segal had made donations to the monk to win his reincarnation.
Then there is the third kind, now proliferating faster than Iran. Savvy development experts long ago figured out that, by bringing celebs into a cause, they would raise the profile of unsexy topics like African development or debt relief. But now, like a bad horror movie, the monster has outgrown its master and is taking over. Celebrities now not only want to do good but think they know how to do the good, even as they decry politicians who dare offer advice about their world of film, television, and radio. So George Clooney appears before the U.N. Security Council to lecture the world on Darfur policy, as if he could convince hard-hearted Russia and China to support tougher measures against Khartoum. Bono, of course, has become such an expert on aid policy that he now merits magazine covers analyzing his insights and his potential impact on the world. Coldplay's Chris Martin studies up on the impact of tariffs on Ghanian textiles. And Madonna thinks that what desperate Malawi really needs is red string and teffilin.
First off, however, let us address what this is not: This decision does not represent evidence that the Democrats are not serious about national security issues. If the Democrats adhere to most of the 9/11 Report recommendations it will show a seriousness of purpose and accomplishment that the last five years of rhetoric and grandstanding on the part of Republicans in the executive and legislative branches have not matched. This might be politics as usual. It does not represent Democratic fecklessness. Not yet anyway.
What the decision might represent, however, is a certain level of tone deafness on the part of the Democratic leadership. A cynical world requires cynical strategy. Perhaps the Democrats have come to understand that a dramatic reorganization of Congressional intelligence oversight is simply not nor was it ever a viable option, and by scuttling it right away they are simply reading the reality of the situation and reacting accordingly. I would welcome an introduction of greater openness and transparency in government. And it may be true that the 9/11 report recommendations were never really practicable. But if you promise to enact all of the recommendations, isn't your promise really that you are going to try to enact all of the recommendations? Don't you owe an honest effort to do so and then concede failure if it fails to happen?
It is facile at this point to accuse the Democrats of hypocrisy or disingenuousness. At least for now. Hamhandedness, however, is another question.