Media seems to be calling the debate for Kerry

First, let me offer my apologies to Fox News. As concerned as I was about Fox's camera work, they were perfectly fair, showing reaction shots of both candidates equally, in violation of the rules set out by the two campaigns. If anything, it ended up worse for Bush, who looked irritated, tired, and confused during the cutaways.

A very conservative friend said after the debate that he thinks Kerry trounced Bush. Personally, I think the debate was pretty even. If I had to give it to anyone, I'd call it slightly in Kerry's favor. Bush's body language and non-verbals were off, and he seemed tired, defensive, and irritated. More important than the debate itself is the media coverage of the debate, and so far that seems to be going for Kerry. Former Republican Congressman and MSNBC commentator Joe Scarborough called it for Kerry, and NBC's focus group of undecided voters all seemed to break in Kerry's favor (which means the Today Show quotes will probably trend in Kerry's favor). Add to all of that the fact that this is the only debate on foreign policy, and I think Kerry's still very much in this race.

Beware! T.V. viewers might be "Outfoxed" during tonight's debate

With images of Richard Nixon looking sweaty and uncomfortable and George H. W. Bush glancing at his watch, we've been reminded ad nauseam over the past several days that one unfortunate camera shot during a presidential debate can swing an election. No matter where you are on the political spectrum, I hope we can all agree that the camera operators filming tonight's presidential debate have a duty to treat both candidates fairly. Unfortunately, this article from Reuters about the networks' plan to disregard the Orwellian ground rules laid out by the Bush and Kerry campaigns includes the following:

Fox News Channel, whose turn it is under a rotation system to operate the "pool" cameras for all the networks in the first debate on Thursday in Coral Gables, Florida, said it would follow its own editorial judgment in operating its cameras.

In the recently-released documentary "Outfoxed," a litany of former Fox News reporters and producers explain that Rupert Murdoch enforces strict editorial rules at every level of the Fox News organization, requiring Republicans to be presented in the best possible light and Democrats to be presented in the worst possible light. With Fox controlling the "pool" cameras, every network in America will be subject to Fox's editorial judgment. I urge you to keep that in mind as you watch tonight's debate and the post-debate coverage over the coming days. This is likely to be the most watched of the three debates, so please don't let Rupert Murdoch decide this election!

"Inadequate time to fullfill possible future commitments."

This White House has a great talent for timing the release of information so that it gets buried and lost in the media shuffle. With all eyes on tonight's debate, the White House last night released President Bush's letter of resignation from the Air National Guard, in which Bush hand wrote the following reason for resigning two years early from his six-year service commitment: "Inadequate time to fullfill possible future commitments."

As Commander-in-Chief, Bush has sent tens of thousands of National Guard soldiers to war. Under the current "stop loss" policy, thousands of members of our supposed "all volunteer" force have been barred from leaving when their terms of service end. (Remember that Bush got to leave before his term of service ended.) Maybe they'd have better luck if they told their commanders they have "inadequate time to fullfill possible future commitments."

Lest anyone think the genocide has subsided...

This article today describes more recent attacks on civilians in Darfur:

"They were Janjaweed in government uniforms," said Ibrahim, who arrived at Hay Drig at 5 a.m. "Then we saw land cruisers following. Then the bombers and helicopter gunships came overhead."

WWJD? (What would Jefferson do?)

In the post below I asked, "What's next?" I just heard the answer on the local news: Congress plans to vote today to repeal Washington, D.C.'s gun control laws. It looks like the Republican answer to the terrorist threat is that citizens should arm themselves.

Most disturbing about the move to repeal D.C gun laws is that the people of D.C. have no say in the matter. As a Virginian, I would take issue with lawmakers from Indiana or Texas imposing their will on the Virginia legislature. What ever happened to governments "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"?

Another one for "Security Moms"

The Washington Post reports that the Bush administration is cutting the part of the COPS program that put 118,000 new police officers on our streets over the past decade. What's next? Stubbornly refusing to increase the size of the active-duty military, Bush has already drained our communities of first responders through his unprecedented over-reliance on the National Guard and Reserve in Iraq. Knowing from captured al Qaeda training manuals that Osama bin Laden encourages his terrorists to exploit loose American guns laws to arm themselves, Bush allowed the assault weapons ban expire. Now, while telling us that terrorists plan to attack us in our communities to disrupt the election, and knowing that police officers are the front-line defenders of communities all across America, Bush is cutting the program that puts new police officers on our streets.

How to Win the Heartland

The always brilliant E.J. Dionne does it again with this piece about Colorado attorney general and Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Ken Salazar. Let's hope they run E.J.'s column in Spring Green, Wisconsin.

If we can't even support 305 African Union soldiers...

How are we going to support the 3,000 A.U. soldiers the U.N. at least nominally hopes will go to Darfur to protect civilians there? According to this tragically poignant piece this morning about 155 Rwandan soldiers serving in Darfur, "There are days when there are not enough cars for all of the monitors to go out, and Sendegeya sits in his tent, cleans up the compound and exercises." Not only is the international community utterly failing to take a hard line against genocide in Darfur, but we apparently don't even have the wherewithal to provide enough logistical support for the 305 A.U. soldiers protecting ceasefire monitors in Darfur to accomplish their mission effectively. The A.U. has asked for $200 million to support its nascent force, and the U.S. Senate on Thursday approved $75 million for that force. It's time for other nations to step up to the plate.

Murphy's Law strikes again

If you noticed a some bizarre layout formatting on the site during the last hour or so, it's because RSS-to-JavaScript, the service I use to present certain kinds of content on the site, posted a system notice to all of its content feeds that contained some code that messed up my formatting. Unfortunately, they did that right after I sent out a public announcement about our U.N. Modernization Project, which spiked readership exactly when the problem occured. Anyway, the problem appears to have been fixed. Thanks for your patience.

"Security Moms" take note

Two news items today highlight how the Bush administration is risking the safety and security of the American people through its mismanagement of the reserve component of the U.S. military:

Florida was hit Sunday with an unprecedented fourth hurricane in six weeks, and the Washington Post reports the following:

"The Federal Emergency Management Agency, still engaged in relief work for hurricanes Charley, Frances and Ivan, launched what Director Michael D. Brown called the largest disaster recovery effort in its history."

"Convoys of trucks bearing water and ice surged north from staging grounds south of Miami. They had been placed there after the hard lessons of Frances, when relief supplies stored north of the storm's biggest impact were held up for days by flooded roads."

"Almost as vexing as the complications of finding food and shelter for storm-weary residents are the millions of tons of debris from the hurricanes that have yet to be removed."

"'The volumes are so large, I'm not sure how we're going to handle that,' the governor said."

With five weeks to go before election day, the Department of Homeland Security is warning that terrorists may still plan to disrupt the election with attacks, a la "4/11" in Madrid. Also from the Washington Post:

"Agencies across the federal government are launching an aggressive and unusually open offensive aimed at thwarting terrorist plots before and during the presidential election in November."

"Numerous law enforcement and counterterrorism officials also warned last week that a heightened threat of terrorist attack will persist through the January inauguration."

At the same time governors need their state National Guard units to respond to natural disasters and to secure communities from terrorism, those very units are being sent overseas at an unprecedented rate. Moreover, many, many Guard and Reserve soldiers work in law enforcement, fire fighting, and emergency medical services in their civilian lives. As units deploy overseas, communities across the nation are left without the first responders needed to protect us -- and our polling places -- from the terrorists whom we are now being told want to target us here (not in Iraq) in the coming weeks.

Last week, I attended a conference on Guard and Reserve transformation at Georgetown University. The conference was hosted by the Association of the United States Army, the Center for American Progress, and Georgetown's Center for Peace and Security Studies. The consensus among defense policy experts from across the political spectrum was that the Bush administration's massive and unprecedented National Guard and Reserve deployments to the war in Iraq have pushed the reserve component to the breaking point. Moreover, band-aide policies like stop-loss (the so-called "back door draft" that prevents soldiers from leaving the "all volunteer" service once their voluntary terms are up) and the practice of sending Guard and Reserve soldier into combat with inadequate training and equipment have driven reserve component retention to historic lows. (The Army Research Institute found that only 27 percent of Guard and Reserve soldiers plan to reenlist, and the Army National Guard projects it will fall 5,000 soldiers short of this year's recruiting goal.)

You have the power!

Howard Dean this morning gave Democrats the best five minutes they've had on NBC's "The Today Show" in weeks, maybe months. He was strong, direct, unflappable, and on message, attacking Bush as the real flip-flopper ("First he was against creating the Department of Homeland Security, then he was for it; First he was against the 9/11 commission, then he was for it; First he refused to testify to the commission; then he agreed...." and words to that affect.) and turning "what ifs" about his own candidacy into more attacks on Bush and solid support for Kerry. He even worked in a line or two to raise expectations about Bush's debate performance. It was a thing of beauty -- even James Carville hasn't been that good. Hopefully we'll see more of him between now and the election.

Here's a brand of evil we can stop

Cathleen Falsani, religion writer for the Chicago Sun-Times, has this nice piece comparing our ability to stop the kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq with our ability to stop the genocide in Sudan. She writes, "Call it the lesser of two evils, but it may be easier to stop institutionalized violence, such as genocide, than the random acts of a few crazed sociopaths." She suggests actions you can take to make a difference, and ends on this note:

I've been taught that we are all God's children, beloved equally by our creator, and that we all are also our brother's keepers.

Africa is our family. We have a moral responsibility to ensure its welfare and protection, both as individual people and as a nation that would like to be a moral voice in this fallen world of ours.

It is impossible to do everything, to stamp out evil everywhere that it appears.

But what we can do, we must.

Khartoum in denail about rapes

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said today that the Sudanese government "as whole is in denial about the scale and severity of the problem" with women being raped in and around refugee camps in Darfur.

New Action Ticker Feature: Randomized Links

Thanks to Sam at RSS-to-JavaScript.com, the RIPPLE OF HOPE Action Ticker now displays content in a random order that changes each time you reload the page. Previously, the Action Ticker displayed content in a single order, giving causes appearing later in the line up less visibility. This great new feature should give each cause similar visibility. Thanks, Sam!

(You can get the updated Action Ticker code for your site here.)

An African solution or a U.S. solution to Darfur?

This Washington Post editorial today makes the case for keeping the pressure on in Sudan and focuses on an African solution to the problem:

"Time and again Sudan's dictatorship has proved that it will bend to pressure: It expelled Osama bin Laden, it negotiated peace with the country's southern rebels, and it has improved humanitarian access to Darfur's camps. This time will be no exception, provided that the pressure is sufficient."

"The goal of this pressure must be to build on the small contingent of African Union troops already in Darfur."

The piece also notes U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's statement to the General Assembly yesterday arguing that deference to soveriegnty ought not be used as an excuse to allow crimes against humanity.

Also in the Washington Post, neoconservatives William Kristol and Vance Serchuk argue that U.S. military intervention in Sudan is inevitable, and should happen sooner rather than later. I'm sympathetic to their point of view, and had we not invaded Iraq, I might agree with them. However, the U.S. military is badly overstretched by the war in Iraq, so U.S. military intervention in Sudan just isn't feasible right now the way it was in the Balkans and would have been in Rwanda. Moreover, I think it's important for the African Union to assert itself in a way that will empower it to intervene in future crises in the region, which would be a long-term benefit to everyone.

Teaser: Jesse "The Former Governor" Ventura on America's overstretched Guard and Reserve force

More to follow on this, but I spent the day at conference titled “Transforming the Reserve Component for the 21st Century” put together by the Association of the United States Army, the Center for American Progress, and the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University. As one might have predicted, Jesse "The Former Governor" Ventura was the most entertaining of the speakers, which included Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI). He had some choice words for the Bush administration about how it is using the Guard and Reserve in Iraq. (He also had a lot to say about the two-party system, gay marriage, and some other issues.) I'll say more in an article I'm working on for TomPaine.com, but here's a taste:

"If the National Guard as it is today would have been in effect in the late 1960s, our current commander-in-chief wouldn't have volunteered for that duty, since he was trying to avoid being sent overseas. He's sending them to do something he wasn't willing to do, and that's just wrong."

Preach it, Jesse!

Presenting the RIPPLE OF HOPE U.N. Modernization Project

As the situation in Sudan has made clear, under its current charter, the United Nations has proven itself unable to prevent or stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. Therefore, we've assembled a panel of contributors with the hope that an intelligent, spirited discussion will produce concrete ideas to update the U.N. Charter and correct this systemic and moral failure. In the spirit of recent Security Council resolutions, initially this will be a 30-day effort. Recognizing that it's too late to change the United Nations in ways that will effect the present, our goal is to recommend changes that could prevent another Rwanda or Sudan a decade from now. Click here to follow the discussion, and feel free to comment on the various posts.

Guard unit's morale problem belies Bush claims

This article in today's Washington Post belies the Bush administration's Pollyanna claims that our military isn't over stretched. Here's a key excerpt:

This Guard unit was put on an accelerated training schedule -- giving the soldiers about 36 hours of leave over the past two months -- because the Army needs to get fresh troops to Iraq, and there are not enough active-duty or "regular" troops to go around. Preparation has been especially intense because the Army is short-handed on military police units, so these artillerymen are being quickly re-trained to provide desperately needed security for convoys. And to fully man the unit, scores of soldiers were pulled in from different Guard outfits, some voluntarily, some on orders.

As members of the unit looked toward their tour, some said they were angry, or reluctant to go, or both. Many more are bone-tired. Overall, some of them fear, the unit lacks strong cohesion -- the glue that holds units together in combat.

"Our morale isn't high enough for us to be away for 18 months," said Pfc. Joshua Garman, 20, who, in civilian life, works in a National Guard recruiting office. "I think a lot of guys will break down in Iraq." Asked if he is happy that he volunteered for the deployment, Garman said, "Negative. No time off? I definitely would not have volunteered."

Any military leader will tell you that morale and unit cohesion are critical to keeping troops alive on the battlefield. Does this sound like a unit ready for war? To get a sense of how bad this really is, check out this article about Jonathan Shay, the Harvard Medical School professor who describes himself as a "lifelong liberal Democrat, and proud of it," who is the Army's new personnel policy advisor. Here's the key excerpt:

"I am a physician with a fire in the belly for prevention of psychological injury in military service," Shay wrote in a summary of his work. "As such I am the missionary for the injured veterans whom I serve in the VA. They don't want other young kids to be wrecked the way they were wrecked." Indeed, to not abandon his patients, he is staying with the VA part time during his Pentagon tour.

His goal of cohesion is easily explained but harder to achieve, he said.

" 'Cohesion' is really about mutual trust," he said. "If you don't have mutual trust, you tend to burn up all your physical and emotional resources." For example, a soldier in the front lines who distrusts his comrades' ability to protect him from the enemy will not be able to sleep well. "If your gaze is directed inward -- 'Can I trust these guys?' -- then your cognitive resources are directed inward, when they should be directed outward, toward the enemy," Shay said.

If you're going to report on esoteric minutia, at least get it right

The Washington Post had another ridiculous error today regarding the CBS memos. This graphic comparing the CBS memos to officially released memos by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian suggests the CBS memos are fake in part because one of them refers to business conducted on Aug. 18, 1973, which was a Saturday. According to the Post graphic, "It is unlikely that ANG conducted business with 'Austin' on Saturday." Really? It's unlikely that the Air National Guard, which, along with the Army National Guard, drills on weekends would conduct business on a Saturday? Drill weekends are a defining characteristic of the National Guard. This is almost as absurd as claiming it's unlikely that the Air Force would conduct operations above the ground. This is esoteric minutia, but if that's where you choose to focus your coverage, at least get it right.

Security Council passes Darfur resolution

With China, Russia, Pakistan, and Algeria abstaining, the U.N. Security Council passed the U.S.-sponsored resolution yesterday threatening to consider oil sanctions on Sudan, calling for an expanded African Union force in Darfur, and calling for the establishment of a commission to investigate charges of genocide and human rights violations. This is the watered-down version of the resolution that merely threatens to consider sanctions. While abstaining this time, China has promised to veto any attempt to actually impose sanctions on Sudan's oil industry (of which China is a major customer) effectively rendering the sanctions provision useless. However, if this resolution gives the African Union the top cover necessary to put 3,000 or so troops into Darfur, it will have done some good.

Ripple of Hope in the Land of Apartheid

Dr. Larry Shore of Hunter College, New York, sent me a note with a link to a site he has built, Ripple of Hope in the Land of Apartheid, detailing Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1966 visit to South Africa. It was on that trip that Kennedy made his "Ripple of Hope" speech from which my site draws its name. (Click here to hear the complete speech.) It's well worth your time, and few people express the promise of America more eloquently than RFK.

Political reporters need lesson in military lingo

Retired Texas Air National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett may, in fact, be the source of the CBS memos supporting what we already knew -- that young George W. Bush used family connections to game the system during his Vietnam-era military service. However, this paragraph from a Washington Post article on the subject is simply laughable, and is indicative of the disconnect between military culture and some of the reporters covering it:

"The CBS documents include several phrases that crop up in Web logs signed by Burkett, including 'run interference,' and references to a pilot's 'billet.' Former Air National Guard officers have pointed out that 'billet' is an Army expression, not an Air Force one. Burkett has also used the expression 'cover your six,' a military variant of the vulgar abbreviation 'CYA,' which appears in one of the CBS documents."

The article contends that this points to Burkett as the source. After four years at the Air Force Academy and eight years as an Air Force officer, I can tell you that "run interference," "cover your six," "CYA," and even "billet" are terms any Air Force officer might use. While "slot" is probably used more often than "billet" in the Air Force, "billet" is certainly part of the vocabulary; moreover, the Guard tends to be more joint than the active-duty force, and therefore it's perfectly reasonable that a genuine Air National Guard memo would include the term. All this analysis really suggests is that the memo was, in fact, written by an Airman, which could equally support its authenticity. Let's try to do a little better next time, Washington Post!

Happy Birthday to America's Air Force!

Today is the 57th birthday of the United States Air Force. Somewhere at this very moment, an American Airman is in harm's way, ready to sacrifice his or her life for friend and stranger alike to defend the great vision of freedom and human promise embodied in the American ideal. Take a moment to honor those Airmen: Turn up your speakers and click here. Then ask yourself what you plan to do to bring the reality of America closer to America's promise, and ask yourself what kind of national leaders you would trust with your child's life if he or she chose the path of military service.

More pressure for peacekeepers and sanctions on Sudan

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have written a letter to the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on Sudan and to support an African Union peacekeeping force.

Soldiers threatened to force reenlistment as Iraq spirals into Vietnam

When I was cadet, one of my mentors -- who actually administered my commissioning oath when I graduated -- was an Air Force lieutenant colonel who had served several tours of combat in Vietnam as an enlisted Navy Seal. He told me on more than one occasion that he came back into the service after Vietnam in part so he could make sure our national leaders would never again do to do our men and women in uniform what they did then. I couldn't help think of him when I read the following stories:

Soldiers threatened with being sent to Iraq if they don't reenlist: From the Rocky Mountain News:

"They said if you refuse to re-enlist with the 3rd Brigade, we'll send you down to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is going to Iraq for a year, and you can stay with them, or we'll send you to Korea, or to Fort Riley (in Kansas) where they're going to Iraq," said one of the soldiers, a sergeant.

Things in Iraq are getting worse: This from Republican senator and Vietnam veteran Chuck Hagel (Neb.) (WashPost):

"We've got to be honest with ourselves," Hagel said. "The worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion we're winning. Right now, we are not winning. Things are getting worse."

Most senior US military officers now believe the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale: From the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper, via Daily Kos:

General Odom said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape with our allies."

Terrill believes that any sustained US military offensive against the no-go areas "could become so controversial that members of the Iraqi government would feel compelled to resign". Thus, an attempted military solution would destroy the slightest remaining political legitimacy. "If we leave and there's no civil war, that's a victory."

General Hoare believes from the information he has received that "a decision has been made" to attack Fallujah "after the first Tuesday in November. That's the cynical part of it - after the election. The signs are all there."

Announcing the beta version of the RIPPLE OF HOPE Action Ticker

I'm excited to announce the beta version of the RIPPLE OF HOPE Action Ticker, a dynamic ticker containing direct links to connect you instantly with ways to improve the world. I started my blog, RIPPLE OF HOPE, as an online home for my writing and activism. While the initial focus has been the ongoing genocide in Sudan, there are many other issues and causes that cry out for action. Inspired by the words of Robert F. Kennedy from which my site draws its name, I decided not only to attempt to send forth tiny ripples of hope through my own work, but to use technology to empower others to send forth their own. Each person who uses this tool to take action sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and each person who puts the Action Ticker on his or her own site turns that site into a center of energy and daring, adding increasingly more ripples to the current of change.

Each link in the Action Ticker will connect you with the most direct place online to take action in support of that particular cause. You might be asked to sign a petition, send a letter, make a donation, or engage in myriad other activities, depending on the target organization. For now, the content consists of my own referals as well as suggestions from a small group of friends. However, I'm in the process of recruiting an Action Ticker Advisory Group of people who will be able to directly add and remove links in real time.

This is the beta version of the Action Ticker, so I encourage you to test it and post comments here. I'm interested in any and all feedback, but I'm particularly concerned with cross-platform and cross-browser formating issues, so here's a picture of what it's supposed to look like: actionticker.jpg

Thank you in advance for your support, and please consider sending this to a friend!

If It Feels Good, Do It: Republicans side with al Qaeda on assault weapons

(This post is actually an op-ed I wrote Sunday evening that I pitched to three editors over the past three days. The third editor wanted to run with it, but by the time we worked out a couple of minor changes, it was just past the publication's deadline for the day, and the editor decided -- probably correctly -- that the story's shelf life will have expired by tomorrow. Ah, the trials and tribulations of a struggling writer! Anyway, here it is for your reading pleasure.)

If It Feels Good, Do It: Republicans side with al Qaeda on assault weapons
by David L. Englin

I’m not ashamed to admit it: Whenever I had occasion during my military service to open up on the shooting range with an assault rifle, I enjoyed it immensely. There's a certain visceral pleasure, a sense of raw, aggressive power, one gets when shooting a high-capacity military weapon designed to pump lead into a target as quickly as you can keep pulling the trigger. There’s no question about it: Shooting an assault rifle feels good. Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress chose to put an "if it feels good, do it" attitude toward these kinds of weapons ahead of the national security of the United States.

By allowing the assault weapons ban to expire Monday, Republicans put themselves on the side of the author of an al Qaeda training manual that contains the following:

"In countries like the United States it's perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain types of firearms. If you live in such a country obtain an assault rifle legally, preferably an AK-47 or variations."

Thanks to the assault weapons ban, the sale of high-capacity semi-automatic AK-47s, AR-15s, and other military weapons -- “or variations” -- has been illegal since 1994. The decade between then and now happens also to coincide with the planning and execution of several al Qaeda attacks on American targets.

Refusing to allow the bill reauthorizing the ban even to come up for a vote, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said, "I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire." Frist is either being dishonest or ignorant on this issue -- and he’s not known for his ignorance. Poll after poll shows the majority of Americans -- two-thirds, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey -- support the assault weapons ban. And why wouldn't they? It helps keep weapons of war out of the hands of the terrorists with whom we are at war, and most Americans, if not most right-wing ideologues, think that's a reasonable measure.

According to the Annenberg survey, even one-third of National Rifle Association members support the assault weapons ban. They apparently are not persuaded by the NRA’s self-proclaimed number one reason to allow what they predictably call the “Clinton gun ban” to expire: “The ban interferes with the right of self defense.” Short of the fictional “Red Dawn” scenario, where a band of teenagers waged a guerrilla war against Soviet forces occupying the American heartland, it’s hard to imagine how a pistol, a shotgun, or a hunting rifle -- all of which are still legal -- wouldn’t provide enough protection to the average law-abiding citizen. But shooting an AK-47 sure does feel good.

Moreover, the recent terrorist siege at the school in Beslan, Russia, highlights the danger overly-armed civilians can pose in a crisis. In that case, armed civilian bystanders apparently fired the shots that turned negotiations and military rescue efforts into a bloody tragedy that left more than 330 dead and 700 wounded. They also mistakenly shot and killed several Russian special forces soldiers who were part of the rescue effort. When the men of Beslan took up arms against the terrorists holding their wives and children, it probably felt good to do something -- anything -- to protect their families, but it turned out not to help the situation.

Beyond self-defense, the NRA claims that assault weapons “have never been criminals’ ‘weapon of choice.’” Al Qaeda apparently didn’t get the memo on this one (or perhaps the NRA distinguishes between “terrorists” and “criminals.”) However you count, or discount, the litany of data showing assault weapons used in deadly crimes during the years before the ban, there can be no doubt whatsoever that al Qaeda considers “an AK-47 or variations” to be a weapon of choice. Aside from the infamous training manual, use of AK-47s and other assault rifles was part of the core curriculum for hundreds of terrorists trained at the al Qaeda camps that were successfully destroyed during the war in Afghanistan.

In 2002, Republican Saxby Chambliss defeated Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.), a combat veteran who left both legs and an arm in Vietnam, with ads comparing him to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden for refusing to support a version of the Homeland Security bill that would have stripped union rights from tens of thousands of federal employees. While politically effective, the link between Cleland’s support for an alternate bill and any terrorist agenda was pure fantasy.

In 2004, Republicans who oppose the assault weapons ban are supporting a policy that is demonstrably in line with al Qaeda’s exhortation to its followers to “obtain an assault rifle legally.” Will Democrats running against Republicans who oppose the ban use ads comparing their opponents to al Qaeda? I bet it would feel good -- like payback for Cleland, and for the stream of attacks on Sen. John Kerry that distort his positions to the point of dishonesty.

It’s usually Republicans accusing Democrats of putting “if it feels good, do it” ahead of what’s good for America. Shooting assault rifles feels good; on that Democrats and Republicans who enjoy shooting will no doubt agree. The difference is that Republicans in Congress seem to care more about letting gun enthusiasts feel good shooting powerful military weapons than about the safety of the American people.

So much for winning the Cold War

So much for winning the Cold War. You might have missed it, given the American media's anemic coverage, but Russian President Vladimir Putin over the past few days has announced a response to the recent terrorist attacks in Russia that would shred Russia's fledging democratic system to pieces. While he has tried to cast it in a similar light, Putin isn't proposing a Russian Patriot Act or Department of Homeland Security (he already has sweeping powers in those areas.) He wants to abolish the election of regional governors in favor of governors he would appoint, and he wants to abolish the election of individual members of parliament in favor of party elections. Imagine if your state's governor was appointed by the president irrespective of public opinion. Imagine if you had no idea whom would represent you in Congress, beyond pulling the handle for a particular party. That's the direction Putin wants to take Russia.

As a student of Russian history (my undergraduate major), I find this to be an all too familiar tale that reflects the classic mistake Russian leaders have made over the centuries in response to the challenge of ruling such a vast territory. Time and again, Russian leaders -- even well before the Soviet Union -- have chosen centralized authoritarianism over decentralized federalism. Time and again, this approach has created the enforced illusion of national cohesion while fomenting regional and local discontent, ultimately creating a less stable and more oppressive nation.

The Bush administration's spineless and near-silent response to the impending re-oppression of 2.25% of the world's population belies its soaring claim to Thomas Jefferson's Empire of Liberty. It also belies the Republican Party's laughable attempts to cast Bush as a 21st-century Gipper.

Darfur resolution watered down...again

Yesterday, the United States circulated a newly-watered down version of the draft Security Council resolution on Darfur it offered last week. (WashPost) You'll recall that last week's version threatened oil sanctions if the government of Sudan fails to end the genocide. In response to resistance from China, Russia, and Pakistan, the latest version merely threatens that the Security Council "shall consider" punitive measures. John C. Danforth, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, hopes the resolution will come to a vote by the end of the week.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization says that death rates in Darfur are rising thanks to disease and the Janjaweed attacks.

"The international system is broken"

Morton Abramowitz and Samantha Power argue in this op-ed today that "the international system is broken, at least when it comes to Africa." I would reframe their argument slightly and say that the international system is broken when it comes to ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Obama says U.N. is failing in its mission

Illinois state senator and Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Barak Obama expressed his view that, "The UN is failing in its mission. . . . American leadership is needed to mobilize European support and force action."

This from today's Washington Post editorial page:

In an act without precedent since the U.N. Genocide Convention was adopted in 1948, a government accused a sitting counterpart of genocide -- a genocide, moreover, that even now is continuing. And yet the accused government may not pay a price for committing this worst of all humanitarian crimes, because there is a limit to how much powerful nations care.

I'm in the final phase of assembling a panel of guest contributors for a discussion on ways to modernize the U.N. so it can deal with future Rwandas, Sudans, and the like. Watch this space for more details soon.

Reign of Terror

This op-ed by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is a must read. Here's the lead:

On my last visit to the Darfur area in Sudan, in June, I found a man groaning under a tree. He had been shot in the neck and jaw and left for dead in a pile of corpses. Seeking shelter under the very next tree were a pair of widows whose husbands had both been shot to death. Under the next tree I found a 4-year-old orphan girl caring for her starving 1-year-old brother. And under the tree next to that was a woman whose husband had been killed, along with her 7- and 4-year-old sons, before she was gang-raped and mutilated.

Powell: "Genocide has been committed in Darfur"

Here's the complete story from CNN. Now that it's the official position of the full United States Government that genocide is being committed in Darfur, we are forced to face the question: What are we going to do about it. The $278 million the United States has given so far this year represents two-fifths of the world's response to the crisis, but it's clear that money will not be enough. We need to do everything we can to get the 3,000 troops offered by the African Union into Darfur to rescue the region's black African population from genocide. We also need to bring our full diplomatic wieght to bear quickly to create smart, tough, internationally-enforced sanctions to economically isolate the Khartoum government, allowing for loosening of sanctions in conjunction with substantive progress. Now is when we decide who we are: Are we Danes and Schindlers? Or are we people who look the other way until they come for us and our children?

Powell calls it "genocide"

CNN is reporting that Secretary of State Colin Powell just testified to the Senate Foriegn Relations Committee that he considers the situation in Darfur to be genocide. It's not on CNN's website yet, but they just reported on TV that Powell's testimony is the strongest language to date coming from the Bush administration.

U.S. circulates "milquetoast" draft resolution

The draft Security Council resolution announced yesterday by the United States threatens to consider sanctions on Sudan's oil industry and calls for: a commission to investigate and prosecute human rights violations; Khartoum to accept 3,000 peacekeepers and about 1,000 police officers from the African Union; UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to brief the Security Council on Sudan's compliance within 30 days. (WashPost) These would be welcome moves, but China isn't likely to let the resolution pass as drafted. Moreover, as this editorial in today's Washington Post notes, "Sudan's government has little incentive to pay attention to it. In its current version, the resolution includes no deadline for Sudanese compliance. Its vague threat of sanctions is undermined by the fact that the United Nations issued the same threat in July but seems to have forgotten it." The Post editorial goes so far as to say that this resolution, "Creates the appearance of action without the sunstance," which, you might recall, is what the Khartoum government has been doing for the last several weeks.

"We have orders to kill all blacks."

According to the Washington Post, the State Department will issue a report Thursday finding that the Sudanese government has promoted systematic killings based on race and ethnic origin. The report apparently outlines evidence of the partnership between the Khartoum government and the Janjaweed militia. While the report apparently punts on using the word "genocide," it notes assailants shouting racial and ethnic epithets such as "Kill the slaves" and "We have orders to kill all blacks."

How to help Beslan victims

By now you've heard that more than 330 Russian children, parents, teachers, and adminstrators were killed and more than 700 were injured after Chechen terrorists held more than 1,200 people hostage in a school gym in Beslan, Russia last week. Today is my son, Caleb's, second day of kindergarten, and as I dropped him off this morning in the school gym, where the students assemble before being led to class, it occured to me how two peoples a world apart share such similar annual back-to-school rituals and that the Russian parents whose sons and daughters were rounded up, terrorized, and killed had the same hopes and dreams for their children as the American parents sending their sons and daughters back to school this week. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies is accepting donations for the victims of the Beslan hostage crisis at its web page (click here), and I hope you'll consider giving.

(Photo: Caleb leaving the house on his first day of kindergarten.)

Who Cares About the Truth?

Check out this excellent article by a friend of a friend:

Who Cares About the Truth?
by Michael P. Lynch
The Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 10, 2004

In early 2003 President Bush claimed that Iraq was attempting to purchase the materials necessary to build nuclear weapons. Although White House officials subsequently admitted they lacked adequate evidence to believe that was true, various members of the administration dismissed the issue, noting that the important thing was that the subsequent invasion of Iraq achieved stability of the region and the liberation of the country.

Many Americans apparently agreed. After all, there were other reasons to depose the Hussein regime. And the belief that Iraq was an imminent nuclear threat had rallied us together and provided an easy justification to doubters of the nobility of our cause. So what if it wasn't really true? To many, it seemed naïve to worry about something as abstract as the truth or falsity of our claims when we could concern ourselves with the things that really mattered -- such as protecting ourselves from terrorism and ensuring our access to oil. To paraphrase Nietzsche, the truth may be good, but why not sometimes take untruth if it gets you where you want to go?

These are important questions. At the end of the day, is it always better to believe and speak the truth? Does the truth itself really matter?

click here for the complete article at chronicle.com...

Michael P. Lynch is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut. This essay is adapted from his book True to Life: Why Truth Matters, to be published next month by the MIT Press.

Witness to Genocide

Fredd Hiatt, Washington Post editorial page editor, laments the lack of public discussion about Darfur, in this op-ed today. Here's an excerpt:

"Imagine that genocide were taking place -- thousands of children dying, women raped, men mowed down in groups -- just as the American political parties held their quadrennial conventions. Surely it would be a major subject of conversation and alarm as the nation's political elite debated their agendas for the coming four years."

E.U. supports sanctions, and other news...

Europe supports U.N. sanctions on Sudan: "European Union foreign ministers have reaffirmed that they will push for UN sanctions against Sudan, including a possible oil boycott, if the country does not move to end the fighting in its western Darfur region."

The government of Sudan claims that it agrees in principle to "increasing the (A.U.) observers and forces to protect those observers," on the condition that the Khartoum government has the final say on which countries could provide more forces. This appears to be part of Sudan's larger strategy of giving just enough to give its sympathizers in the U.N. an excuse to shield Sudan from meaningful consequences. Note that this statement specifically refers to forces to protect ceasefire observers, and not forces to protect abused civilians.

U.N. spokeswoman Radhia Achouri says, "We keep receiving reports of insecurity in Darfur that is leading to the further displacement" of Darfurians from their homes.

U.S. to offer new U.N. resolution on Darfur

With the Darfur deadline come and gone, the U.N. report by Jan Pronk downplayed the links between the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed and claimed limited progress, despite clear evidence that the situation has barely changed. However, the State Department, to its credit, has come out somewhat forcefully against Pronk's report. AP reports that John Danforth, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said Pronk was "flat-out wrong" in his claim of no evidence of recent collaboration between the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militias. According to Reuters, "The United States said on Friday it is preparing a new U.N. resolution on Darfur and that Secretary of State Colin Powell might address next week whether the violence in western Sudan constitutes genocide." For the sake of the people of Darfur, the new resolution ought to call for 3,000 African Union peacekeepers, per the International Crisis Group's plan. However, it's highly unlikely that we would offer such a resolution, since it would be doomed to failure. China and Russia, which both wield Security Council vetos, as well as Pakistan opposed keeping the direct threat of sanctions in the July-30 resolution, so they are unlikely to support authorizing military intervention.

Meanwhile, with Rwanda, Nigeria, Tanzania and Botswana pledging to provide troops to an A.U. force and South Africa agreeing to provide logistics support, U.S. European Command has pledged to provide military airlift support to an A.U. force. Salih Booker, executive director of Africa Action, warns that,
"The A.U. does not have the resources to lead a strong and urgent intervention in Darfur although it can form an important part of such an international response." Booker argues that the A.U. will require significant financial support from the international community, which has not been forthcoming.

I've gone on record lamenting the U.N.'s systemic inability to live up to its core purpose in situations like the one we face in Sudan. I'm in the process of putting together a group of guest contributors for a focused discussion of potential changes to the U.N. charter that would correct these systemic failures. Watch this space for more.

Measuring poverty in the information age

With the latest US Census report that that the poverty rate has risen for the third straight year, I thought I'd draw your attention to an article I co-authored critiquing the way we measure poverty and offering an innovative, information-age alternative:

"Counting The Poor So It Counts: How To Measure Poverty In The Information Age," Moving Ideas Network, June 6, 2002 (with Traci L. Parmenter)

The article is a couple of years old, but it still applies. (In fact, given the rate of progress in information technology, it applies even more so today.)

China, Pakistan likely roadblocks to AU peacekeepers

Today's Washington Post editorial page comes out in support of sending 3,000 African Union peacekeepers to protect the people of Darfur, but notes that the UN Security Council is unlikely to be so bold:

"Why might the Security Council shrink from this course? The argument that Sudan's government is already making a good-faith effort to control the militia is unconvincing. According to Human Rights Watch, the government allows the Janjaweed to maintain 16 bases in Darfur, including five that are shared with the government's own forces, presumably because it still regards the Janjaweed as a useful ally in its struggle against two Darfuri rebel groups (whose human rights record is not good, either). But even if one were to agree that Sudan's government is trying to do the right thing, why object to the deployment of African peacekeepers to assist it? The answer is that there is no reasonable objection, but Sudan's sympathizers at the United Nations, led by China and Pakistan, seem determined to hold up Security Council action that might make the deployment happen."

Again, this draws attention to the fact that the UN is systemically incapable of performing its stated mission.