Africa: Just Before the Dawn?

Today's WaPo Outlook section has a lengthy piece by Gebreselassie Tesfamichael, former Eritrean finance minister, that recaps Africa's developmental woes. The Man Bites Dog aspect is that he's not pleading for big bucks. He's pleading, instead, for support of Africa's reformers.

His emphasis is spot-on. With transparancy, accountability, and the rule of law, a nation can develop with surprising speed, with relatively little extra funding. Without these, money simply gets wasted. The term "kleptocracy" was created with Africa's rulers in mind.

Money graf:
"The fundamental problem in Africa is not lack of resources, but the failure of political leadership. The modern African state is a colonial creation, extractive in its design. Its mission was not to serve the people, but to dominate and exploit them. Despite independence, and despite improvements brought by numerous recent democratic elections, the nature of that state remains intact. The primary solution is to change it."

The Muslim World: Just Before the Dawn?

"Mona Eltahawy is a New York-based columnist for the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat". And she has a great op-ed in today's WaPo. From hatemongering clerics to liberal apologists, she takes the relevant jackfools to task.

First Money graf:

"I'm sure it was also those dog-eared statements that our clerics and religious leaders read out telling us that Islam means peace -- it actually means submission -- and asking us to please forget everything they had ever said before July 6, because as of July 7 they truly believe violence is bad. Their backpedaling is so furious you can smell the skid marks."

And another:

"I raise these questions because London might have done it for me, but I'm not done with Islam. The clerics and the terrorists will not take it away from me. God belongs to me, too."

Classic smackdown.

The muslim world needs a lot more of this kind of thing. The keys to the GWOT revolve around the muslim world, after all. They have to stop sheltering terrorists. And stop funneling money. And stop supporting the cause by excusing their actions, volunteering, and other such nonsense. The Global War On Terror is also a civil war.

And we're seeing the battle being joined. Is the Dawn approaching? Let's hope so...

Site Maintenance

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog. I've changed the template, and found that Blogger added a links section. Hence, my first attempt at a blogroll. Hi Betsy and Jheka!

I hope to blog a little less infrequently more frequently. But, we'll see...

Unions: Just Before The Dawn?

I got the idea for this post while perusing Betsy Newmark's fine blog. This post extends the comment I made on this post.

Betsy wondered if this wasn't being glossed over because it's a repudiation of John Sweeney's longstanding ties to the Left. She has a point. The MainStream Media's tendencies are well - documented, and not worth rehashing now. I wanted to focus on her other point: that unions are totally irrelevant.

The Yahoo article linked by the title notes that union participation has imploded, from 34% to 12% of the American labor force. And in the private sector, that figure is only 8%. Really hard to have an impact with numbers like that. Now, there's a danger in there, even for die-hard capitalists. Lack of watchdogs has cost America dearly in the past, and may do it again. Unions can serve as a useful brake on stupidity in the executive suite. Or not. But nothing good can happen unless they're in the game, and they won't be in it for the short-term, at least.

So, in my opinion, it's a good thing. Andy Stern may succeed or fail, but he's trying to get his union (SEIU) and the whole movement out of a very deep hole.

John Sweeney, by contrast, shows the results of the adage that "none are so blind as those who won't see". He's condemning his movement to total irrelevancy, and what happens the GOP starts nastily retaliating? (Not that I mind, but from the union guy's PoV, Sweeney is a Bad Man).

Me? I actually wouldn't mind a partially revitalized union system. One with, say, 12% private participation, with slowly growing numbers. Something to rattle Rug Row's cage, but not enough to wreck things...

Had some fun today...

Betsy Newmark has a very nice little blog going, click the title to go visiting. I mention this because I had fun with three or four Lefties today. Here's the link for the thread.

Hi Jheka!

I haven't blogged for a good couple of months, more on that [in a few days]. But Jheka over at LGF asked about my lack o'blogroll. No good reason, so it's on the to-do list. Next week, maybe? Meantime, If you like this site, you'll certainly like his, so please check him out. (Hint: click the title of this post). ;)

Hillary Ross Clinton

Hillary is seeking middle ground on abortion. In a speech in Albany, she restated her support for Roe v Wade, but pointedly noted that "faith and organized religion were the "primary" reasons teenagers abstained from sexual relations" (fedora tip: Mr. Matt). The Insightful Bartender thinks moving to the center is a good idea. She got a gasp from the crowd when she revealed that '7% of the women who don't use contraception account for 53 percent of all unintended pregnancies' (NY Times, reg req'd)

I believe that her game is even larger than a presidential run.

She's trying to supercede the Democratic Party. If she continues on anything like this pace, she will have driven the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" (aka: the socialists) insane by, oh, about late 2005. Which leaves her in a perfect position to start a new party, with her at the top, espousing a "Third Way between Socialism and Fundamentalism".

Granted, she has problems, such as the Healthcare debacle of '94. But by then, it'll be ancient history, and frankly, it'll give her Lefty cred to keep the base roped in. She's a proven money-raiser, and by the end of 2007, most of the money people will have concluded that This Wacko isn't the answer, and be hungry for someone, anyone, who can lead them out of the wilderness.

There's a market for it, she's gutsy enough to go for it, and it's just crazy enough to work.

Big Media's Abuse of The First Amendment

I saw this post at BuzzMachine, and it got me to put in words something that has been bothering me for years. I've long felt that the First Amendment was being used as a Trojan Horse by Big Media.

Consider it from GM's point of view: How would you like to duck behind an Iwo Jima-esque defensive wall, obliterating all but the most cursory restrictions on your product, but still get to treat what you sell as product in every other way? I can think of at least two examples where speech goes over the line, and becomes merely a 'sold product', no different from pencils. If 'speech' has been focus - grouped, it's PRODUCT, not speech. If tie-in products are sold, it's PRODUCT, not speech. Particularly if tie-ins are sold BEFORE the release of the (movie, or whatever).

Focus matters, too. If your focus is news and/or opinion, you are much less likeley to simply be selling pencils than if you'e also selling "Jackass". Think Dow Jones versus Disney, for example. Size matters, too. The bigger you are, the more apt the 'speech' is really going to be 'product' rather than speech. Accessibility matters, too. It's a lot easier to stomach content you have to directly pay for than content that's ad-supported. And the standard can be lower for one than the other.

...But what of the novelist, you ask? The playwright, moviemaker, or sitcom "company"? Damn good questions, all. Raising the issue is still important, because curbing obvious abuses by multinationals can mitigate potential backlash, ironically keeping all of our rights a little safer...

Oh, so THAT explains it...

There is a subscription-based infopinion© site called To The Point that I don't read. Fortunately for me, WorldNetDaily does, because "Point's" Dr. Jack Wheeler has a provocative article. His thesis is brutally simple: the reason the U.S. hasn't been attacked since 9/11 is that Bush has warned Osama that another attack will provoke a nuclear retaliation against Mecca. And that part of the Afghani/Iraq campaigns' subtext is to demonstrate to Osama that Bush is serious.

As they say, click the title link above, and read the whole thing.