A Running Diary of Thought

This site made possible by:

 
think everyone in Iraq is beginning to hate the U.S.? Reading some of the papers, and watching some Newshour, one gets that impression. But read these two posts from Instapundit.

posted at 9:30 PM |

 
NYT Mag notes: "In most mammals, the gene for lactose tolerance switches off once an animal matures beyond the weaning years. Humans shared that fate as well -- until a mutation in the DNA of an isolated population of Northern Europeans around 10,000 years ago introduced an adaptive tolerance for nutrient-rich milk." So, the lactose-intolerant are simply the mature, non-mutant ones?

Update: AfP notes lactose intolerance in Africans (it's apparently common, so dairy plays a small role in the traditional diet). Good news for those who are lactose-intolerant and interested in heading to Africa for some time--the skeptic, for example.

posted at 12:11 PM |

 

Chalabi Watch, Day 32

Doing a Chalabi watch has been quite difficult, considering the widespread antipathy he seems to have generated. (Follow the watch: 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, and 4/17.) So, before moving on to the latest update, let's pause for a defense of Chalabi, by none other than Christopher Hitchens. First up, Hitchens questions that Chalabi hasn't been in the country since 1958.

This contradicts my own memory and that of several other better-qualified witnesses. They recall him in northern Iraq many times and for long periods in the 1990s, helping to organize opposition conferences and to broker an agreement between the opposing Kurdish factions. He frequently risked his life in this enterprise; indeed it was for criticizing the CIA's own ham-fisted efforts in Kurdistan at the time that he incurred the lasting hatred of the agency.

Perhaps Chalabi has been in Iraq a few times since 1958 (I don't imagine anyone contests that), but has he truly lived there? Outside of Kurdistan? Can he legitimately claim to represent Iraqis if he has only visited the country a number of times, in a small area, with much secrecy, over the past 45 years? Of course, Chalabi denies that he has or will make such a claim, but his adamant supporters seem to believe that he does....

Yasser Arafat hasn't been in Jerusalem for some considerable time, after all, and before his disastrous return to Gaza, he hadn't been on Palestinian soil for decades. The Dalai Lama hasn't been in Tibet since the 1950s. Perhaps these leaders should be criticized more for being out of touch.

Umm... Weren't Arafat and the Dalai Lama widely respected by their people? Seen as national icons? Thus quashing the relevance of this analogy.... At any rate, let us move on. The NYT catches up on the latest Chalabisms:

Since his return to Iraq last month, the behavior of his entourage has outraged many Iraqis, and even some Americans.

"What we have done is import mafias into Baghdad," said one American official, who insisted on anonymity.

The official was referring to the takeover of many of Baghdad's best houses by groups of men claiming to have formed new political parties. Kurdish parties have taken over a Baath Party headquarters and the engineering building of Mr. Hussein's office. Some have set up roadblocks and established militias, sometimes saying they are operating with the authority of the American military.

An early expropriator was Mr. Chalabi, whose supporters seized the elite Hunting Club, apparently with the permission of American soldiers. Various groups associated with him took over other expensive houses in the same area.

Last weekend, General Garner appeared to give tacit approval by dining with Mr. Chalabi at the club. All that, critics here say, has only encouraged other groups to go house-taking.

"What right does Chalabi have to take over these clubs?" asked Saif Hikmet al-Dujaili, a 25-year-old pharmacist who was thrown out of the Hunting Club.

General Garner emphasized last week that Mr. Chalabi was "not my candidate, not the candidate of the coalition."

Well regardless of whose candidate he was, he certainly does seem to be getting favorable treatment....

posted at 12:06 PM |

 

America-AIDS, Part 4

daudi links to a S.F. Chronicle article that suggests the unexpansion of the Mexico policy is being circumvented in another way. (For previous skeptic posts, see 4/30, 4/3, and 3/2.) From the Chronicle:

If this legislation passes through Congress unchanged, poor and rural communities that have only one clinic would have to build a new one in order to separate their AIDS work from their family-planning work -- an unlikely development, given the depressed economies in the targeted African and Caribbean countries. Or they would have to shut down their family-planning clinic altogether in order to qualify for the AIDS money. (skeptic's emphasis throughout)

The Center for Reproductive Rights offers similar analysis:

The trend in providing integrated services did not take hold by accident, but through the agreement of the international community and health experts that this is most effective way to provide reproductive and sexual health services to women.

Not that Bush ever cared for the international community.... Also, Kim Krisberg writes in Nation's Health (April 2003):

According to the Global AIDS Alliance, many African clinics combine HIV/AIDS, family planning and reproductive health services because doing so is cost-effective and is the best way to cater to women's needs. According to Hall-Martinez, an HIV-positive status or simply taking an HIV test carries a significant stigma in many countries, so separating HIV services from the rest of a clinic could undermine confidentiality.

So privacy and cost efficiency are being tossed out the door in the name of an ideological cause? Well, that's not really much of a surprise.

After all, Bush's initial proposal was to reallocate money from child health to pay for it. Perhaps it was budgetary tomfoolery, but is that any excuse? From a 2/17/2003 NYT editorial:

Mr. Bush has also found part of the money for his AIDS programs by cutting nearly $500 million from child health, including vaccine programs. Child survival is the biggest loser in the foreign aid budget -- a scandalous way to finance AIDS initiatives. With the budget dominated by defense spending and huge tax cuts for the wealthy, the White House should not be forcing the babies of Africa to pay for their parents' AIDS drugs.

Bonus: In doing some research, the skeptic stumbled across an interesting note that partially answered his question about whether the Global Fund could be more effectively managed. A 2/1/2003 NYT editorial notes:

Congress should also direct the bulk of Washington's contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the organization that the international community has established. Yesterday Health Secretary Tommy Thompson was elected chairman of the Global Fund's board. Mr. Bush wants to channel only $1 billion of the $10 billion through the organization. That would be a serious blow to the fund, which has more good proposals from countries than it can finance, and would eliminate the chance to raise matching funds from other nations.

The Bush administration's preference for unilateral solutions is likely to lead to a far less efficient use of the money. American conduits, such as the Agency for International Development, are not in a position to administer the funds, and it is counterproductive to build a parallel bureaucracy when an existing organization of proven efficiency and an identical mission desperately needs financing.

If the bureaucracy is as terrible as Thomas Coburn, a Republican member of the Presidential Advisory Council on H.I.V./AIDS, sees it, certainly Thompson can and should work to shore up that org's lack of accountability.

posted at 10:48 AM |

 

A Dem in 2004?

Maybe Dems do stand a chance for 2004: Ruy Teixeira, whose book The Emerging Democratic Majority had the misfortune of arriving two months before Republicans swept both houses of Congress, writes an article in the Washington Monthly that seems to be chock-full of interesting analysis. Why? Here's five interesting points....

1. the 9/11 Myth: The 2002 election was much closer than the overall picture made it look. "As nonpartisan analyst Charlie Cook has pointed out, 'A swing of 94,000 votes out of 75,723,756 cast nationally would have resulted in the Democrats capturing control of the House and retaining a majority in the Senate on Nov. 5.'"

2. White voters: "As Matthew Dowd, polling director at the Republican National Committee, has pointed out, if minorities and whites vote in 2004 as they did in the 2000 election, Democrats will win by 3 million votes" since "Republicans' core constituencies among white voters--those in rural areas, married men, married homemakers, and so forth--are also shrinking relative to other voter groups."

3. the role of "exurbs" ("those fast-growing edge counties on the fringes of large metropolitan areas that tend to vote Republican") is overstated: "exurban counties are generally too small to outweigh pro-Democratic developments elsewhere in large metropolitan areas, and also because as exurban counties become bigger, denser, and more diverse, they generally become less--not more--Republican."

4. the mobilization effort: "the GOP was clearly the turnout party in 2002. But it's unlikely to be able to repeat this. To begin with, Democrats won't be caught napping again." How? Various turnout initiatives, the end of the 9/11 effect (will there be an Iraq effect?), actual proposals for domestic and foreign policy, and anger from democrats about Bush's partisianship.

5. bad policy: there's a notable lack of enthusiasm over Bush's tax cut proposal--polls suggest that More people now think the amount of federal income tax they pay is "about right" (50 percent) than think it is "too high" (47 percent). (Even Greenspan is siding against the administration's proposal.)

posted at 3:18 PM |

 
Has the Hitch become a full-fledged right-winger? He's being published in the Weekly Standard. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

posted at 2:40 PM |

 
Finally, conclusive proof that racism no longer exists in America:

Juniors are in charge of planning the prom each year and last year they decided to have just one dance — the first integrated prom in 31 years in the rural Georgia county 150 miles south of Atlanta.

Until then, parents and students organized separate proms for whites and blacks after school officials stopped sponsoring dances, in part because they wanted to avoid problems arising from interracial dating.

This year, a small number of white juniors decided they wanted a separate prom.

Who's going to be the one to tell those Southerners that it won't be long before whites start seeing a bit more pigmentation in their skin....

posted at 7:35 PM |

 

Latest update to the U.S.'s AIDS contribution

Bush gave a speech Tuesday to urge Congress to pass his emergency AIDS bill before Memorial Day (transcript). Which makes it sound like it's going to happen.

The NYT, via the IHT, has the story:

Bush "threw his support behind a proposed bill — a version of which has cleared a House committee — to provide $15 billion over five years for worldwide AIDS prevention and treatment. A portion of the money would be used, as well, to combat tuberculosis and malaria."

The end result seems to be a recognition that "abstinence alone was not the answer." (NYT's words)

Some conservative critics of the bill lament the fact that United States money will go to international groups that consider abortion a valid family-planning approach. That, they say, would violate a rule put in place by President Ronald Reagan to bar such use of American money.

That ban, known as the Mexico City rule for the place Mr. Reagan announced it, was suspended under President Bill Clinton but reimposed by Mr. Bush shortly after he took office.

The administration now says it has found a compromise: organizations that perform or promote abortions can receive AIDS money, but they must not use it for abortion-related activities, and must provide strict accounting to confirm as much.

Though conservatives had insisted in the past that this sort of funding could free up other funds for those groups to use to promote abortions, Mr. Fleischer insisted today that "we are not expanding the Mexico City policy."

Under the Hyde bill, $14 billion would go directly to other countries and $1 billion — five times what the Bush administration sought — to the Global Fund to Combat AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, a public-private group based in Switzerland.

Thomas Coburn, a Republican member of the Presidential Advisory Council on H.I.V./AIDS, told the congressional newsletter The Hill that the Global AIDS Fund is a "bureaucratic nightmare" with "no clear-cut accountability."

Some conservatives see Mr. Bush's support of the bill as an attempt to curry favor with the moderate swing voters who could hold crucial sway in the 2004 presidential elections. (skeptic's emphasis)

It's nice to see Bush in the right side on this matter. But, if the Global Fund is such a bureaucratic nightmare, can anything be done to improve it?

The NYT/IHT cynically notes: "Some conservatives see Mr. Bush's support of the bill as an attempt to curry favor with the moderate swing voters who could hold crucial sway in the 2004 presidential elections."

Unresearched suggestion: "one of the things we may want to do is to convert some of our Peace Corps to helping people in Africa who have got AIDS." The way Bush says and delivers this line, it seems like he thinks this is a novel idea. But it's already being done. Though expanding it probably isn't a bad idea.

posted at 10:44 PM |

 
A much-needed pespective on the SARS hysteria

"Your chances of visiting Hong Kong without getting infected are close to 100 percent—even if you don't take special precautions."

Yet, the author suggests that the hysteria has all been quite worth it: "On the one hand, the level of attention given to SARS seems wildly disproportionate to the scale of the problem itself; on the other hand, had it not been for this exaggerated sense of fear, we might have a truly frightening situation on our hands.... It appears that fear can be a useful tool for the public good."

Quick observation: isn't this the same logic environmentalists use for hyping dangerous scenarios as being nearly inevitable? Does that make it right? What is the ethical thing for observers and activists to do in finding the balance between hysteria, and reasoned caution?

posted at 10:38 PM |

 

Mugabe May Not Resign

It was all just an attempt to spark national debate about his successor, not to draw into question whether he would retire. The IRIN reprints portions of the Zimbabwe government's recent statement:

"For all the self-serving, biased coverage, the people of Zimbabwe have not expressed a wish to withdraw the mandate they gave to the present government. Nor have they indicated a wish to transit to another dispensation, whether constitutional or political, shaped and defined by processes which exclude them, and are largely called by foreign interests.

"On the same score, President Mugabe has not indicated a wish to leave office now, or at any other time before the expiry of his term (in 2008). All the president did in the recent interview marking the twenty-third anniversary of independence, was to invite national debate on a range of national questions, including that of succession," the statement continued.

Of course, even if Mugabe was planning on leaving, the government would well have an interest in dampening expectations to quell whatever chaos may ensue.

Though, as daudi blogs, "When similar stories were floated a few months ago, Mugabe basically said, 'Over my dead body'. 'It would be absolutely counter-revolutionary and foolhardy for me to step down,' he announced (illustrating what I meant about African leaders thinking they're revolutionaries)." (daudi's emphasis)

Either way, it's hard to be optimistic about Zimbabwe's future.

posted at 5:47 PM |

 
Notable: Another good N. Korea article in Foreign Policy, brings calm, reasoned analysis where it is especially needed. Any good critiques of it?

Also Notable: The Marmot's Hole has some long analysis on North Korea, and makes for a good read. Let's see him take on the FP article point-by-point (hint, hint).

posted at 3:52 PM |

 

No Way to Win Elections

An interesting note on the TNR blog, etc. about the Santorum controversy.

The real problem posed by the comments is for the Republican Party. After all, if you think of the national electorate as consisting of more or less equal parts social liberals, social conservatives, and people who have some socially conservative impulses but are basically tolerant and turned off by bigotry, then Santorum's comments have just cost the party that important middle third of the country's voters. Now normally, as was the case with Trent Lott's bigoted comments, you'd try to get some of that moderate third back by having the offending party apologize and, if that doesn't work, resign. The problem in this case is that, unlike overt racism, which has no constituency in either party (though covert racist appeals still have something of a home in the Republican Party), overt homophobia has a big, powerful constituency in the Republican Party. That means that trying to get that moderate third back by forcing Santorum to apologize will only do more harm than good, by alienating your conservative base.

It looks like the GOP leadership is defending Santorum, which will supposedly threaten the "middle third" of the country. (Is one-third a reasonable assessment?)

At any rate, two points: etc. sides with the Philadelphia Inquirer and Barney Frank in asserting that Santorum probably dove head-first into this issue to fire up his conservative base--which is to say that he's just trying to get elected by demonstrating his willingness to stand out.

Yet, Dems will obviously try to capitalize on this and the Lott mess to lure voters. But suggesting that the skeletons haven't quite left Republicans' closets is no future for Democrats. Dems should be trying to get people to vote for them, not to vote against Repubs. 'Cuz, the skeptic believes, Repubs will try to move away from their association with homophobia (though homophilia probably isn't in the offing). And once that happens, why vote Dem?

P.S. the skeptic generally doesn't care for the National Review. It too often spouts party-line rhetoric that fails to be interesting. But Stanley Kurtz has some interesting thoughts on a coming culture war over the legality of gay marriages.

Once Massachusetts legalizes gay marriage, it will be a domestic culture-war story like no other. Gay couples will flood into Massachusetts from around the country to get married. Returning to their homes, these gay couples will initiate a series of lawsuits attempting to force recognition of their marriages onto their respective states. The suits will rest on constitutional grounds of equal protection, full faith and credit — and any other grounds the plaintiffs can think of. ...

For months — perhaps years — every public official in the country will be forced to take a stand on gay marriage. Democrats and Republicans alike will have to pronounce on this ultimate hot-button issue, at the almost certain cost of alienating large numbers of their constituents. And public officials who have absolutely no interest in, or facility for, discussions about sexuality will be making gaffs right and left. If you thought Sen. Santorum's remarks were clumsy or confusing, just wait.

Sounds eerily reminiscent like all those culture wars that we supposedly waged in the 90s. But it will be interesting to see how much of this analysis holds true.

On an Unrelated Note: etc. notes a story that everyone should read about how the U.S. inexcusably failed to secure Baghdad's nuclear material facility 12 miles south of the capital.

posted at 3:01 PM |

 

Mugabe May Resign

Proposed Deal Unlikely to Bring Meaningful Change

As the Sunday Times (Johannesburg)and Daily News (Harare) have now reported, it seems that Robert Mugabe's increasingly brutal reign is coming to a close. the skeptic predicted a week ago that things were reaching unsustainable levels, though was hesitant to say how soon change would come.

It seems the leaders of South Africa, Nigeria and Malawi are coaxing Mugabe into leaving. The Times reports that in a broadcast with Zimbabwe's state TV, Mugabe "said there was nothing wrong with people openly debating succession." The Times sees a scramble for power among a military leader, a party leader, and an administration figure.

The Daily News follows up with news that Mugabe "has called for a constitutional amendment that will allow an interim President to be appointed by his Zanu PF party and pave the way for fresh elections for a new government."

The paper adds that Mugabe apparently wants to cede power to "his long-time personal aide, Emmerson Mnangagwa... ." An old Daily News story sees Mnangagwa as embodying all that is wrong with the Mugabe regime. (An earlier report in the Beeb noted that he "is named by the UN as a prime mover in illicit trading out of Congo.")

Onto the analysis. First up, a sobering assessment by AfricaPundit:

Mugabe's resignation would be a step in the right direction, but only if the rest of the ZANU terror apparatus is dismantled and democracy and the rule of law are restored. Replacing Mugabe with another ZANU thug would simply be a whitewash job and wouldn't do much to address the grievances of the MDC, or the majority of Zimbabweans for that matter. Any deal negotiated by Mbeki and Obasanjo will likely be favorable to the ZANU establishment -- probably including an attempt to legitimize last year's elections. (skeptic's emphasis unless otherwise noted)

the skeptic would have to agree with AfP. Getting rid of Mugabe will be a cosmetic change at best. It seems unlikely that the current regime in Zimbabwe is like a set of dominos; if Mugabe falls, it will not set off a chain reaction. Instead, there is an apparatus that will prevent a power vacuum.

Furthermore, the cost of such a deal (the way it's being portrayed now) is that Mugabe would skate free for the atrocities committed during his 23-year reign. Justice needs to be served. Until it is, Zimbabweans have little reason to place their faith in any ruling authority.

Why Democracy Won't Cut It

Recent articles about Iraq by Slate's David Plotz and Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria offer good reasons why the preceding development offers little hope.

First up, analysis based on a recent Zakaria essay:

1. New elections may replicate democracy, but that hardly accounts for progress. Progress would be a political system with free elections, "the rule of law, the separation of powers, and basic human rights, including private property, free speech and religious tolerance."

Even if elections were held, and the rival party would win, the skeptic doubts progress is likely in the near future. Would a transition from Zanu PF to the MDC actually be smooth? No. Would a drastic change in rule follow such a shaky transition? No. It will take an immense amount of international and regional involvement (read: pressure) for real action to take place.

But considering how long it has taken for real pressure to reach Mugabe (in 1998, the Beeb suggested that his power seemed to be slipping; five years later...), this isn't a very promising thought.

2. "Order, then liberty. In Iraq (the skeptic substitutes Zimbabwe here) today, first establish a stable security environment and create the institutions of limited government--a constitution with a bill of rights, an independent judiciary, a sound central bank. Then and only then, move to full-fledged democracy."

the skeptic doesn't know about Zimbabwe's constitution, but it is far from currently possessing an independent judiciary and a sound central bank. Not to mention that creating a new constitution would at least have significant PR purposes for signifying a real break from the past and establishing norms that would calm fears of a Mugabe Redux.

A smooth transition of power, as advocated by Mbeki, et al. would certainly prevent this from occurring.

3. "The next few years are crucial, because it is during this same period that a constitution must be written, power sharing must begin, courts must be established and important policy decisions about oil and rebuilding must be taken. The United States will have to get involved in these decisions to ensure that they are not hijacked by one group or another in Iraq."

Substitute oil for minerals, Zimbabwe for Iraq, and its still a pretty similar assessment. Yet it's easier to be optimistic about Iraq (which has to do these things) than Zimbabwe (which needs to voluntarily do these things). Besides, would anyone (international/regional orgs? South Africa?) step forward to substitute the U.S.?

Now for Plotz:

1. "a fledgling democracy should delay elections until new associations—business ties, social and professional networks, new political parties not based on tribal or religious affiliation—have time to develop and compete with identity politics."

While worries of tribal and religious affiliation may not apply to Zimbabwe, there will be a need to reform political parties--moving away from the de facto one-party system, to a true competitive democracy. This will be difficult, and unlikely under the appointment of a Mugabe henchman.

2. Let civil society check the government. "Independent electoral commissions set election rules, monitor fraud, and give new parties a chance to compete fairly. ... In Thailand and elsewhere, independent anti-corruption commissions publicize and punish graft, bribery, and other sleaziness by elected officials. In nations where leaders have traditionally raided the state without consequence, such commissions restore faith in government. They also teach elected officials that their job is public service, not profiteering."

This is quite unlikely considering that Mugabe's regime thrived on fraudulent elections and corruption. As long as the regime stays in tact, so does profiteering.

While the skeptic hopes to see Mugabe gone, the alternative doesn't at all seem satisfactory.

Would-You-Believe quote: "Using troops trained by North Koreans, he crushed his major political opponent, Joshua Nkomo, killing over 20,000 Zimbabweans and torturing thousands more in the process." (from a State Department report)

P.S. AfP links to this Daily News editorial that outlines 10 possible solutions (though the skeptic counts nine). If you're holding out for optimism, it's not here either....

posted at 9:12 PM |