Centrist Pundits

The powerful earthquake in Haiti was nothing but a tragedy.  Everyone knows this.  A fault runs directly beneath a large city that is built out of the most flimsy materials available, and it is an unmitigated disaster.  There is a very good list of links to how to help at the Washington Post here.

As I said, everyone seems to get the utterly catastrophic scale of the disaster.  And yet we act shocked that some people are taking advantage of the disaster to make their own twisted points.  People who’ve done so repeatedly in the past.  For example, Pat Robertson, who has in the past talked about drowning New Orleans for its sin, has said that Haiti is cursed to disasters because of a deal with the devil for its freedom.

Something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. Napoleon the Third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, “We will serve you if you get us free from the prince.” True story. And so the devil said, “OK, it’s a deal.” They kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free.  But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other…

Leaving aside the asinine nature of making the claim, the weak theology backing it up, the fact that Haiti is overwhelmingly Christian – 96% are Roman Catholics or Protestants, and the fact that a man of God should be spreading comfort, not trouble, in such times, we all need to remember one thing: he wants this attention.  He needs it.  He craves it.

People are calling Robertson a crazy old man.  Sometimes, alternatively, its that he’s an uncaring old man.  Neither are remotely true – in my opinion, its that he’s a self-serving attention whore who’s spent his life trying to be the center of attention, and uses statements like his ones about Haiti, his ones about Katrina, to keep the focus on him.  He’s not crazy – crazy people can’t plan statement to draw maximum attention this way.  And he’s not uncaring.  He cares… about how he can use these events for himself.

Rush Limbaugh, same thing.  Rush is smart.  Really, he is.  He knows that most of what he says is extreme to a point of absurdity, and he says it anyway because its gets people paying attention to him and his show, his ratings, and increases his bottom line.

Take a lesson from your childhood, folks.  While it may never really work because of their built in audiences, try ignoring them and see if it goes away – at least in how it impacts your life.  Or take your advice from the internet, if you’d rather, and don’t feed the trolls.

JC Foreign Relations, Personalities, Religion

I am going to try to write here regularly again.  Probably weekly, probably posted on Sundays.  Just an FYI for our readers.

Now, as to the issue of the day: A year or so ago, Vice President Biden predicted Obama would be tested on foreign policy in his first year in office.  A few months ago, there was the Somali Pirate incident which Obama ordered our special forces to handle, and they did so, beautifully.  That wasn’t the test Biden referred to.

I think today’s news is it.  Iraq is reporting Iran has seized an Iraqi oil rig.  Either Iran has done so, or Iraq is making false accusations, or this is all a set up.  In any case, the whole area is a powder keg and this is a dangerous, dangerous thing that is happening.

I don’t know what the outcome will be, but we can only hope Obama handles it well.  To make matters more difficult, I don’t even have a prediction of what “well” would be at this time.

Good luck, Mr. President.

JC Foreign Relations iran, Iraq, obama

Can we take back the Nobel Prize and exchange it for the Olympics? I mean, there’s actually been work done towards the Olympics…

Greg Foreign Relations, National Politics, Personalities

I like to think I am a fairly bright guy, and I can usually see both sides of an issue. But there’s something I can’t quite understand.

Yesterday, someone was arrested overseas for a 32-year old outstanding warrant after he’d confessed and plead guilty to raping a thirteen year old girl.

However, there are many people who think he shouldn’t have to serve time for his crime — maybe because he’s a celebrity. Can someone explain it to me?

Greg Crime and Punishment, Foreign Relations crime, diplomacy, Media

I was listening to the morning radio talk shows this morning, and the story for once was not health care.  Instead, there was a lot of discussion of the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, found guilty of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, on compassionate grounds; he’s being allowed to die in his own bed as he has fewer than 3 months to live.

Let me start by saying I don’t really support this.  He murdered 270 people, I’m not sure that he should still get to die in his own bed, rather than alone and unloved.  But I don’t really want to talk about whether this was the right move on the part of the Scottish judges.  That was their call, not mine.

I want to talk about the callers, most of whom were asking “how would you feel if your family was amongst the victim of this crime?”  It seems like a good argument, on the surface of it.  It appeals to everyone, and it connects you instantly.  But it is completely and utterly contrary to our system of justice (and the British one, at that).

We explicitly have a justice system that doesn’t let the victims decide the appropriate punishment for the perpetrator of the criminal.  This is on purpose.  Families are certainly (in America, at least) able to work towards, by testimony, harsher punishments or denial of parole, but they are not the sole or even the overwhelming factor in decisions on how to punish people.  Justice is blind in an attempt to be fair, to not be overwhelmed by the emotion of the situation.

I have friends who have been the victims of major crimes, or have close relationships with the victims, and I see, when it comes up, how much it hurts to be a victim.  One case in particular does nothing but anger me on behalf of my friend due to the complete and utter manipulation of the system by the criminal.  But do we make our best judgments in anger, or in grief?  The system says no, and I agree with them.

Perhaps some people like it.  I’m all for harsh punishments, actually.  A world in which every murderer is put to death doesn’t really bother me that much, but it wouldn’t stop there.  Any crime that leaves the victim feeling violated – which is most of them – would result in gruesome ends.

By all means, let’s make sure that whatever law is on the books in Scotland that allowed this doesn’t let criminals don’t get out in this nation.  But let’s remember to argue about how the system works and how the system should work, not about how it doesn’t work.

JC Crime and Punishment, Foreign Relations, Terrorism courts, crime, Pan Am Flight 103

When will the tipping point be reached in Iran, if it will be reached at all?  Something is coming, soon.  It will most likely be very bloody, very frightening, and game changing, at least for the Middle East.  Whether it is a fundamentalist crack-down, a new tyranny, or an new pro-freedoms government is impossible to tell right now, though the first two have a much greater chance than the latter two.

I’m not sure when things changed in Iran.  The first days of the protests, they were interesting, they were intriguing, but I’m not sure anyone thought much would come of them.  I’m not sure that it was the death of Neda Agha-Soltan that was a game changer, although that was certainly about the right time.  But the charge of electricity with the protests is different now.  It may also have been the more violent crack-down by the government itself, rather than the specific death, that caused things to change.  At first, things seemed like they might peter out, cowed by the violence, but now… here’s what I see that tells me this has the legs enough to cross the line (I know, terrible mixed metaphor): clerics are protesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/23/iran.protest.faces/index.html

I’m not sure how to adequately explain how much that changes things.  Iran has a complex government but it all boils down to one thing: the Supreme Leader is pretty much, well, Supreme.  And he’s also the Supreme Leader of the religion; Iran is essentially a theocracy.  To have clerics defying the Leader over a political issue is to have them also defy him as a religious leader.  The way everything is connected, this could be devastating to stability in that regime.

Separate reports indicate that at least some of the very security forces that are being called upon to club down the protestors are doing it, but then going home, changing, and coming back to be part of the protests.  It is only a matter of time before their conscience gets the best of them, if true, and the security forces either stop showing up, or start actively fighting each other (or, best case but unlikely, start protecting the protests as a whole).

Even the government is admitting at this point that things were wrong with the election, even if they also add “but that didn’t change the outcome.”  That was actually kind of stupid of them; claiming that nothing was wrong was the only thing that kept them having any claim of legitimacy.  They are just inflaming the protestors… unless, of course, that’s what they want.

The real problem with the protests as an insurgency, of course, is that it is likely to fail.  Yes, is I were Ahmadinejad or Khamenei I’d be fearful for my neck at the moment, but the truth is, barring those with the guns switching sides, there is a severe weapon imbalance in the modern day world between governments and the people.  America may have a second amendment to keep the people able to have a revolution, but guns don’t do much against tanks.  Tiananmen Square showed us exactly what happens when people go up against government.  And if the military or security forces do side with the protestors, do we get a legitimate government in Iran, or is that just a military coup?

But we may have reached a point where heads rolling is the only outcome left.  Will it be those of the government officials or those of the protestors may be the only question left.

Image by Milad Avazbeigi and licensed using Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0.  Let us know if further attribution is required.

JC Foreign Relations iran, protests

The good people over at The Moderate Voice have posted about an article in the Christian Science Monitor that quotes a researcher from the University of Hawaii who has data from previous elections that shows that these election results was almost certainly fraudulent.

In the article, Farideh Farhi states that she is “convinced that they just pulled it out of their hats.” She goes on to speculate that the miscalculation this time was how severe the protests would be. Her thinking was that there was an expectation of some street protests after the election was stolen, but that it would die down quickly.

This would seem to jive with what we’ve seen. The religious authority must feel that they’re on the verge of losing their country, because, otherwise, they’d just stand by the results. I think there is a real fear that this could be 1979 all over again — only they would be on the receiving end of the wrath this time.

Let’s hope so.

Greg Foreign Relations diplomacy, iran

I agree that there’s no possible way that Ahmadinejad could have gotten 60+% of the vote, but that’s not important right now.  Or, it is important, but we here at Centrist Pundits would just like to express our desire that the situation in Iran calm down.

While I wouldn’t quite say riots never do any good, they tend to be very destructive.  Our hopes are that the people of Iran are okay.

The people of Iran deserve to have their voices heard and they deserve to have a democratically elected government.  They deserve all the basic human rights that Western Civilization (so to speak) says it grants to its people.  But at their most basic, they also deserve to be safe.

If it must continue, and I hope it does not, but I would hope it would lead to genuine reform and change in the nation of Iran.  But far more likely is a bloody repression of those hoping for freedoms to be granted.

As for the election, send in Jimmy Carter.

JC Foreign Relations iran

I beg your pardon for the terrible headline.

In a few hours, Iranians will go the polls to elect a new President.  Ahmadinejad, the current President, is in a tight race against Mousavi, who has held the post of Prime Minister before that position was eliminated.  Ahmadinejad is noted as the more conservative of the two candidates, while Mousavi considered more liberal.  It is important to note, however, that no matter who is elected, the ultimate political authority in Iran will remain with the “Supreme Leader” of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei.  (On the other hand, a religious council has to approve all candidates, so its not like Khamenei has any big problems with Mousavi).  Still, this is a notable election in some ways.

It has been noted in the past that despite what we see from the religious leaders of Islamic nations, America… or more precisely, American cultural items, are popular in these nations.  Iranians like wearing blue jeans, they like drinking Coca-cola.  It is therefore entirely possible that given the right leaders, relations between America and Iran don’t have to be frosty.  America – like him or loathe him – has elected a leader that understands more of the Islamic world than our previous Presidents by electing Barack Obama.  Iran could do its part by electing Mousavi; Ahmadinejad continues to make things more difficult then they need to be – his stance on the Holocaust being only one of the problems he has dealing with foreign leaders.

Ahmadinejad has a lot of support from the religious and those he’s funneled oil money to, and, perhaps surprisingly, the poor.  Mousavi has support from an energized youth vote.  I would never count on a youth vote in America, but maybe it will accomplish something in Iran.  Interestingly, this election has already been markedly different from previous Iranian elections, normally quiet affairs, with Mousavi and Ahmadinejad’s supporters being vocal and public (there are two other candidates that no one is paying attention to), and even nationwide protests and gatherings of Mousavi’s supporters in the last few days.

The Middle-East is a complex place and no one event will bring about positive change in the area, and I think he’s the longer shot to win, but I would be very interested to see how Mousavi would lead Iran, and how he and Obama would interact.  Will it happen?  Time will tell.  Not much time now.

Photo of Ahmadinejad by Daniella Zalcman, photo of Mousavi by Mardetanha (wikipedia username) – both photos were allowed to be used with proper attribution.  If our attribution is insufficient contact us and we will correct it.

JC Foreign Relations diplomacy, elections, iran

Today is the 20th anniversary of the June 4th Incident in Tiananmen Square in China.  Tomorrow is the anniversary of the famous Tank Man’s stand against the oncoming military vehicles.  Tiananmen Square is rapidly becoming part of history, and as a historic moment, one can only look back on conclude that while this incident raised the worlds awareness of China’s records on human rights temporarily, in the end, China has won on that issue – they’ve proven time and again the world doesn’t care about human rights or anything else China wishes to do poorly.

So the world discovered that the Chinese government doesn’t care about human rights or their citizen’s lives.  It doesn’t seem to matter.  Money still talks, and China continues to be such a valuable trade partner that no one seems to care that 20 years later, under similar circumstances, China would no doubt do the exact same thing.

20 years later, the government of China is still oppressing numerous territories around their nation, Taiwan and Tibet just being the most famous.  Even inside territories that are solidly within the Chinese sphere of influence, that are part of the country of China, discrimination against ethnic groups goes on with relish.

There’s no freedom of speech or freedom of religion or political freedom.  Heck, there’s not even freedom of movement.    Worker’s rights are more a theory than anything else, and corruption is the name of the game when dealing with the government.

But still, they win.  We and the world continue to trade with them as if we don’t care at all about human rights, because there is a dollar to be made.  Heck, they send us products laced with poisons that kill our pets and make our children sick but that doesn’t matter, as long as its trade.  Nor do any sort of international laws on copyright or anything matter; as long as we get cheap shoes we don’t care that writers are denied earnings on bootleg DVDs selling for a quarter on the streets in China’s major urban centers.  We (the world, as represented in this case by the IOC) let them have the Olympics despite their marginal at best attempts to improve human rights and their not even marginal ability to maintain a clean atmosphere.  The world is China’s enablers.

The Chinese people aren’t the problem.  The cultures of China are ancient, interesting, and worthy of respect.  The people in China are oppressed but have very little say in change within China, and anything that might become a movement for change is brutally repressed.  The problem lies entirely within the Government, and I don’t think change can come from within for China.  I don’t know that it can come from outside, either.

I don’t have solutions.  I’ve certainly expressed my dismay at “The China Problem” before.  But I have to think the world could have done better by the Chinese people since Tiananmen Square, but as it slips in to “times past”, the chances we will do anything dwindle to nothing.

JC Foreign Relations China, human rights