A British soldier was arrested today after he left a roll of film at a photo store that appeared to show an Iraqi prisoner being tortured, the Defense Ministry said today.
The film depicted a bound and gagged Iraqi inside a net that was suspended from a forklift, according to The Sun, which first reported the story this morning. The Sun also reported that the roll included pictures of soldiers performing sex acts near Iraqi prisoners.
This story was echoed by the Guardian and others. A British Lt. Colonel has also been accused of brutality against prisoners of war, and American forces have had complaints filed against them with amnesty pertaining to beatings and use of electric shocks.
Posted by Richie Jay,
9:31 AM
-
Friday, May 30, 2003 ExxonMobil is an honest corporation?
It sure looks like it. Unfortunately, ExxonMobil's honesty is the only thing that can be commended here. Chief Executive and Chairman Lee Raymond said,
"We won't jump on the bandwagon just because others may have a different view." and "We don't invest to make social statements at the expense of shareholder return."
I must admit that I really am tired of companies like Wal-Mart, Dow, Chevron, etc. denying responsibility for their actions. ExxonMobil comes right out and says, "Hey, screw the environment, screw our employees, and screw anyone that comes near us. We answer to our shareholders and only to our shareholders." Of course they always say that as if the shareholders are some group far removed from the company itself. It's as if they actually expect people to believe that the execs own no ExxonMobil stock. Unbelievable.
As much as I appreciate the attempts to bring about more responsible corporations through shareholder resolutions, there really is only one way to affect great change on this industry that manipulates economies and governments worldwide. The US needs to invest tens of billions of dollars in solar or other renewable energy sources.(I personally think solar is the way to go)
Posted by alex,
2:28 AM
-
Shit Iran seems to be next...
May 29— The Pentagon is advocating a massive covert action program to overthrow Iran's ruling ayatollahs as the only way to stop the country's nuclear weapons ambitions, senior State Department and Pentagon officials told ABCNEWS. The proposal, which would include covert sponsorship of a group currently deemed terrorist by the U.S. government, is not new, and has not won favor with enough top officials to be acted upon. But sources say it is a viable option that is getting a new look as the administration ramps up its rhetoric against Iran, and it is likely to be one of the top items on the agenda as high-level U.S. policymakers meet today to discuss how to deal with the Islamic republic. The Pentagon's proposal includes using all available points of pressure on the Iranian regime, including backing armed Iranian dissidents and employing the services of the Mujahedeen e Khalq, a group currently branded as terrorist by the United States....The objective of the Pentagon proposal to destabilize the Iranian government is based on the belief that the religious hard-liners are opposed by the majority of the Iranian population and any pressure would make them crack — a view that some analysts find dubious. The debate over Iran comes after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday warned Iran against meddling in Iraq, and presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer described the Islamic republic's efforts to root al Qaeda leaders out of country as insufficient. (more)
The best that can be said for this is that the U.S. may be concerned to stop any 'rogue state' from developing nukes (that is, except North Korea!) However, I have little doubt Bush would be willing to leave Iran in chaos and impovrished if it helped him in his goals. I have a hard time buying the rhetoric that Bush wants to help the people of the Middle East. If you say you only care about U.S. security and not at all how Iranians will fare, ok, but you may have then given part of the answer to 'Why do they hate us?'
P.S. Let's say they really want to go after Iran. But they know the public will be engaged if they threaten them and we'll start having a debate the neocons might not win. One possibility to solve this problem: first threaten another country besides Iran very publically, get everyone talking about how they might be next, and then do nothing. Oh, we already did that to Syria. But the neocons aren't that manipulative are they?
Posted by Timothy,
1:23 AM
-
Thursday, May 29, 2003 In Ricky's backyard...
The nation's third largest Boy Scout council expanded its nondiscrimination policy to include sexual orientation, defying the national group's anti-gay stance. The board of the Cradle of Liberty Council, which has 87,000 members in Philadelphia and two neighboring counties, voted unanimously this month to make the change after discussions with gay activists and other community leaders that began two years ago. "We disagree with the national stance, and we're not comfortable with the stated national policy," council Chairman David H. Lipson Jr. said. The code of the national Boy Scouts of America organization requires members to be "morally straight," though no written rule specifically addresses homosexuality. (AP, from salon)
Posted by Timothy,
9:20 PM
-
(from what?) Andrew Grossman writes: "(create your own free Dartmouth weblog here)"
Free Dartmouth weblog? We're the only one of those around here!
Posted by Timothy,
8:48 PM
-
DFP wins Publication of the Year The Council on Student Organizations awarded the Dartmouth Free Press with Publication of the Year. We're obviously quite pleased. Thanks to all the deliverers, writers, editors, photographers, and to those who came before.
Posted by Clint,
4:08 PM
-
Union Busting, Granola Eater Style Whole Foods Market, the nation's largest natural food store chain has gotten into a tussle with the employess of their Madison, Wisconsin (where else?) store. The company has forced workers to attend mandatory indoctrination sessions where the evils of unions are discussed, much like Wal-mart. They fired two leaders in the unionization drive for drinking a mis-made latte that otherwise would have been thrown away. The New York Times provides this excerpt from a CEO's letter to employees:
"Madison made a mistake in their choice. It may take time for them to realize it, but I believe that they eventually will. We all make many mistakes in life. It is all part of our growth process because that is how we learn, that is how we grow," Mr. Mackey wrote. "When confronted by great stress in life, we have but only 2 choices: 1. Contract into fear. 2. Expand into love."
Posted by Clint,
11:32 AM
-
Shockingly Congress quite clearly says that tax cuts for the wealthy are more important than those for the needy. See the NYtimes article here on how low-income families will not be eligible for a $400 tax-credit per child that middle and upper middle [even at my parents' bracket] class parents will get. This while the same lawmakers fought valiantly to make sure that the tricky if not downright voodoo work on the dividends went through. Spokesbitch Christin Tinsworth, for the republicans actually has the nerve to say, Apparently, whatever we do is not going to be enough for some segments of the population.. Apparently it's only going to be enough for those who don't need it.
Posted by Jared,
2:28 AM
-
Wednesday, May 28, 2003 CDI The CGD/FP Commitment to Development Index ranks 21 nations on the basis of aid, trade, immigration and environmental policies and how those policies affect poorer nations. 1 Netherlands 2 Denmark 3 Portugal 4 New Zealand 5 Switzerland 6 Germany 7 Spain 8 Sweeden 9 Austria 10 Norway 11 United Kingdom 12 Belgium 13 Greece 14 France 15 Italy 16 Ireland 17 Finland 18 Canada 19 Australia 20 United States <-- 21 Japan
The United States scores badly accross the board, particularly in environmental policies and aid (quality of, not quantity). It does worse in every category than the vast majority of the other 21 states.
After two years, the deaths of thousands of people in Israel and the occupied terroritories, the 9/11 attacks, a war in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq, George W. Bush has come to the "profound" conclusion that he needs to meet with Israeli and Palestinian leaders in person in order to make any progress on peace in the region. As cynical as I am, I actually think this meeting might accomplish something, but the real question left up to the historians will be what the world would have looked like if such a summit had taken place in May 2001 instead of May 2003.
President Bush will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas next week in Jordan in the president's biggest personal pitch for Mideast peace since taking office, the White House said Wednesday.
Posted by Dan,
6:08 PM
-
Campaigns Camp it up with Karaoke New Hampshire field staff of all the dem prez campaigns (minus Braun and Sharpton, who are NH staffless) participated in a Karaoke showdown last friday night. This actually happened. Go read PoliticsNh's account. And read the song pick list. Some are pretty clever.
Joe Lieberman’s team received third place by pointing out the "clowns to the left of them (Dean, Kerry, Kucinich) and the jokers to the right (Karl Rove, W, Cheney) saying their candidate was "stuck in the middle with you"
Posted by Clint,
4:08 PM
-
Re: Latest from the Arab Street Millions took to the street in London, hundreds of thousands accross America. There is always a wiser, pacifist segment of the population, and apparently it is just as vocal in Morocco as it is in the United States. This doesn't mean that the hawks can't simultaneously grow stronger as own own very recent past has demonstrated.
Posted by Nikhil,
2:15 AM
-
Tuesday, May 27, 2003 Latest from the Arab street Tens of thousands take to the streets in Casablanca to protest against ....terrorism!!?!?
Hold on, wasn't Gulf War 2 supposed to make the Arab street more sympathetic to Al Qaeda and create "a thousand Bin Ladens" to take up arms with the other "thousand Bin Ladens" that were created by our campaign against the Taliban?
Posted by sam,
10:03 PM
-
Bush Ignored 9/11 Warning
Oh baby, the WTO rules in favour of Canada concerning the Canada-US softwood lumber dispute. Although the US government does not typically abide by even the most binding of rulings, I would expect that given the economic mess in which the United States currently finds itself, cheap lumber might be a good thing for American consumers.
Pot possession laws in Canada relaxed, but the trafficking and illegal growing of pot will incur stiffer penalties. This really just seems like a law of convenience so cops won't feel guilty about drug laws that they don't enforce anyhow. Overall, however, this new law doesn't look like one that will fundamentally change attitudes towards Mary Jane. Read all aboot it.
Posted by Anthony,
8:40 AM
-
Selective Amnesia Strikes Fox News, New York Post, Dartmouth Review!
While Emmett blogs on about The New York Times, which publicly admitted its failings and aired its dirty laundry (that's what you call an attempt to salvage integrity, something that the 3 publications listed above ostensibly value as well), the Reviewers and Fox News (which continues to harangue the NYTimes) conveniently neglect to mention the plagiarism at the New York Post that was discovered almost immediately after the Times story broke. The Post launched no large scale public investigation, and it seems fellow News Corporation-held Fox News has no interest in trumpeting that story very loudly.
Posted by Jonathan,
12:17 AM
-
Monday, May 26, 2003 Progress in the Middle East? "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation" –Ariel Sharon
This seems to be a major change in rhetoric. Will the new plan work? Poll numbers show the Israelis are ambivalent.
Here is the NYTimes article that covers the latest political developments in Israel.
Posted by Graham,
9:54 PM
-
Religion Department Thesis Presentations Class of 1930's Room, Rockefeller Center (Because we don't want to sully Thornton Hall with the presence of infidels) 28 May 2003 4 - 5:30 PM
If everyone attends, no professors will be able to fit in the room.
I hope to see each of you there.*
And if you're one of those that's been asking incessantly about when this is, and you don't show up, there will be repercussions. Think Freedom Fries.
* If you forgot, I wrote (and thus plan to speak) about the debate over Darwinism in the United States, from circa 1900 to the present day. If you'd like to read my thesis in advance so you can ask good questions, I have it available electronically, just because I anticipated so many of you would want it...and now we've moved into the delusional and ridiculous portion of the blitz. Also, this blitz likely should've gone to more people. I can't remember them all. Sue me. Be glad you were remembered. But pass it on if you know anyone who's interested. The goal really IS to pack the room such that there is no room for profs. : )
Posted by Jonathan,
8:16 PM
-
Cathy Buckle's weekly email about the frustrations and horrors of Zimbabwe. When will reaction to Zimbabwe be more than an AP blurb in the middle pages of newspapers
Dear Family and Friends, It was with deep shock and disgust that Zimbabwe learned this week that our police commissioner Augustine Chihuri has been appointed the Honorary Vice President of Interpol. The double standards shown by European countries to the horrific state of our daily lives in Zimbabwe leaves me just spitting with rage. One minute they describe us as being in the grip of a "brutal regime" and back this up with graphic reports of police attaching electrodes to mens' testicles, and the next minute they confer awards on the Police Commissioner. A police spokesman in Harare said the award proves to the world that Zimbabwean police are both professional and non partisan.
I will never forget the day a young man pulled a gun on me at our Marondera farm in 2000 and bragged that he could "drop me at forty paces". Nor will I forget the police who came, took a statement, went down onto the field where the man was and did absolutely nothing. They said they were powerless to act because "it was political." I will never forget sitting in the Harare High Court last year and hearing sworn testimony of how a dozen policemen stood aside in the Murehwa Police Station and allowed five farmers to be abducted from the safety of their offices. For three years the Zimbabwe Republic Police have used a string of phrases which has excused them from acting against rape, murder, torture, arson and looting. These phrases are: "It is political," "It is my first time of hearing this", "I am not the one" or "We have received no instructions." For three years the Police in Zimbabwe have ignored scores of High Court Rulings and now, in 2003 it is a punishable offence to criticise them or say anything which causes people to ridicule them. When I had the privilege of meeting a visiting Foreign Minister in 2001 he begged me to write more about the role of the police in Zimbabwe's madness. I hope he understands now why I cannot.
Just as I cannot forget what has happened to me and people I know personally, Zimbabweans cannot forget that over 200 people have been murdered in the country in the last 3 years and to this day not one person is in prison. Nor can we forget the hundreds of rapes, disgusting testimony of police brutality or the death in custody late last year of an MP in prison. There are none so blind as those who will not see, including Interpol whose address is cp@interpol.int
At first, when I heard about this award being made to our Police Commissioner, I thought it was just talk because it's been an extremely rumour filled week in Zimbabwe. The Presidents of South Africa, Nigeria and Malawi came, listened and left. At the end of it no one told us anything so everyone is speculating and guessing about what exactly went on behind those close doors. As another Zimbabwean writer put it, it seems the only thing agreed was that there would be more talks about talks. And while they talked about talks, the Harare Mayor's office was being raided by riot police and women peacefully demonstrating and carrying placards were being arrested.
Perhaps something did go on behind closed doors and pressure was increased because we still have no petrol or diesel and the electricity cuts are increasing and, even in the small towns, they are now daily occurrences. Things are getting quieter and tenser by the day and as I sat researching facts for this letter yesterday an air force helicopter circled our little town three times. The end is near. Until next week, with love, cathy. http://africantears.netfirms.com Copyright cathy buckle, 10th May 2003.
Posted by Eugene,
7:35 PM
-
Sunday, May 25, 2003 America and Ideology
So I originally wanted to respond to Jared's link to the Times article about the Rumsfeld Youth League cropping up all over the US. Something about how the Republicans are trouncing liberals on the ideological front, and what the Democrats need to do to become more cohesive and effective (sidenote: the Washington Monthlyanswer is to wait until minorities overrun the country). But then it got me thinking about what it means for a political group to have an ideology, and whether it even makes sense to think of America as an ideological society. So here goes.
I'm sure there's a whole basketful of different ways to define ideology, so I’m not going to cycle through all of them. The Marxist definition of ideology sounds something like this: cultures are institutionally structured in such a way that legitimizes whatever group is in power. Rather than active coercion and muscle-flexing, ideology usually filters on down and manipulates the public through churches, schools, TV shows, etc. In addition, political groups are built upon ideologies, which are generally a structure of assumptions about what is “natural” in the world. (Yeah, I'm simplifying. Call me out on it if you'd like).
The question is: is it beneficial at all to discuss America in terms of ideology? Political theorist Michael Foley has two interesting things to say about American political thought. First:
The United States possesses a little understood ability to engage in deep conflicts over political ideas, while at the same time reducing the adversarial positions to legitimate derivatives of American history and development. This often gives American politics the impression of being non-ideological in nature.
So American political thought tends to barter in local ideas, rather than all-inclusive theories of society and government. And, moreover, at the heart of the debate are only a handful of ideas:
Such a common core of indigenous principles can be used in varying permutations and with different degrees of emphasis to produce a quite startling diversity of political positions.
Foley goes on to discuss those principles one by one (freedom, individualism, capitalism, pluralism, nationalism, constitutionalism, etc. etc.) On this approach, it makes more sense to analyze the particular concepts being bandied about (ex. George Bush’s understanding of pluralism) rather than comprehensive doctrines (ex. the neo-con “vision” of global politics).
Once again, is it beneficial at all to discuss America in terms of ideology? Conservatives get hysterical at the mention of the word, conjuring up dystopic images of Stalinist Russia and Maoist China (on this, see George Kateb’s Utopia and its Enemies, which argues that utopian societies need not be destined for disaster, pace the National Review crowd). And perhaps as a result, they shy away from developing abstract philosophies and ideological systems. Modern conservatives seem to have intuitive values (the idea of the stable family, self-sufficiency, small government) and pragmatic ideas (tax cuts) rather than comprehensive doctrines. (This would make today's conservatives true heirs to Burke and Oakenshott. Is that even true?)
And it seems to me that modern progressives are no more coherent. Afraid of embracing a totalizing Marxist, etc. critique of capitalism, their ideas generally come out in patchwork and pragmatist chunks (tax corporations here, support social programs here). Again, they obviously hold dear certain intuitive values, but is this ideology?
We can also talk about the general American ideological framework. This might not amount to any more than pointing out some of the banal assumptions that undergird all American politics. For instance, we assume that democracy is the most natural form of government. We assume that freedom is a natural right—and we seem to conceptualize the idea of freedom differently from, say, Europeans, (though I don’t have nearly the skill to get into this). So yes, we could analyze those assumptions. But aren’t those assumptions debated openly already? Courts and judges wrangle over the proper idea of freedom and liberty all the time. Sure they keep some base assumptions in place, but can an ideological critique of those assumptions really add substance to the debate? (Perhaps I'm just asking whether those assumptions are the most flexible imaginable?) Can an ideology-hunting social critic make any more astute criticism of American political theory than what already goes on in the Supreme Court (and other political venues)? In theory, do the institutions in America possess an unlimited capacity to debate the structure of American society? Or are there certain fundamental blind spots in American political discourse that prevent thorough-going and limitless social criticism.
Notice that this is more of a theoretical question than a practical one. I realize that given the people and groups in power right now, the change possible in American society is certainly limited. But is this because of the ideological organization of American government/society, or is only a historically contingent matter of the particular people in place at this particular moment? Is there any ideological critique of American society that doesn't fall into those tricky shades of Marxist revolution?
Or, is it actually possible at all to explain the ascendacy and prominence of this or that political group in terms of the popular ideologies that have infiltrated American society? Are there some unseen fundamental assumptions being perpetuated at grade school that lead us to support, say, the death penalty? Is Michael Moore right when he talks about America's culture of fear (and in what way is this ideology: that is, an implicit system of control and organization)? And is it at all possible for political groups in power to control or manipulate these cultural networks? (I can see Naomi Klein-esque corporate conspiracy ideas fitting in right here...)
So there, a bit of a ramble, yes. I'm hoping actual students of politics can see things more perceptively than I can.
Have been having a discussion over on the Observer regarding Donald Jolly winning the Cardozo award. Due to a glitch on the Observer Chein Wen couldn't reply in comment form and so he was forced to make a new post. Due to the glitch I too am forced to make a new post, so here are my comments.
While I'll agree with you that some people are offended at certain comments or actions and those are misconstrued as an "-ism," but I must disagree with you that there is too much of the "isms" on campus. If you do not condone any of the "-isms" then any single "ism" act means that there is too much on campus.
While some may think an act is one of the "-isms" I don't think that you can deny that there isn't any on campus. I know that I have witnessed at least one instance of each of the "-isms." So unless you are outing yourself and admitting that you do condone those "-isms" then you need to change your answer.
In further sticking up for Mr. Jolly: He won the Cardozo award for bridging the gap between the black and gay communities on campus. This is an important step, because he is attempting to unite two groups whose battles for equality are mirror images of one another. By creating a united front the two groups can further combat all instances of the "-isms" even the "relatively trivial" ones that could be subconscious "-isms" and are at the very least creating a culture of disrespect.
