| |
|
8. mars 2004
|
|
Is John Kerry an idiot?
John Kerry is boasting that "foreign leaders" are secretly cheering him on:
Without naming anybody, Kerry said he had received words of encouragement from leaders abroad who were eager to see him defeat Bush on Nov. 2.
"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said.
Yeah, that is going to go over really well with centrist voters in the US. "Vote for me! I am Jacques Chirac's choice for US president!"
Somebody better teach Kerry to put a sock in it whenever he gets those urges. He could not control Kim Jong Il wanting him to beat Bush, but he can keep his own mouth shut.
With -what? - eight months to go before the election, there is an enormous amount of time for Kerry to say and do stupid things that the Bush campaign and countless rightist pundits will have weeks of fun with. There is no need to go into overdrive already.
Hat tip to VodkaPundit, who is now back to his usual posting frequency.
10:38:09 PM 
|
|
Extremist attacks on fellow Muslims: a sign of weakness or a change of tactic?
Fareed Zakaria argues convincingly that al-Qaeda and its extremist allies are losing power and losing the war, as evident in their recent attacks on Shiite worshippers in Iraq.
Consider the progress of Al Qaeda and affiliated terror groups over the past three years. For a decade they had attacked high-profile American targets only—embassies, a naval destroyer, the World Trade Center. Once the United States mobilized against them, and got the world to join that fight, what have they hit? A discotheque, a few synagogues, a couple of restaurants and hotels, all soft targets that could not ever be protected, and all outside the Western world. As a result, the terrorists have killed mostly Muslims, which is marginalizing them in the world of Islam.
This is true. The obvious fact, as I have said repeatedly in this blog, is that al-Qaeda would have hit constantly at targets in the US, Israel and western Europe if they could. Two and a half years without such attacks shows that terrorist capabilities have been seriously reduced.
However, when Zakaria says that Islamofascists now targetting Shiites "is surely a sign of desperation," I don't think that is necessarily true. I would be careful about psychoanalysing the al-Qaeda leadership, but we have to remember that these are religious fanatics. Their mental map of reality is not corresponding very well to the real world, and it is not particilarly rational. A questionable, but perhaps useful historical parallell is the nazi preoccupation with exterminating the Jews as Germany was locked in a deadly struggle with the Soviet Union. At a time when resources were desperately needed in the east, Hitler allocated them to killing Jews, because he actually believed that racial purity was the key to unlocking Germany's strength. The nazis' obsession with Jews was absurd and irrational, and it cost Germany dearly in the war. Al-Qaeda shares this obsession, and adds quite a few of its own, no more rational or sane. To understand its tactics we need to understand its mental map of the world.
It is not inconceivable that the attacks on fellow ("heretic") Muslims are not just a sign of desperation and lack of ability to strike the west, but also a sign of a deliberate strategy al-Qaeda honestly believe is necessary to reach its goals: a theologically pure Muslim world, purged from heretics in all forms and shapes, to lead the way to the extremist Islamofascist Caliphate.
Link via Daniel Drezner, who has some comments on the Saudis well worth reading.
8:31:50 PM
|
|
"We are not evil"
John Buckman at Magnatune, the non-evil record label, explains why they are having problems finding African music to sign up to a non-exploiting deal.
I received two great African music CDs recently. These are musicians from Africa, recording in London. However, I can't accept that CD for Magnatune, because the recording is totally owned by a producer in London, who would then receive all the sales royalties, and none would go to the actual performers. This situation, where the recording company or producer owns all the rights to an album, is the norm in world music.
This exploitation issue has also been a problem for Latin music, though I received some self-produced that's amazing from Portugal on Friday, so there are hopefull signs.
Basically, I'm not willing to have Magnatune prop up the "world musician gives up all his rights to his recordings" system which mostly exists today, and that philosophy limits what I can sign (and also what gets submitted).
Seriously, I hope Magnatune and similar companies will succeed.
How many music lovers are aware how many of their favourite artists are working for peanuts while the record companies skim the profits?
Heck, every regular reader of this blog knows I am not particularly leftist, but this is an example of the most blatant misuse of other people's work. Young, unknown musicians are desperate for a record contract, and will stupidly sign anything. So they sign away all their rights. The music they write and perform will be completely owned by the record company for years into the future.
Musicians who try to break through without the big labels have very little chance; the big labels even force radio stations to boycott independent music.
One possible solution: make it impossible and illegal to sign away rights to your future artwork. Another solution would be to treat the record companies as the anti-competitive cartels they are.
Link shamelessly stolen from Boing Boing.
6:41:06 PM
|
|
Aristide's "coup" accusations reach an eager audience
If anything is a clear example of how many people grasp at straws for blaming American for everything, it must be the ouster of Haiti's corrupt and incompetent president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Immediately after being saved from his angry countrymen by US agents, Aristide started playing to the anti-American audience by claiming he was "forced" out and that it had been a "coup d'etat."
If you look at the actual claims Aristide made, headline-capturing as they may be, you will easily see that even Aristide's own version of events do not support his allegation. Aristide is effectively saying that because George Bush did not send US forces to beat back his opponents and keep him in power at gunpoint, the Americans "forced" him from power. This is an absurd point. Aristide was corrupt, the 2000 election was at best dubious, and Haiti was becoming a failed state. We know from experience what failed states can cause of calamities to the world. The last time Aristide lost the grip on power, the US military reinserted him by force. His inability to remain in place was obvious to all, and the right decision was made.
There are accusations, from the usual suspects, that the US had been undermining Aristide for years and that its agents had initiated the armed rebellion. No evidence has been forthcoming. Neither has anyone explained how it is in US interest to destabilise its troubled neighbour and create a situation calling for the overstretched US armed forces to interfere. Economically and security-wise, the US would want Haiti stable and rich. The accusation that the US did anything to destablise the country is absurd.
It is worth noting who is actually making accusations about a "coup" on Haiti against the US or the Bush government, and not take them seriously in the future.
Haiti's culturally rich and talented inhabitants would have every possibility of prospering within the framework of a functioning country state. Unfortunately that has not been so. It is imperative to not give up hope that an international effort can succeed in creating a better future for Haiti's people. If the united world powers cannot create a viable democracy for Haiti, what hope is there really for the US-led coaltion to do it in the Middle East?
5:27:05 PM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2004 Jan Haugland.
Last update: 01.04.2004; 05:07:28.
|
|
|
