houston over BUFFALO
CHICAGO over cleveland
DALLAS over seattle
DETROIT over st. louis
BALTIMORE over denver
INDIANAPOLIS over san francisco
NY JETS over miami
ny giants over PHILADELPHIA
jacksonville over TENNESSEE
SAN DIEGO over oakland
ARIZONA over carolina
GREEN BAY over minnesota
NEW ORLEANS over atlanta
Last week: 9-4
Season: 72-31
vs. ESPN experts
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Movie That Killed! Part 2
Continuing with my Most Traumatic Movies Ever list. As I was explaining, I've seen 7 films in my life that were so bad that they changed my view of movies and the world at large for-ever. Part 1 can be read here.
#3. "Wedding Crashers." I saw this flick in the theaters while working at a summer camp. The previous year, under similar circumstances, I'd seen "Dodgeball" and thought it was hilarious, so I had high hopes. (Note: the crushing of expectations is critical to having a movie make the it-scarred-me-for-life list. Most of the things on this list, with the exception of #1, I was actually sort of looking forward too, and was cruelly blindsided.)
The previews had made it seem like a romp and for the first 20 minutes it was. Then, like Dr. Jekyll becoming Mr. Hyde, it morphed into the most cliche-ridden, humiliating romantic comedy I've ever seen. (I probably would be less horrified by this movie if I was the sort that took in films like "Failure To Launch" and "Must Love Dogs" with regularity, but I don't. See #2 on this list if you're wondering why.)
By the time Owen Wilson's formerly smooth-talking wedding crasher had been magically changed into a suicidal adorable sweetie, my skin was attempting to crawl away and escape. I decided I had diarrhea and hid in the bathroom for 20 minutes. (In fact, I almost convinced myself, and my bowel movements weren't the same for days afterward. "Wedding Crashers:" the only movie that can deleteriously affect your digestive system just by existing!)
I didn't see the last 10 minutes. I just heard them from the back of the theater, refusing to look, stomach churning in disbelief. I actually dry-heaved. HOW CAN CHRISTOPHER WALKEN NOT BE FUNNY? A pox on everyone responsible for this film.
Lasting impact: The American comedy died on this day. I don't watch them anymore. Recommended ones I've seen since, like "Bad Santa" and "Caddyshack," have been like biting into a brownie and finding it's made of shit instead of chocolate. Even well-reviewed comedies that I would probably like, such as "Tropic Thunder," languish in the middle of my Netflix queue. I'm afraid. Very afraid. I've been burned. I will never trust again. For chuckles, I'm going back to the '80s slapstick of my childhood ("Airplane!" "Hot Shots" etc.) and staying there.
#2. "The Wedding Singer." Without a question, "Wedding Singer" the worst movie I've ever seen where the lead actors were adults. (Although in Adam Sandler's case I use that term very loosely.) This movie only has 5 good seconds and all of them involve Billy Idol. And you have to watch the whole rest of the movie to get there.
Lasting Impact: Not only did it retroactively ruin the only good Sandler movie ("Happy Gilmore") for me, this movie effectively destroyed the entire genre of romantic comedies forever. Perhaps this is for the best, as it's allowed me to sniff out movies like "Elizabethtown" and "Notting Hill" (but not, due to its misleading previews, "Wedding Crashers") from a mile away and avoid them.
But there are a few good ones out there, and my girlfriend has had to drag me kicking and screaming to see them all. Here's the list of good RomComs my girlfriend has gotten me to watch:
- Annie Hall
- When Harry Met Sally
- High Fidelity
- Moonstruck
And that's all. There may be more, but because of "The Wedding Singer" I'm prepared to live life without them. Each of those four movies above I waited an extra five years to see because of the shittiness of "Wedding Singer." "Wedding Singer" also taught me that there's a whole bunch of self-pitying crap films built around the "adorable sweetie guy has to rescue the good girl who's about to marry the asshole" plotline (see: "Wedding Crashers").* In the long run, this discovery actually changed the course of my life. As soon as I realized that the real world doesn't work that way, I stopped trying to be the good guy in a romantic comedy and actually got a real girlfriend.
#1. "Blank Check." Without a doubt the most catastrophic movie-watching experience of my life. It's like "Home Alone 3," except infinity times worse. I was subjected to this movie on a bus, where there was no escaping it. I kept trying desperately to fall asleep and failed. Two years after this, I was subjected to "Stuart Little" on a bus, and I was so thrilled that "Stuart Little" was not as bad as "Blank Check" that I actually remember warmly the 90 minutes of my life that I was subjected to "Stuart Little."** "Blank Check"... the only movie so bad that it gave me the power to watch other bad movies and enjoy them, knowing they could be worse.
Lasting Impact: This movie is such a bankrupt depiction of the desires of childhood that it nearly ruined my memories of my own childhood. Seriously, a 10 year old gets a blank check, writes in a million dollars, buys a mansion with somebody else's (conveniently ill-gotten) money and lives it up until the money runs out? (Never mind that the plot is the least stupid thing about the movie.) In its own way, "Blank Check" is an indictment of the entire 1990s boom era. If the movie is to be believed, the whole decade was lost to sloth, decadence, waste, bad pop music, and stupidity. Upon completion of the film, I understood at last why the terrorists hate us. And 9/11 hadn't even happened yet.
* For the record, this scenario can only be plausible if it's a pop song by Sting.
** The film flame-critic Mr. Cranky actually came up with a fake Oscar category for this: "Best Film that Didn't Suck as Bad as it Could Have." Here's Cranky, discussing how he survived "Snow Dogs" in the theater:
#3. "Wedding Crashers." I saw this flick in the theaters while working at a summer camp. The previous year, under similar circumstances, I'd seen "Dodgeball" and thought it was hilarious, so I had high hopes. (Note: the crushing of expectations is critical to having a movie make the it-scarred-me-for-life list. Most of the things on this list, with the exception of #1, I was actually sort of looking forward too, and was cruelly blindsided.)
The previews had made it seem like a romp and for the first 20 minutes it was. Then, like Dr. Jekyll becoming Mr. Hyde, it morphed into the most cliche-ridden, humiliating romantic comedy I've ever seen. (I probably would be less horrified by this movie if I was the sort that took in films like "Failure To Launch" and "Must Love Dogs" with regularity, but I don't. See #2 on this list if you're wondering why.)
By the time Owen Wilson's formerly smooth-talking wedding crasher had been magically changed into a suicidal adorable sweetie, my skin was attempting to crawl away and escape. I decided I had diarrhea and hid in the bathroom for 20 minutes. (In fact, I almost convinced myself, and my bowel movements weren't the same for days afterward. "Wedding Crashers:" the only movie that can deleteriously affect your digestive system just by existing!)
I didn't see the last 10 minutes. I just heard them from the back of the theater, refusing to look, stomach churning in disbelief. I actually dry-heaved. HOW CAN CHRISTOPHER WALKEN NOT BE FUNNY? A pox on everyone responsible for this film.
Lasting impact: The American comedy died on this day. I don't watch them anymore. Recommended ones I've seen since, like "Bad Santa" and "Caddyshack," have been like biting into a brownie and finding it's made of shit instead of chocolate. Even well-reviewed comedies that I would probably like, such as "Tropic Thunder," languish in the middle of my Netflix queue. I'm afraid. Very afraid. I've been burned. I will never trust again. For chuckles, I'm going back to the '80s slapstick of my childhood ("Airplane!" "Hot Shots" etc.) and staying there.
#2. "The Wedding Singer." Without a question, "Wedding Singer" the worst movie I've ever seen where the lead actors were adults. (Although in Adam Sandler's case I use that term very loosely.) This movie only has 5 good seconds and all of them involve Billy Idol. And you have to watch the whole rest of the movie to get there.
Lasting Impact: Not only did it retroactively ruin the only good Sandler movie ("Happy Gilmore") for me, this movie effectively destroyed the entire genre of romantic comedies forever. Perhaps this is for the best, as it's allowed me to sniff out movies like "Elizabethtown" and "Notting Hill" (but not, due to its misleading previews, "Wedding Crashers") from a mile away and avoid them.
But there are a few good ones out there, and my girlfriend has had to drag me kicking and screaming to see them all. Here's the list of good RomComs my girlfriend has gotten me to watch:
- Annie Hall
- When Harry Met Sally
- High Fidelity
- Moonstruck
And that's all. There may be more, but because of "The Wedding Singer" I'm prepared to live life without them. Each of those four movies above I waited an extra five years to see because of the shittiness of "Wedding Singer." "Wedding Singer" also taught me that there's a whole bunch of self-pitying crap films built around the "adorable sweetie guy has to rescue the good girl who's about to marry the asshole" plotline (see: "Wedding Crashers").* In the long run, this discovery actually changed the course of my life. As soon as I realized that the real world doesn't work that way, I stopped trying to be the good guy in a romantic comedy and actually got a real girlfriend.
#1. "Blank Check." Without a doubt the most catastrophic movie-watching experience of my life. It's like "Home Alone 3," except infinity times worse. I was subjected to this movie on a bus, where there was no escaping it. I kept trying desperately to fall asleep and failed. Two years after this, I was subjected to "Stuart Little" on a bus, and I was so thrilled that "Stuart Little" was not as bad as "Blank Check" that I actually remember warmly the 90 minutes of my life that I was subjected to "Stuart Little."** "Blank Check"... the only movie so bad that it gave me the power to watch other bad movies and enjoy them, knowing they could be worse.
Lasting Impact: This movie is such a bankrupt depiction of the desires of childhood that it nearly ruined my memories of my own childhood. Seriously, a 10 year old gets a blank check, writes in a million dollars, buys a mansion with somebody else's (conveniently ill-gotten) money and lives it up until the money runs out? (Never mind that the plot is the least stupid thing about the movie.) In its own way, "Blank Check" is an indictment of the entire 1990s boom era. If the movie is to be believed, the whole decade was lost to sloth, decadence, waste, bad pop music, and stupidity. Upon completion of the film, I understood at last why the terrorists hate us. And 9/11 hadn't even happened yet.
* For the record, this scenario can only be plausible if it's a pop song by Sting.
** The film flame-critic Mr. Cranky actually came up with a fake Oscar category for this: "Best Film that Didn't Suck as Bad as it Could Have." Here's Cranky, discussing how he survived "Snow Dogs" in the theater:
"Snow Dogs" was like the doctor telling me he was going to cut off my entire leg and when I woke up, only the foot was missing. You know what? I thank the Lord Jesus that the leg, stump and all, is still there. Forget that bastard foot -- I've still got my beautiful leg. Dear God, I can walk! I can walk!
The Movie That Killed! Part 1
Have you ever had a movie-watching experience in your life that was so awful that it left permanent scars on your psyche and your understanding of pop culture and the human experience? I know you have. I want to hear them. I have had seven. They are listed below, in orders of magnitude:
#7. "National Lampoon's Van Wilder." My friends rented it sophomore year of college. I lasted 10 minutes before walking out, after about the fifth Indian joke. A friend of mine in Chicago observed that he knew it was trouble when there was a boob shot on the DVD menu. Sadly, I missed this red flag because we'd rented it from a video store in snowy Grinnell, Iowa, called "Loops," which in 2002 had more VHS than DVD. They probably still do. Ah, Loops.
My swift recognition of how bad the movie was going to be, and subsequent exit, probably saved me from stabbing my own eyes out. To understand how much I hated the first 10 minutes of "Van Wilder," just know that I was once strapped into a chair by a mad scientist and forced to watch "Charlie's Angels" in the theater, and on another occasion had to see the entirety of "Can't Hardly Wait" which in addition to its general mediocrity also had serious negative ramifications for my high school lack-of-a-love life... and that I cut BOTH of these from this list, just to make room for the first 10 minutes of "Van Wilder." I'm also scratching the fifth viewing of "Star Wars Episode I," where I finally realized the movie was terrible AND that this meant I'd just seen a terrible movie five times in six weeks in the theaters and paid for every trip. The first ten minutes of "Van Wilder" were worse. Trust me.
Lasting impact: "Van Wilder" was my first exposure to a whole world of comedies that think that just mentioning the fact that sex happens is funny. A world I have avoided ever since. In a related development, the college frat comedy is dead to me now. I have never seen "Animal House." I have never seen "Old School." I probably never will. "Van Wilder" is why.
#6. Eddie Murphy's "Metro." Saw it at summer camp in 8th grade.
Lasting impact: First realization that a funny guy + a lot of violence doesn't equal a good movie. Later reinforced by "Bulletproof." I've never fully recovered from this realization.
#5. The poetry scenes in "Superman" and "Spider-Man 2." I'm not sure which one of these is worse, Lois Lane's "can you read my mind?" telepathy to Superman or Toby Maguire's recitation of the agonizingly sappy "when you cut me I bleed!" to Kirsten Dunst. I'm going with the former. I think "Superman" might be the most overrated movie ever. Watch it again sometime. Basically, the last half of the film is dreadful camp. Compare the original "Superman" to "The Dark Knight" and you'll realize why Batman has supplanted Superman as the most iconic American superhero.
Lasting impact: First, these scenes ruined poetry forever for me. All poetry. Second, the "Spiderman 2" poetry was the comedown from the high of good superhero movies at the start of the decade. It made us realize that just because the comic book industry was getting more involved in the Hollywood productions didn't guarantee a great outcome like had happened with the the first two X-Men films. If "X2" was Woodstock, "Spiderman 2" was Altamont. We all thought we were going to get superhero valhalla and instead we got deranged Hell's Angels stabbing people. By which I mean, Toby Maguire reading horrendous poetry to Kirsten Dunst.
#4. ABC's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea." The only made-for-TV movie on this list, ABC's veeeery-loosely-based-on-the-original adaptation of Jules Verne so betrayed the original story that I actually went up to my room afterwards and cried. I was 8.
Lasting impact: It was my first experience with movie adaptations butchering classic stories I love. Before that, I just didn't understand that it could happen. The story was the story. You couldn't just go in and fuck it up for no reason. You just couldn't. It was probably good this realization occurred when it did, because otherwise when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Lost World" got made into a TV show a few years later, I would have had to kill myself.
Continued in Part 2! After all, we all know how sequels are worse than the originals.
#7. "National Lampoon's Van Wilder." My friends rented it sophomore year of college. I lasted 10 minutes before walking out, after about the fifth Indian joke. A friend of mine in Chicago observed that he knew it was trouble when there was a boob shot on the DVD menu. Sadly, I missed this red flag because we'd rented it from a video store in snowy Grinnell, Iowa, called "Loops," which in 2002 had more VHS than DVD. They probably still do. Ah, Loops.
My swift recognition of how bad the movie was going to be, and subsequent exit, probably saved me from stabbing my own eyes out. To understand how much I hated the first 10 minutes of "Van Wilder," just know that I was once strapped into a chair by a mad scientist and forced to watch "Charlie's Angels" in the theater, and on another occasion had to see the entirety of "Can't Hardly Wait" which in addition to its general mediocrity also had serious negative ramifications for my high school lack-of-a-love life... and that I cut BOTH of these from this list, just to make room for the first 10 minutes of "Van Wilder." I'm also scratching the fifth viewing of "Star Wars Episode I," where I finally realized the movie was terrible AND that this meant I'd just seen a terrible movie five times in six weeks in the theaters and paid for every trip. The first ten minutes of "Van Wilder" were worse. Trust me.
Lasting impact: "Van Wilder" was my first exposure to a whole world of comedies that think that just mentioning the fact that sex happens is funny. A world I have avoided ever since. In a related development, the college frat comedy is dead to me now. I have never seen "Animal House." I have never seen "Old School." I probably never will. "Van Wilder" is why.
#6. Eddie Murphy's "Metro." Saw it at summer camp in 8th grade.
Lasting impact: First realization that a funny guy + a lot of violence doesn't equal a good movie. Later reinforced by "Bulletproof." I've never fully recovered from this realization.
#5. The poetry scenes in "Superman" and "Spider-Man 2." I'm not sure which one of these is worse, Lois Lane's "can you read my mind?" telepathy to Superman or Toby Maguire's recitation of the agonizingly sappy "when you cut me I bleed!" to Kirsten Dunst. I'm going with the former. I think "Superman" might be the most overrated movie ever. Watch it again sometime. Basically, the last half of the film is dreadful camp. Compare the original "Superman" to "The Dark Knight" and you'll realize why Batman has supplanted Superman as the most iconic American superhero.
Lasting impact: First, these scenes ruined poetry forever for me. All poetry. Second, the "Spiderman 2" poetry was the comedown from the high of good superhero movies at the start of the decade. It made us realize that just because the comic book industry was getting more involved in the Hollywood productions didn't guarantee a great outcome like had happened with the the first two X-Men films. If "X2" was Woodstock, "Spiderman 2" was Altamont. We all thought we were going to get superhero valhalla and instead we got deranged Hell's Angels stabbing people. By which I mean, Toby Maguire reading horrendous poetry to Kirsten Dunst.
#4. ABC's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea." The only made-for-TV movie on this list, ABC's veeeery-loosely-based-on-the-original adaptation of Jules Verne so betrayed the original story that I actually went up to my room afterwards and cried. I was 8.
Lasting impact: It was my first experience with movie adaptations butchering classic stories I love. Before that, I just didn't understand that it could happen. The story was the story. You couldn't just go in and fuck it up for no reason. You just couldn't. It was probably good this realization occurred when it did, because otherwise when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Lost World" got made into a TV show a few years later, I would have had to kill myself.
Continued in Part 2! After all, we all know how sequels are worse than the originals.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Week 7 results
correct in bold
Bears over BENGALS
packers over BROWNS
falcons over COWBOYS
chargers over CHIEFS
jets over RAIDERS
colts over RAMS
saints over DOLPHINS
STEELERS over vikings
patriots over BUCCANEERS
PANTHERS over bills
TEXANS over 49ers
GIANTS over cardinals
eagles over REDSKINS
Week 7: 9-4
Season: 72-31
Bears over BENGALS
packers over BROWNS
falcons over COWBOYS
chargers over CHIEFS
jets over RAIDERS
colts over RAMS
saints over DOLPHINS
STEELERS over vikings
patriots over BUCCANEERS
PANTHERS over bills
TEXANS over 49ers
GIANTS over cardinals
eagles over REDSKINS
Week 7: 9-4
Season: 72-31
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Week 7 NFL picks
I have been humbled by my crappy prognostication performance (15-13 in the past two weeks). Here's my, you know, educated hypothetical guesses for what might happen this week in the world of professional American football.
Bears over BENGALS
packers over BROWNS
falcons over COWBOYS
chargers over CHIEFS
jets over RAIDERS
colts over RAMS
saints over DOLPHINS
GIANTS over cardinals
STEELERS over vikings
patriots over BUCCANEERS
PANTHERS over bills
TEXANS over 49ers
eagles over REDSKINS
I don't think I've ever picked this many road teams in my entire life.
Bears over BENGALS
packers over BROWNS
falcons over COWBOYS
chargers over CHIEFS
jets over RAIDERS
colts over RAMS
saints over DOLPHINS
GIANTS over cardinals
STEELERS over vikings
patriots over BUCCANEERS
PANTHERS over bills
TEXANS over 49ers
eagles over REDSKINS
I don't think I've ever picked this many road teams in my entire life.
North Korea knows human rights
Check out this hilarious statement by North Korea's Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Pak Tok Hun, in response to the UN Special Rapporteur's report on North Korea's abysmal human rights record. Take it away, Amb. Pak!
The delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reminds the committee that it has never recognized the illegal resolution as well as the special rapporteur of that resolution. My delegation categorically rejects the report of the special rapporteur on the situation of the human rights it in my country. It is a politically conspired document full of distortion, lies, falsity , devised by Western forces and (unclear.) The consideration of such a report is totally useless and will rather intensify, deprive in our human rights protection system and reality of my country[sic]. Mr. Chairman, up to 2003 when the group of western countries presented resolution on the DPRK in the commission of human rights in Geneva, my country had a wide range of cooperation exchange in the field of human rights. We invited the United Nations special rapporteur, we invited amnesty international in several occasions, the European parliamentarians visited a prison in my country and met with prisoners. We had regular contacts and exchange of views with the EU ambassadors in our capital and informed them of human rights activities and measures taken and to be taken.
We did so because we have nothing to hide or be afraid of. We did so because we are part of (inaudible) system of promotion and protection of human rights in our country including the free health care and free education system. However, all these cooperation exchanges have been stopped with the presentation of the so-called resolution against my country by a group of western countries. All those cooperation exchanges have been stopped because we cannot accept the discriminatory treatment of the DPRK and because we cannot allow any country or group of countries to single out the DPRK for their sinister political purposes. There are no such grave human rights abuses whatever for which a resolution should be presented. Our demand is simple, we want the DPRK to be treated equally with other countries, this is a matter of principle we can never give up. It is from this principle’s position that the DPRK participated in the 50th session in the committee for the rights of the child in January this year which considered the DPRK’s report on the implementation on the convention of the rights of the child and we also submitted a national report for the universal period review to be held at the United Nations hr council this coming December, we will continue to participate in activities of the UN’s humans rights bodies treating all countries on a equal basis but we will continue to reject any attempt to single out the DPRK for their sinister political purposes. It is a big mistake if certain countries expect any change from the DPRK through that pressure. The more agitation and pressure on the DPRK, the stronger out people’s unity will be to consolidate and develop the ideal system for the promotion and protection of human rights.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
UN: Afghanistan elections were fraudulent. The system works!
So the United Nations was in a bit of a bind because of the Afghanistan elections. The world body had fired its #2 representative Peter Galbraith for observing that the Afghan elections were wildly fraudulent.
And then yesterday, the UN-backed Election Complaints Commission announced that, yes, the elections were wildly fraudulent. Because of the massive delays, however, the runoff election won't be held until Nov. 7, which is winter in Afghanistan. This makes the runoff election an even greater logistical nightmare than the first round was.
How does the UN spin this? Let's hear it from the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon himself:
So the basic argument is this: we caught the fraud, so it's all good! A very clever job of spinning a complete system failure into a system success.
The SG went on to explain that the UN's role this time will be similar to the first round, and that the organization won't take Galbraith's advice and close polling stations in Taliban-run areas where basically all the votes from Aug. 23 were faked because security conditions rendered it impossible for real people to vote.
On the plus side, if there's fraud this time, the UN will be around to observe that it happened.
And then yesterday, the UN-backed Election Complaints Commission announced that, yes, the elections were wildly fraudulent. Because of the massive delays, however, the runoff election won't be held until Nov. 7, which is winter in Afghanistan. This makes the runoff election an even greater logistical nightmare than the first round was.
How does the UN spin this? Let's hear it from the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon himself:
The important thing is, even though unfortunately fraudulence, widespread fraud has taken place, the measures we put in place had worked. We detected the fraud and we reported this fraud to the Security Council. ... Now, all these measures will be put in place again so that the mechanisms and measures will continue to work and function properly, so that we will prevent any further fraudulent practices and irregularities.
So the basic argument is this: we caught the fraud, so it's all good! A very clever job of spinning a complete system failure into a system success.
The SG went on to explain that the UN's role this time will be similar to the first round, and that the organization won't take Galbraith's advice and close polling stations in Taliban-run areas where basically all the votes from Aug. 23 were faked because security conditions rendered it impossible for real people to vote.
On the plus side, if there's fraud this time, the UN will be around to observe that it happened.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Week 6 results
Ouch, the magic is gone.
BENGALS over texans
PACKERS over lions
VIKINGS over ravens
SAINTS over giants
STEELERS over browns
panthers over BUCCANEERS
REDSKINS over chiefs
JAGUARS over rams
SEAHAWKS over cardinals
eagles over RAIDERS
PATRIOTS over titans
JETS over bills
bears over FALCONS
CHARGERS over broncos
This week: 7-7
Season: 63-27
vs. ESPN experts
BENGALS over texans
PACKERS over lions
VIKINGS over ravens
SAINTS over giants
STEELERS over browns
panthers over BUCCANEERS
REDSKINS over chiefs
JAGUARS over rams
SEAHAWKS over cardinals
eagles over RAIDERS
PATRIOTS over titans
JETS over bills
bears over FALCONS
CHARGERS over broncos
This week: 7-7
Season: 63-27
vs. ESPN experts
Friday, October 16, 2009
Week 6 NFL picks
Okay, last week sucked. Let's see if I can do better this time around. As always, home team in CAPS.
BENGALS over texans
PACKERS over lions
VIKINGS over ravens
SAINTS over giants
STEELERS over browns
panthers over BUCCANEERS
REDSKINS over chiefs
JAGUARS over rams
SEAHAWKS over cardinals
eagles over RAIDERS
PATRIOTS over titans
JETS over bills
bears over FALCONS
CHARGERS over broncos
Last week: 8-6
Season: 56-20
vs. ESPN experts
BENGALS over texans
PACKERS over lions
VIKINGS over ravens
SAINTS over giants
STEELERS over browns
panthers over BUCCANEERS
REDSKINS over chiefs
JAGUARS over rams
SEAHAWKS over cardinals
eagles over RAIDERS
PATRIOTS over titans
JETS over bills
bears over FALCONS
CHARGERS over broncos
Last week: 8-6
Season: 56-20
vs. ESPN experts
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Kosovars break into UN
Breaking news! Or should I say, break-in news.
Members of the Kosovar delegation managed to sneak into the UN today with another delegation's UN passes, according to Security Council diplomats.
Russian Ambassador Vitaly I. Churkin called emergency Security Council consultations ahead of this afternoon's regular Council debate on Kosovo to discuss the issue. According to a statement Churkin read later in the chamber, the Kosovars went to the General Assembly hall and other places in the building and had bilateral contacts, all in violation of Resolution 1244.
Needless to say, the Kosovar Foreign Minister did not mention the incident in his statement to the Council today.
Members of the Kosovar delegation managed to sneak into the UN today with another delegation's UN passes, according to Security Council diplomats.
Russian Ambassador Vitaly I. Churkin called emergency Security Council consultations ahead of this afternoon's regular Council debate on Kosovo to discuss the issue. According to a statement Churkin read later in the chamber, the Kosovars went to the General Assembly hall and other places in the building and had bilateral contacts, all in violation of Resolution 1244.
Needless to say, the Kosovar Foreign Minister did not mention the incident in his statement to the Council today.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
ah, high school football announcers
I was one once. Check out the call for this unbelievable conclusion to a high school football game in Michigan.
Live blogging the Security Council's debate on the Goldstone report
Another endless Security Council debate has broken out about Israel/Palestine, specifically about this Goldstone report about Israeli actions in Gaza last January and human rights violations there.
10:03am: Aaaand here we go! By the way, I should mention off the top that all the diplomats on the way in told us flat out that nothing would come out of this meeting and half of them see no point in having it at all. Nonetheless, over a quarter of the General Assembly's membership has shown up to speak their minds.
10:45am: The Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Al-Malki just yakked away for about 20 minutes. The Arab delegations, not to stereotype, loooove dramatic speeches. "The Izzzgggrraeli war machine rampaged through Gaza, destroying the innocent lives of helpless women, children, and babies..." etc.
10:58am: Israeli Ambassador Gabriela Shalev, with her VERY strong accent and possible lisp (her r's sound like w's), makes "Iranian" and "Uranium" sound like the same word. She says the real threat is not Israel but "the Khkhkhkhamas" and "the Khkhkhkhkhkhkhkhkhezbollah." (Note: This is a sound that most Americans only make when gargling.) She makes the point that this urgent meeting was called by Libya, "that champion of human rights, who recently gave a hero's welcome to an arch-terrorist" and whose leader called the Security Council the "Terror Council." Added the Ambassador, invoking Macbeth, "Debating the Goldstone Report in the Security Council is but a tale of sound and fury, signifying nothing." (Those of us who have read Macbeth and know the whole quote immediately wondered, is she calling the Security Council an idiot?)
At this moment, I feel great solidarity with my Jewish ancestry. Only the Jews are sarcastic even in Security Council speeches. Some days, I love my job.
11:16am: Remember what I said about the Arab delegations loving dramatic speeches? Here's the Libyan Ambassador holding forth: "They cannot sail on seas of blood. They cannot mask the destruction that has been perpetrated. They cannot hide behind the illegal, racist Apartheid Wall of Separation."
11:27 a.m. Four speeches in, out of 44, the open meeting has already lasted nearly an hour and a half. And we haven't even gotten to noted filibusterers Iran, Syria, and the Arab League Foreign Minister. The Ambassador of Mexico is speaking now.
Coworker: "His translator sounds exactly like George Clooney."
Me: "Maybe George Clooney is prepping to star in The Interpreter 2."
12:03pm: The 15 members of the Security Council are now laboriously plowing through their speeches. After them, some two dozen concerned countries will have all afternoon to give speeches. With all due respect, does it really matter what Costa Rica or Uganda thinks?
12:07pm: My coworker calls this the "pox on both your houses" part of the proceedings, where member states call on both sides to do all sorts of things that everyone knows they won't do, like treating the other side with decency.
1:17pm: Halftime. Lunch break. Did I mention we're still got nearly 30 speakers to go? Including Iran, Syria, Sudan, Jordan, the UN's committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and the Arab League representative? Man, I might not even make it to the 9pm start of Quiz Night at the Baker Street Pub at this rate.
1:58pm: Lunch eaten, I'm struck by the idea that the interpreters should be replaced by the voiceover guys for movie previews. Just picture the Disney guy. "The Middle East! Featuring all your favorite characters... Syria! Lebanon! Israel! Hamas!" Or, perhaps, the action movie guy: "In a world of constant violence... one man will learn the truth. And that man is... Goldstone."
I, for one, think this would be hilarious. And isn't that the point of open Security Council debates on the Middle East?
2:10pm: Here we go, the UN's documents counter (and yes, the UN produces so many documents it requires a counter and a full team of people handling requests to distribute them all) has provided a text of the Israeli and Palestinian speeches. You thought I was exaggerating about Al-Malki's speech. No, here's the actual relevant passages:
And so forth. The problem with this is, of course, that the typical UN observer then builds up a tolerance to rhetoric. It's the boy who cried wolf parable. Certainly anyone who has ever dealt with the North Koreans has learned to brush away run-of-the-mill threats such as "this is a declaration of war!" or "we will crush our enemies mercilessly!" If the North actually did treat something as a declaration of war, it would be a huge surprise. Likewise, the Palestinians have bemoaned Israeli aggression" so many times that when the Israelis are actually aggressive, everyone pooh-poohs it away.
3:01pm: Aaand we're back!
3:15pm: Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz of Egypt is now speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. To put it mildly, the NAM does not have a cordial relationship with Israel. Former Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman once asked, "What does the Non-Aligned Movement even mean anymore?" and he had a point. Not surprisingly, the NAM condemns Operation Cast Lead and the ongoing blockade of Gaza. The NAM calls on the Security Council "to pronounce itself and to take a clear position and serious actions regarding Israel's violations in the occupied East Jerusalem." The NAM is also concerned about violations of Security Council resolution 1701 on Lebanon... by Israel. Hezbollah's violations aren't mentioned. Ditto the Syrian Golan. Most improbably, the NAM "urges the Security Council to seriously consider and act upon the recommendations directed to it" by the Goldstone Report.
3:38pm: I just realized that the Permanent Observer of the Arab League's first name is Yahya. I think that sums up how this day has gone.
4:07pm: It's rather galling to hear the Ambassador of Sudan accuse the Israelis of violating international law and committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.
4:42pm: The Pakistani Ambassador is speaking now, and the delegate who is sitting next to him is chatting surreptitously on his cell phone.
5:35am: Iran has arrived! And they're not pulling any punches.
Unlike most states, Iran doesn't think Goldstone went far enough, calling it "late" and only a "partial" account of what happened. Iran also feels that if the Security Council doesn't follow up on the Goldstone Report, the Council is worthless:
Disappointing the expectations of many, myself included, who thought they would hold forth for half an hour or more, the Iranian Ambassador concluded his remarks in a mere 8 minutes.
6:11pm: Aaaah! More countries have arrived to speak! Though not on the list of speakers, Norway and the Maldives have both been given the floor. The meeting has been going for six and a half hours now. How much more can the delegates endure?
6:13pm: And now Sri Lanka! Really, Sri Lanka, is this necessary? Talking about having "consistently supported a peaceful settlement" is a little hypocritical, given how the Sinhalese government of Sri Lanka slaughtered a thousand of its own citizens a day for almost a month in crushing the Tamil rebellion earlier this year.
6:26pm: Oh noooooo. The Venezuelans are holding forth! Is there no end to the madness? My life! My sweet sweet life!
6:27pm: Venezuela, which has already cut off relations with Israel, announces that it is going to keep them cut. So there!
6:28pm: At this point, I'll quote the full Macbeth passage, which is becoming increasingly relevant:
6:29pm: DONE!!! AT LAST!!! Goodnight.
10:03am: Aaaand here we go! By the way, I should mention off the top that all the diplomats on the way in told us flat out that nothing would come out of this meeting and half of them see no point in having it at all. Nonetheless, over a quarter of the General Assembly's membership has shown up to speak their minds.
10:45am: The Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Al-Malki just yakked away for about 20 minutes. The Arab delegations, not to stereotype, loooove dramatic speeches. "The Izzzgggrraeli war machine rampaged through Gaza, destroying the innocent lives of helpless women, children, and babies..." etc.
10:58am: Israeli Ambassador Gabriela Shalev, with her VERY strong accent and possible lisp (her r's sound like w's), makes "Iranian" and "Uranium" sound like the same word. She says the real threat is not Israel but "the Khkhkhkhamas" and "the Khkhkhkhkhkhkhkhkhezbollah." (Note: This is a sound that most Americans only make when gargling.) She makes the point that this urgent meeting was called by Libya, "that champion of human rights, who recently gave a hero's welcome to an arch-terrorist" and whose leader called the Security Council the "Terror Council." Added the Ambassador, invoking Macbeth, "Debating the Goldstone Report in the Security Council is but a tale of sound and fury, signifying nothing." (Those of us who have read Macbeth and know the whole quote immediately wondered, is she calling the Security Council an idiot?)
At this moment, I feel great solidarity with my Jewish ancestry. Only the Jews are sarcastic even in Security Council speeches. Some days, I love my job.
11:16am: Remember what I said about the Arab delegations loving dramatic speeches? Here's the Libyan Ambassador holding forth: "They cannot sail on seas of blood. They cannot mask the destruction that has been perpetrated. They cannot hide behind the illegal, racist Apartheid Wall of Separation."
11:27 a.m. Four speeches in, out of 44, the open meeting has already lasted nearly an hour and a half. And we haven't even gotten to noted filibusterers Iran, Syria, and the Arab League Foreign Minister. The Ambassador of Mexico is speaking now.
Coworker: "His translator sounds exactly like George Clooney."
Me: "Maybe George Clooney is prepping to star in The Interpreter 2."
12:03pm: The 15 members of the Security Council are now laboriously plowing through their speeches. After them, some two dozen concerned countries will have all afternoon to give speeches. With all due respect, does it really matter what Costa Rica or Uganda thinks?
12:07pm: My coworker calls this the "pox on both your houses" part of the proceedings, where member states call on both sides to do all sorts of things that everyone knows they won't do, like treating the other side with decency.
1:17pm: Halftime. Lunch break. Did I mention we're still got nearly 30 speakers to go? Including Iran, Syria, Sudan, Jordan, the UN's committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and the Arab League representative? Man, I might not even make it to the 9pm start of Quiz Night at the Baker Street Pub at this rate.
1:58pm: Lunch eaten, I'm struck by the idea that the interpreters should be replaced by the voiceover guys for movie previews. Just picture the Disney guy. "The Middle East! Featuring all your favorite characters... Syria! Lebanon! Israel! Hamas!" Or, perhaps, the action movie guy: "In a world of constant violence... one man will learn the truth. And that man is... Goldstone."
I, for one, think this would be hilarious. And isn't that the point of open Security Council debates on the Middle East?
2:10pm: Here we go, the UN's documents counter (and yes, the UN produces so many documents it requires a counter and a full team of people handling requests to distribute them all) has provided a text of the Israeli and Palestinian speeches. You thought I was exaggerating about Al-Malki's speech. No, here's the actual relevant passages:
We are all too aware of the tragic consequences of the savage Israeli military aggression launched on 27 December 2008 against the defenseless Palestinian civilian population, of whom more than 1,400, including hundreds of innocent children and women, were brutally killed and more than 5,500 were injured, many permanently, as the occupying forced rampaged through Gaza, using all means of heavy and lethal weaponry and exhibiting a callous disregard for human life. ...
The occupying Power's colonization measures and the lawless acts of terror, violence and provocation of its settlers in the City are inflaming tensions and threaten combustion of the already fragile, precarious situation on the ground. ... The occupying Power continues to construct and expand settlements, settlement infrastructre and the Wall. ...
And so forth. The problem with this is, of course, that the typical UN observer then builds up a tolerance to rhetoric. It's the boy who cried wolf parable. Certainly anyone who has ever dealt with the North Koreans has learned to brush away run-of-the-mill threats such as "this is a declaration of war!" or "we will crush our enemies mercilessly!" If the North actually did treat something as a declaration of war, it would be a huge surprise. Likewise, the Palestinians have bemoaned Israeli aggression" so many times that when the Israelis are actually aggressive, everyone pooh-poohs it away.
3:01pm: Aaand we're back!
3:15pm: Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz of Egypt is now speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. To put it mildly, the NAM does not have a cordial relationship with Israel. Former Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman once asked, "What does the Non-Aligned Movement even mean anymore?" and he had a point. Not surprisingly, the NAM condemns Operation Cast Lead and the ongoing blockade of Gaza. The NAM calls on the Security Council "to pronounce itself and to take a clear position and serious actions regarding Israel's violations in the occupied East Jerusalem." The NAM is also concerned about violations of Security Council resolution 1701 on Lebanon... by Israel. Hezbollah's violations aren't mentioned. Ditto the Syrian Golan. Most improbably, the NAM "urges the Security Council to seriously consider and act upon the recommendations directed to it" by the Goldstone Report.
3:38pm: I just realized that the Permanent Observer of the Arab League's first name is Yahya. I think that sums up how this day has gone.
4:07pm: It's rather galling to hear the Ambassador of Sudan accuse the Israelis of violating international law and committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.
4:42pm: The Pakistani Ambassador is speaking now, and the delegate who is sitting next to him is chatting surreptitously on his cell phone.
5:35am: Iran has arrived! And they're not pulling any punches.
The Zionist war machine inflicted this tragedy in the Gaza Strip which resulted in the strangulation and slaughter of the innocent people of Gaza, especially the women and children, for 20 consecutive days. The Zionist regime who knows nothing about respect for humanity and human rights, also targeted every and each human being, also targeted every and each human beings, every house and every infrastructure in the Gaza strip, and resorted to unimaginable criminal acts such as bombardment of innocent children and women sheltering the UN-declared-safe buildings.
Unlike most states, Iran doesn't think Goldstone went far enough, calling it "late" and only a "partial" account of what happened. Iran also feels that if the Security Council doesn't follow up on the Goldstone Report, the Council is worthless:
It is expected that the Security Council, in line with its responsibilities to uphold international peace and security take full account of the recommendations of the Goldstone report. We consider this meeting as a true test of the Council's credibility and reliability and sincerely hope to see it moving in the right direction. Otherwise we should not expect the world, especially the victims of such heinous crimes in Gaza ... to keep hoping in the UN and other int'l organizations as the best course of their support.
Disappointing the expectations of many, myself included, who thought they would hold forth for half an hour or more, the Iranian Ambassador concluded his remarks in a mere 8 minutes.
6:11pm: Aaaah! More countries have arrived to speak! Though not on the list of speakers, Norway and the Maldives have both been given the floor. The meeting has been going for six and a half hours now. How much more can the delegates endure?
6:13pm: And now Sri Lanka! Really, Sri Lanka, is this necessary? Talking about having "consistently supported a peaceful settlement" is a little hypocritical, given how the Sinhalese government of Sri Lanka slaughtered a thousand of its own citizens a day for almost a month in crushing the Tamil rebellion earlier this year.
6:26pm: Oh noooooo. The Venezuelans are holding forth! Is there no end to the madness? My life! My sweet sweet life!
6:27pm: Venezuela, which has already cut off relations with Israel, announces that it is going to keep them cut. So there!
6:28pm: At this point, I'll quote the full Macbeth passage, which is becoming increasingly relevant:
Macbeth:
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–28
6:29pm: DONE!!! AT LAST!!! Goodnight.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Boxer supports Galbraith
Senator Barbara Boxer, visiting the UN today, was asked by a reporter what she thought of Peter Galbraith's dismissal as UNAMA's #2. Boxer: "I feel it's a very sad day when someone is dismissed for telling the truth."
Ouch.
Ouch.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
good throwback, bad throwback
The Good: Rams go old school vs. the Vikings. Doesn't help them win, but it does help them look good.
The Not So Good: Broncos go old school with the striped socks. Yeek.
The Not So Good: Broncos go old school with the striped socks. Yeek.
Week 5 results
correct in bold
BILLS over browns
cowboys over CHIEFS
vikings over RAMS
GIANTS over raiders
EAGLES over buccaneers
steelers over LIONS
PANTHERS over redskins
RAVENS over bengals
49ERS over falcons
jaguars over SEAHAWKS
CARDINALS over texans
patriots over BRONCOS
colts over TITANS
jets over DOLPHINS
This week: 8-6
Last week: 11-3
Season: 56-20
vs. ESPN experts
BILLS over browns
cowboys over CHIEFS
vikings over RAMS
GIANTS over raiders
EAGLES over buccaneers
steelers over LIONS
PANTHERS over redskins
RAVENS over bengals
49ERS over falcons
jaguars over SEAHAWKS
CARDINALS over texans
patriots over BRONCOS
colts over TITANS
jets over DOLPHINS
This week: 8-6
Last week: 11-3
Season: 56-20
vs. ESPN experts
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Somalia and the death of Responsibility To Protect
From the SG's report on Somalia yesterday:
So, I'm supposed to be brimming with confidence for the TFG to govern and secure Somalia. And why? Because after their Minister of Security was assassinated, they named a new one. And they formed a commission to discuss security.
My cup runneth over.
The Transitional Federal Government of Somalia continued efforts to consolidate its authority. ... On 23 July, the Government created a commission for security and pacification of the country. ... On the same day, it announced the appointment of Abdullahi Mohamed Alim as Minister of National Security, to replace the assassinated Omar Hashi Adan.
So, I'm supposed to be brimming with confidence for the TFG to govern and secure Somalia. And why? Because after their Minister of Security was assassinated, they named a new one. And they formed a commission to discuss security.
My cup runneth over.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Week 5 NFL picks
BILLS over browns
cowboys over CHIEFS
vikings over RAMS
GIANTS over raiders
EAGLES over buccaneers
steelers over LIONS
PANTHERS over redskins
RAVENS over bengals
49ERS over falcons
jaguars over SEAHAWKS
CARDINALS over texans
patriots over BRONCOS
colts over TITANS
jets over DOLPHINS
This week: 11-3
Season: 48-14
vs. ESPN experts
cowboys over CHIEFS
vikings over RAMS
GIANTS over raiders
EAGLES over buccaneers
steelers over LIONS
PANTHERS over redskins
RAVENS over bengals
49ERS over falcons
jaguars over SEAHAWKS
CARDINALS over texans
patriots over BRONCOS
colts over TITANS
jets over DOLPHINS
This week: 11-3
Season: 48-14
vs. ESPN experts
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
COIN Critics Circle
So the Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece about how Obama's civilian leaders and his top military people are reading different Vietnam books. Obama et al are reading Lessons In Disaster, about the terrible and tragic decision-making that led to the escalation of troops in Vietnam in 1965. The military brass are reading "A Better War," which claims the US had finally figured out how to win the war in 1972 and should have stayed.
There are many things that bother me about this article, but the biggest is that it likens the military brass's decision to the rationale behind the surge in Iraq. But in fact, it's the opposite. The reason violence went down in Iraq was because the US bought off the Sunnis, who were the backbone of the insurgency, and turned them against al Qaeda in Iraq in exchange for guns and money. That's pretty much what the Biden camp is proposing for Afghanistan, to separate the Pashtun footsoldiers of the Taliban from the extremist elements of al Qaeda. But the Sunnis had two reasons for coming around to the US side.
1. They didn't like the foreigners in AQI running things and inflicting massive collateral damage on Sunnis.
2. More importantly, the Shiites were slaughtering them. 2006 was a civil war in Iraq, and the Sunnis lost. They faced annihilation and political oblivion if the US hadn't stepped in and agreed to keep the sides at arms' length in exchange for an ending of the insurgency.
Never mind that Iraq is a far cry from a stable, functioning democratic government and probably will be for decades. If we even want Afghanistan to be at the point Iraq is today, the only real lesson of Iraq is to let the Northern Alliance tribes begin slaughtering Pashtuns indiscriminately... and then try to buy off the Taliban when they're desperate.
All in favor of that plan, raise your hands. No hands? Thought not.
There are many things that bother me about this article, but the biggest is that it likens the military brass's decision to the rationale behind the surge in Iraq. But in fact, it's the opposite. The reason violence went down in Iraq was because the US bought off the Sunnis, who were the backbone of the insurgency, and turned them against al Qaeda in Iraq in exchange for guns and money. That's pretty much what the Biden camp is proposing for Afghanistan, to separate the Pashtun footsoldiers of the Taliban from the extremist elements of al Qaeda. But the Sunnis had two reasons for coming around to the US side.
1. They didn't like the foreigners in AQI running things and inflicting massive collateral damage on Sunnis.
2. More importantly, the Shiites were slaughtering them. 2006 was a civil war in Iraq, and the Sunnis lost. They faced annihilation and political oblivion if the US hadn't stepped in and agreed to keep the sides at arms' length in exchange for an ending of the insurgency.
Never mind that Iraq is a far cry from a stable, functioning democratic government and probably will be for decades. If we even want Afghanistan to be at the point Iraq is today, the only real lesson of Iraq is to let the Northern Alliance tribes begin slaughtering Pashtuns indiscriminately... and then try to buy off the Taliban when they're desperate.
All in favor of that plan, raise your hands. No hands? Thought not.
Twins beat Tigers
6-5 in 12 innings. What a game!
I always root for the Twins because of their ludicrously low payroll. Minnesota's $67 million 2009 payroll is 23rd in the majors, and while that sounds like a lot of money, it's barely half that of the Tigers team they defeated tonight ($119 million), and a third that of the Yankees team they're about to face ($208 million) in the first round. Heck, New York's top three income-getters (A-Rod, Jeter and Teixera) alone make more than the entire Twins' roster.
Still, I felt bad for the Tigers, if only because they're from Detroit, where housing values have tumbled to $11,000 and the football team has lost 20 of its last 21. If any city needed a winner, it was the Motor City.
I always root for the Twins because of their ludicrously low payroll. Minnesota's $67 million 2009 payroll is 23rd in the majors, and while that sounds like a lot of money, it's barely half that of the Tigers team they defeated tonight ($119 million), and a third that of the Yankees team they're about to face ($208 million) in the first round. Heck, New York's top three income-getters (A-Rod, Jeter and Teixera) alone make more than the entire Twins' roster.
Still, I felt bad for the Tigers, if only because they're from Detroit, where housing values have tumbled to $11,000 and the football team has lost 20 of its last 21. If any city needed a winner, it was the Motor City.
Majority of Americans would support attacking Iran
A new and alarming poll has 61% of Americans supporting a military strike to stop Iran's nuclear programme.
Nearly two thirds of Americans support negotiations with Iran but a similar number say they won't work. Only 24% of Americans believe military conflict should be avoided even if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon as a result.
I want to know more, however, about how this question was asked. For example, if I was told that a military strike would knock out Iran's nuclear programme, end of story, I would feel very differently than if I was told what would actually happen, which is that a strike would delay Iran by a year or two at most and give it an excuse to withdraw from the IAEA and the NPT and fast-track its nuclear weapons programme in secret. If Americans were told, for example, that the only way to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon militarily was to launch a massive invasion of a country more powerful and populous than Afghanistan and Iraq combined, I think (hope?) support would be rather low for something like that.
Nearly two thirds of Americans support negotiations with Iran but a similar number say they won't work. Only 24% of Americans believe military conflict should be avoided even if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon as a result.
I want to know more, however, about how this question was asked. For example, if I was told that a military strike would knock out Iran's nuclear programme, end of story, I would feel very differently than if I was told what would actually happen, which is that a strike would delay Iran by a year or two at most and give it an excuse to withdraw from the IAEA and the NPT and fast-track its nuclear weapons programme in secret. If Americans were told, for example, that the only way to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon militarily was to launch a massive invasion of a country more powerful and populous than Afghanistan and Iraq combined, I think (hope?) support would be rather low for something like that.
Monday, October 5, 2009
define "most livable"
The UN has released its Human Development Index today, ranking countries by liveability according to a complex equation. Naturally, the Scandinavian countries rule, with Norway being #1 and Iceland being #3. Since 1990, the top spot has been occupied by Japan, Canada, Iceland or Norway every year. This year's list is based on 2007 data, so the financial crisis which disproportionately leveled Iceland's economy isn't factored in. Check out the full list here.Several countries are missing from the UNDP's list, including Iraq and Zimbabwe. I suppose it's difficult to calculate the economic well-being of a country when it has multi-million percent inflation per annum, as Zimbabwe suffered in the past couple of years. (See the absurd banknote pictured above.) Other countries' profiles on this list have been overtaken by events. For example, Georgia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka all had sizable improvements in their HDI index, but all took a serious humanitarian turn for the worse in the past year.
All told though, it's hard to gauge how accurately this index fits real life. Conflict, for example, doesn't seem to be factored in as much as it ought to be. Is it really worse to live in Niger, with low-level insurgencies scattered about, than it is to live in Afghanistan, which has been in a state of open war for most of the past 30 years? Or Democratic Republic of Congo, which has hosted the deadliest war in the world since 1996?
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Week 4 results
Correct in Bold.
* = yet to be played
BEARS over lions
COLTS over seahawks
REDSKINS over buccaneers
TEXANS over raiders
giants over CHIEFS
PATRIOTS over ravens
bengals over BROWNS
titans over JAGUARS
DOLPHINS over bills
SAINTS over jets
cowboys over BRONCOS
49ERS over rams
STEELERS over chargers
packers over VIKINGS
This week: 11-3
Last week: 13-3
Season: 48-14
vs. ESPN experts
* = yet to be played
BEARS over lions
COLTS over seahawks
REDSKINS over buccaneers
TEXANS over raiders
giants over CHIEFS
PATRIOTS over ravens
bengals over BROWNS
titans over JAGUARS
DOLPHINS over bills
SAINTS over jets
cowboys over BRONCOS
49ERS over rams
STEELERS over chargers
packers over VIKINGS
This week: 11-3
Last week: 13-3
Season: 48-14
vs. ESPN experts
Friday, October 2, 2009
Busted Tees takes on Save Darfur
Next time you go to a Darfur protest where nobody knows what they're talking about, be sure to wear this.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Iran: We have no undeclared nuclear sites
NEW YORK - Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, speaking at a news conference at the United Nations Headquarters in New York today, stated that "whatever Iran has at its nuclear sites has been announced to the IAEA, and the only case that is under construction is Qom and we also announced that."
Mottaki had earlier ducked the question, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not answer it either when asked during his own press conference in New York last week.
Mottaki thanked the major powers for showing more flexibility for having negotiations with Iran this year than last. "Fortunately the 5+1 [5 permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany] this year unlike the years before has not reached a hasty judgment about Iran's proposed package, and the response by the members of the 5+1 was relatively different from their response they gave last year." He denied that Iran's right to enrich was a topic of discussion at today's meetings of the major powers with Iran in Geneva.
The Foreign Minister said talks would continue, and expressed Iran's willingness to raise the level of participation "up to the level of a summit meeting."
Mottaki also referred to the disputed June elections in Iran as "dynamic" and "one of the most glorious presidential elections," claiming turnout much higher than European elections. Regarding the subsequent mass protests, Mottaki declared, "they asked the question, what happened to our votes? When we provided very clear answer, they were convinced."
The Iranians also refused to take a question from an Israeli reporter, cutting him off to call on a Dubai reporter instead.
Mottaki had earlier ducked the question, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not answer it either when asked during his own press conference in New York last week.
Mottaki thanked the major powers for showing more flexibility for having negotiations with Iran this year than last. "Fortunately the 5+1 [5 permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany] this year unlike the years before has not reached a hasty judgment about Iran's proposed package, and the response by the members of the 5+1 was relatively different from their response they gave last year." He denied that Iran's right to enrich was a topic of discussion at today's meetings of the major powers with Iran in Geneva.
The Foreign Minister said talks would continue, and expressed Iran's willingness to raise the level of participation "up to the level of a summit meeting."
Mottaki also referred to the disputed June elections in Iran as "dynamic" and "one of the most glorious presidential elections," claiming turnout much higher than European elections. Regarding the subsequent mass protests, Mottaki declared, "they asked the question, what happened to our votes? When we provided very clear answer, they were convinced."
The Iranians also refused to take a question from an Israeli reporter, cutting him off to call on a Dubai reporter instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)