So after all these years, the African National Conference (ANC) is splitting. The defectors clearly want to delineate themselves from the existing party. And what does that entail? Well, for starters, creating a new and distinct name that will make it clear that you're an independent party.
Good thing, then, that they've apparently decided on the South African National Congress (SANC). Very distincting from the ANC, right? Well done. Good going, guys.
Friday, October 31, 2008
NFL Picks
Here we go again. Gotta pick my Colts, with great trepidation, just 'cos they have to win this game or their season is basically over. Bob Sanders could be back. Who knows what might happen?
Other thoughts: The Jets look peculiarly unimpressive, losing at Oakland and having to rally to beat Kansas City. Speaking of KC, the Tampa game has trap written all over it, a team that just lost a physical game going to Arrowhead to play a team that's purportedly no good but came darn near beating a playoff contender on the road last week. Still, I'm sticking with Tampa. The picks here that I have no confidence on whatsoever are Arizona at St. Louis and Minnesota over Houston. These are both toss-up games and I'm picking them basically on hunch. Also, the Redskins-Steelers game, where I have to go with Washington because Pittsburgh's offensive line has been so terrible, but we could easily see the Skins lay a turnover-filled egg like they did against the Rams a couple weeks back. I think Pitt will have to work harder to win this game than Washington will, and it's in DC, so I have to pick the Redskins. Still, though, this is a very unpredictable week after a very predictable last couple of weeks, and it makes me queasy. I'm just grateful I'm not picking against the spread. (That'll be next year, folks.)
Week 9: √
BILLS over jets
BEARS over lions
jaguars over BENGALS
BROWNS over ravens
TITANS over packers
cardinals over RAMS
VIKINGS over texans
bucs over CHIEFS
BRONCOS over dolphins
falcons over RAIDERS
GIANTS over cowboys
eagles over SEAHAWKS
COLTS over patriots
REDSKINS over Steelers
Last week: 10-4
Season: 73-43 62.9%
Other thoughts: The Jets look peculiarly unimpressive, losing at Oakland and having to rally to beat Kansas City. Speaking of KC, the Tampa game has trap written all over it, a team that just lost a physical game going to Arrowhead to play a team that's purportedly no good but came darn near beating a playoff contender on the road last week. Still, I'm sticking with Tampa. The picks here that I have no confidence on whatsoever are Arizona at St. Louis and Minnesota over Houston. These are both toss-up games and I'm picking them basically on hunch. Also, the Redskins-Steelers game, where I have to go with Washington because Pittsburgh's offensive line has been so terrible, but we could easily see the Skins lay a turnover-filled egg like they did against the Rams a couple weeks back. I think Pitt will have to work harder to win this game than Washington will, and it's in DC, so I have to pick the Redskins. Still, though, this is a very unpredictable week after a very predictable last couple of weeks, and it makes me queasy. I'm just grateful I'm not picking against the spread. (That'll be next year, folks.)
Week 9: √
BILLS over jets
BEARS over lions
jaguars over BENGALS
BROWNS over ravens
TITANS over packers
cardinals over RAMS
VIKINGS over texans
bucs over CHIEFS
BRONCOS over dolphins
falcons over RAIDERS
GIANTS over cowboys
eagles over SEAHAWKS
COLTS over patriots
REDSKINS over Steelers
Last week: 10-4
Season: 73-43 62.9%
why the US raid on Syria is a bad idea
Fred Kaplan on why the Syria raid -- and the Pakistani ones, for the same reasons -- was incredibly stupid and shortsighted.
Like I've been saying over on the podcast I take part in, spreading an active conflict into neighboring countries is almost always a bad idea. It either destabilizes those countries, inflames nationalism in them, or both. Also, in the case of the United States, it increases anti-Americanism and undermines our regional goals.
Sovereignty! Live it!
Like I've been saying over on the podcast I take part in, spreading an active conflict into neighboring countries is almost always a bad idea. It either destabilizes those countries, inflames nationalism in them, or both. Also, in the case of the United States, it increases anti-Americanism and undermines our regional goals.
Sovereignty! Live it!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
English speakers: George Bush, you are forgiven
You would think that the Chairman of the UN General Assembly's Disarmament and International Security Committee would know not to repeatedly refer to "nukular weapons."
You would be wrong.
You would be wrong.
more evidence that North Kivu is the worst place on Earth
Renegade general Laurent Nkunda's rebels have attacked government forces in Eastern Congo. UN forces, seeking to protect civilians, have basically taken the side of the government in this war, but seem to be unable to defeat or even contain Nkunda's militia.
A few thoughts:
First, Congo is one of the very few places where UN forces have taken a side in a civil war, and it's happened twice now. In the 1961, following the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the UN force in Congo used military force to crush the Katanga secessionist bid. (Conspiracy theorists continue to claim that Dag Hammarksjold's plane was shot down because he was acting against the wishes of the Belgian-backed Katanga militia.) And now the MONUC mission has basically taken the side of Kinshasa in fighting the militias in Kivu.
Second thought: Congo is the most intractable conflict on Earth. An oil power-sharing agreement, or some kind of federalized structure, can bring some measure of stability, someday, to Iraq and Sudan. But how do you solve Congo?
Third thought: A friend of mine suggested that countries who have bad p.r. should change their names. Haiti comes to mind. Democratic Republic of Congo is proof that this does not work. If anything, it only makes people long for Zaire, and who ever thought we would long for Zaire?
Fourth thought: This current round of fighting is serious. The UN and Congolese army have been in retreat, and the rebels have been bombing roads where civilians are trying to flee to Goma. But most telling, the UN press corps is actually showing an interest in Congo, where the UN's largest active peacekeeping force is trying to keep some semblance of order.
A few thoughts:
First, Congo is one of the very few places where UN forces have taken a side in a civil war, and it's happened twice now. In the 1961, following the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the UN force in Congo used military force to crush the Katanga secessionist bid. (Conspiracy theorists continue to claim that Dag Hammarksjold's plane was shot down because he was acting against the wishes of the Belgian-backed Katanga militia.) And now the MONUC mission has basically taken the side of Kinshasa in fighting the militias in Kivu.
Second thought: Congo is the most intractable conflict on Earth. An oil power-sharing agreement, or some kind of federalized structure, can bring some measure of stability, someday, to Iraq and Sudan. But how do you solve Congo?
Third thought: A friend of mine suggested that countries who have bad p.r. should change their names. Haiti comes to mind. Democratic Republic of Congo is proof that this does not work. If anything, it only makes people long for Zaire, and who ever thought we would long for Zaire?
Fourth thought: This current round of fighting is serious. The UN and Congolese army have been in retreat, and the rebels have been bombing roads where civilians are trying to flee to Goma. But most telling, the UN press corps is actually showing an interest in Congo, where the UN's largest active peacekeeping force is trying to keep some semblance of order.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
NFL picks
Sorry readers, I've been on jury duty and haven't been up to date. Anyway, here's my picks.
Week 8:
buccaneers over COWBOYS
redskins over LIONS
DOLPHINS over bills
PATRIOTS over rams
chargers over SAINTS
JETS over chiefs
EAGLES over falcons
RAVENS over raiders
PANTHERS over cardinals
JAGUARS over browns
TEXANS over bengals
giants over STEELERS
49ERS over seahawks
TITANS over colts
Last week: 10-4
Season: 63-39
Week 8:
buccaneers over COWBOYS
redskins over LIONS
DOLPHINS over bills
PATRIOTS over rams
chargers over SAINTS
JETS over chiefs
EAGLES over falcons
RAVENS over raiders
PANTHERS over cardinals
JAGUARS over browns
TEXANS over bengals
giants over STEELERS
49ERS over seahawks
TITANS over colts
Last week: 10-4
Season: 63-39
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
undiplomatic Columbia
So yesterday I went to see Russian Amb. Vitaly I. Churkin give a talk at Columbia University. Or, rather, it should have been a talk, but actually wound up being more of a shouting match. I don't think I've ever seen a foreign dignitary get rougher treatment. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was called a "petty dictator" by the President of the University, was more welll-received. Most of the questions Churkin took were nothing of the sort, but rather long-winded and furious statements condemning Russian aggression. On the whole, Churkin handled himself quite well, despite making some dubious statements on, say, the civilian dead in South Ossetia. All in all, people need to understand that the longer your question is, the less credibility you have. People also need to understand that this is an ambassador. Harranguing him does no good and only sours relations. Either treat your guest with respect, or don't invite him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)