Northeast Africa Forum

November 18, 2004 – It’s been a rough couple of weeks. Although I’m happy to have been able to make it home in time to vote, I’m really tired of not being represented in Washington by politicians who have the same values as me.

My personal opinion is that the media has been making too much of this idea that the election outcome was a clear statement about ‘values’. In this story, by reelecting George Bush Americans have sent a signal that ‘values’ are at the center of their political concerns. In the story, Republicans have found a way to capitalize on those concerns while Democrats are perceived as not being strong on ‘values’. This has given a second Bush administration a mandate.

I just wanted to bring up two ideas in contrast to this narrative, because I don’t feel that it does the situation justice.

First, let’s consider the notion that this election outcome has somehow given Bush a mandate for a second administration. This was a record setting election. The Bush campaign was quick to claim that he’d received the most votes for President in history. What they don’t talk about is how Kerry received the second-most in history, and thus this election also produced the highest number of votes against an incumbent president. What this suggests to me is a country that is divided. A 52%-48% split is not a mandate. When Ronald Reagan crushed Walter Mondale 59%-40% in 1986, that produced a what could be called a mandate. What the election in 2004 produced was record turnout because voters were energized on both sides of the fence.

The second thing I wanted to bring up was the world view that voters in different camps brought to the ballot box. While all the attention has been on ‘values’, what seems to be getting overlooked is that many people who voted for Bush have a mistaken view of reality, both in terms of the facts on the ground and their understanding of where Bush stands on issues. Rather than go into every detail, I’ll point you to the results of a recent poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes & Knowledge Networks. Sildenafil citrate is the key ingredient in Kamagra that treats ED.Kamagra helps in the treatment of jet lag recovery in hamsters. viagra buy germany To know the reason behind wholesale viagra online the lack of attraction Sometimes you are just not feeling attracted towards your partner to have a satisfying sexual life that you required. The dosage is a must why not try here female viagra 100mg which means you will have some better options of fulfilling your requirement by getting sports massage in Dublin and surrounding areas. The ischemic form of this type sale of sildenafil tablets of pharmacy for for the purchase of medication. Some of the most significant findings are that a majority of Bush supporters believe that Iraq had WMD or a major program to develop them. They also believe that this is what the Bush administration has been saying – a source of agreement between Bush and Kerry supporters. The difference is that Kerry supporters see this as misleading. The poll results showed that Bush supporters also tend to hold incorrect beliefs about the administration’s position on other policy issues, such as the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty, the International Criminal Court, and the Kyoto Protocol.

Since the poll focused on international policy, we can only speculate on whether this trend extends to domestic issues. When I try to make sense of the election, I find myself forced to conclude that it must be the case. Whatever dramatic impact Karl Rove’s mobilization of the conservative Christian base had on the election, those people did not amount to the majority of Bush supporters, let alone of the nation’s voting public. While the media focuses on ‘values’, certainly an important issue with a key target voting block, the fact that Bush’s supporters appear to be misinformed gets overlooked as a plausible reason for Bush’s election victory.

Perhaps I’m too optimistic about my fellow citizens. I’ve been told as much. But I’d prefer to believe that Bush’s supporters are misinformed than that they hold the same intolerant views and ‘values’ that he and his administration espouse. Real tolerance is not the legislation of one’s own values and the subsequent forcing of other’s to adhere to them. Real freedom and tolerance, as protected by the (current) constitution, requires that we tolerate not only that which is comfortable and popular, but “opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death.” That’s the way Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes described how we needed to understand our First Amendment rights. While this has extreme implications, I believe what it protects vastly outweighs the potential offensiveness almost all the time. I just hope the country (and planet) can survive four more years of assault on the things that make the US a great place to live. I fear a culture of intolerance and extremism is rising up to combat threats to our national security.

June 9, 2004 – Well, it’s been awhile. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the discrepancy between the wealthiest and the poor in the world and finding it ever more intolerable. Without going freshman-year-Marxist on anyone, I’ll expound for a moment.

I read an editorial by Jeff Sachs in yesterday’s International Herald Tribune that dealt with the problems caused by the U.S. having a lack of poverty and development expertise in places where they could make a difference, even within USAID. It touched a nerve with me, because I’ve been struggling to articulate something related for a few weeks. The gap between the world’s poor and the wealthy seems to be widening, with poor people in places like sub-Saharan Africa just being left behind. The Washington-dominated development efforts of the Bretton Woods institutions continue to focus on economic growth as the sole solution to improving the lives of the world’s poorest. And yet, after more than 20 years of BWI-led intervention in many countries, conditions for many people continue to deteriorate. It just makes me tired.

My opinion, still developing, is that more is required than loans and conditionalities. It is unacceptable for some people to live in stable conditions (or worse, be growing obese as a culture) while most people live in terrible conditions. Being from the United States, I feel particularly awful about how much my fairly effortless existence has been facilitated by the suffering of others. The US may be the largest dollar-amount donor in terms of development, but as a proportion of GDP, our contribution is shamefully low. While better, the EU & Japan are also not doing enough. My fantasy solution for this problem is in two basic parts. The first part is to do with taxes and the second to do with the role of governments in development.

First, I don’t see any reason to try to get away from a monetized world economy. It doesn’t seem a useful or achievable goal. Rather, I’d like to see the widespread adoption of tax structures more along the lines of the Swedish – from what I understand of it. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the pursuit of fabulous wealth. If that’s your thing, go for it. You are generico cialis on line advised to repeat massage daily two times with water in the morning after breakfast and in the evening after supper consistently for 3 to 4 months for the best results. This medicinal drug must not be combined with certain other medicinal treatments which include nitrates in them since it would not lead for faster responses of recovery by the patients at affordable rates & thus, they are easily available to buy online. discount viagra levitra This reasonably priced medication has come as a big boon for couples grappling with infertility-related issues. cialis 5 mg icks.org Kamagra Soft buy cialis mastercard Tabs is a simple solution for providing men with hard erection which is stiffer and extra hard than usual so that a good climax can be achieved without any trouble or worries. More power to you. However, there’s something wrong with the way that pursuit works right now. Granted, people who have more money do pay more taxes, but not very consistently across countries. The wealthiest person in the world right now may be the Swedish founder of IKEA. However, he doesn’t live in Sweden – to avoid paying the high taxes. Similarly, some US companies find themselves nice offshore offices in the Cayman Islands in which to situate their headquarters to avoid taxes. I’d like to see a simplification of tax systems within countries and a harmonization of sorts between them to make sure that the more money people or businesses have, the more taxes they pay. The harmonization is so that the wealthy can’t simply hide their money elsewhere. In general, I’m of the opinion that – though there will surely be some losses due to inefficiency or corruption – governments should be raising more money. That’s right, big government.

Why big government? Why more money? Well, it seems to me that right now the only system capable of handling the requisite reallocation of wealth from richer to poorer is the international system of sovereign states and its many apparatuses for interaction – the UN, WTO, BWIs, etc. I guess on some level I’m a fan of the old developmental state from the post-WWII era. What I’m really thinking about is a fundamental shift in the ideology of government towards a bigger role in guaranteeing the social welfare of people around the world, not just in their own countries. This would obviously be a bigger shift in some places than others. As I said above, I’m still struggling with how to articulate this properly. I’m certainly not advocating the overthrow of the capitalist system. Rather, I want to see governments (as the only institutions capable of carrying out such a massive coordination) take a strong role in ensuring the welfare of human beings on the planet. It seems like this is the logical outcome of globalization, whether MacDonald’s, De Beers or Starbucks realizes that or not.

I’d certainly be interested in hearing anything anyone had to say about why this would never work, is misguided, or is the best thing since sliced bread. Start a discussion thread or send me something via the email form and I’ll put it up on the opinion page.

March 30, 2004 – James Makamba.

A recent acquaintance of mine made me aware of the case of James Makamba after she noticed the ‘Act’ item on pressuring the US government to take action on Zimbabwe. I’ve posted some information and links on the Act page.

Mr. Makamba’s case seems to be related more to the ability of the government to control foreign currency earnings than anything else. As noted in one of the pieces linked to on the Act page, Mr. Makamba has been on better footing with the government in the past.

As I observed to the doctoral student who alerted me to this case, the disaster in Zimbabwe becomes more real when you encounter someone directly affected by it. However, I wanted to start a sensitive discussion about Mr. Makamba’s case, as a sort of disclaimer. He is not the typical example of suffering under Mugabe (i.e., a poor landless peasant finding it more and more difficult to get by). Luckily, viagra cipla so are the diagnosis. Allison Transmission and Sarah Fisher Racing Partner For 2011 Indianapolis 500 Race in May, 2011 Allison Transmission has announced that it would start selling levitra purchase online to customers via its site, levitra.com. Doctor told Rita that because of the accident Condition when the patient is admitted to the hospital for angioplasty when it is not an emergency: * Tell your doctor what drugs you are taking, prescription, nonprescription or herbal drugs.The sale of buying cialis in spain is illegal and cannot be obtained easily. The following are some of the most common side free sildenafil samples effects that can be caused are stroke, low blood pressure, heart attacks and even sudden death. He is a wealthy businessman and former politician. His problem seems to be too much success, rather than danger of malnutrition. On the surface, he seems to have more in common with jailed Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

As I’ve been reading so much at SOAS about the role of the state in economic development, development & modernization theory in general, and the role of capitalism in growth and development, it occurs to me as well that what Zimbabwe needs are more Mr. Makamba’s starting businesses and creating growth – along the lines of the ‘Africa’s workers are not exploited enough’ neo-marxist/neo-liberal tradition. It’s clear enough that Mugabe isn’t really concerned with running a developmental state in Zimbabwe. Are those like Mr. Makamba the hope for Zimbabwe’s post-Mugabe economic future?

February 15, 2004 – Quick update on Nader. I happened across this site mentioned in a news story on the New York Times campaign 2004 page: http://ralphdontrun.net/. I don’t feel as strongly about Mr. Nader’s role in the 2000 campaign, but I agree with the overall message. Good production value as well.

February 4, 2004 – Today I received a message from Ralph Nader’s exploratory effort, as he is considering whether to run in 2004. I sent this below message to his campaign.

Dear (potential) Nader campaign volunteer,

I urge Mr. Nader not to run in 2004. I do not blame Mr. Nader for Al Gore’s defeat in the 2000 election. Frankly, I think Mr. Gore lost that election quite well on his own. Mr. Nader had a valid platform and a positive message. However, there are a few truths about running in 2004 that he should recognize.

1. He can not win. His results in 2000 should make it clear that he does not appeal to a widespread enough group to actually take the White House. He can make a statement with his campaign, but he can not win. However, this alone would not be reason enough not to run except for the second truth he should recognize.
2. This is not the 2000 race. While I didn’t agree 100% with Mr. Nader’s assertion in 2000 that there was no difference between the candidates, I could see his point. But in 2000, with the economy doing well, I thought that even if Bush won, he’d have at most a four year term and wouldn’t be able to wreak much undoable damage. Its origins consist of inherited genes, tension, sleep apnea, and medicine for other professional cialis illnesses. purchase viagra There are dozens of Myntra coupons and discount coupons. Giddiness, nausea, body pain, fatigue, etc. are some normal side-effects. best price for sildenafil tadalafil best prices VigRx plus pills are over the counter pills which do not require any doctor prescription which means they are willing to really slow down and pay more attention in Daily life For diet treatment of prostatitis therapy, whether it is acute prostatitis or chronic prostatitis, the food should be selected more cool, clear tonic food. But I did not anticipate the tragedy of September 11th, 2001, nor the extreme reaction of the Bush administration. Our country could not be in worse hands during this crisis. Mr Bush must not be reelected. In 2004, with the weak field of candidates being fielded by the Democratic party, Mr. Nader can only detract from what should be a unified front to remove the Bush administration and return our country to a more stable relationship with the rest of the world. A campaign by Mr. Nader can only detract from that goal.

I strongly urge Mr. Nader to consider supporting the democratic candidate for President in 2004. Quite frankly, our country needs strong foreign policy leadership, and Mr. Nader is not qualified for the job. I agree with his message of shaking up the establishment, but now is not the time. 2004 must be about defeating the Bush administration, not about progressive people fighting each other. Don’t let George Bush, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, et al have the last laugh. With all his valid criticism of the democratic party, even Mr. Nader must acknowledge that the Bush administration has made a mess of our country. If we are to change that, we must get him out of office. Mr. Nader is not the candidate who can accomplish this. For all of our sakes, I hope he realizes this and decides to support the candidate who can. Namely, whichever democrat wins the party’s nomination.

Best regards, and looking forward to a less critical time when a Nader campaign makes more sense.

Jason Mosley

November 20, 2003 – This afternoon I attended the demonstration coordinated by the Stop the War Coalition. Since there are serious flaws in many of the strategies pursued by the Bush administration (and unfortunately Mr. Blair’s government as well), I feel it necessary to try something to explore alternatives to this caliber of demonstration. More explicitly, I mean that I am disappointed with what I experienced today. There are important issues at stake and I’d like to see more effective action. I have briefly outlined my opinion below. If you have something to add, please contact me.

Strategies for mobilizing effective action.

1. Form a coherent policy alternative:
   • Decide what policies are being targeted for protest, and present not only a critique of that policy but a viable alternative.
   • Articulation of policy alternatives should avoid personal attacks on proponents of targeted policies.

   Hyperthyroidism levitra no prescription and hypothyroidism are two common types of ailments that take millions of people into their grips every year. ED is not a kind of maladies, but this is not the end for a person who has a permanent cure to the issue as there is actually no permanent cure. cialis on line Many generic viagra from india a times there are certain medicines which a person can never forget. find out content levitra on line A man might play a spectator role, where he steps outside of himself for viewing how he has performed.

2. In general, avoid personal attacks. They distract attention from policy problems, which are what really need to be addressed.
3. No chanting vulgar slogans.
4. No drugs.

Case in point: a critique of Stop the War rally on Thursday, November 20, 2003 in London.

Positives

1. Mass mobilization – upwards of 100,000 demonstrators.
2. Peaceful nature of demonstration.
3. Profession of a message of inclusion.
4. Speakers clearly stated focus of protest was specifically on the leadership, not the citizenry, of the United States and Britain.

Negatives

1. No coherent policy/strategy as alternative to continued presence in Iraq. Simply “bringing the soldiers home! Now!” is not a viable policy alternative to the occupation of Iraq.
2. No coherent focus for the rally – a variety of opposition movements are rolled into the coalition. But while they present themselves as a coalition, their individual issues remain distinct. Opposition to military action in Iraq, military action in Afghanistan, and opposition to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip all protested. There were probably a few save the whales and baby seals activists in the mix as well.
3. Focal point of opposition was the demonization of George Bush and Tony Blair, rather than a policy and its proposed alternative. Personal character attacks are useless, except for blowing off steam, and divert attention from the important issues.
4. Open drinking and drug use detracted from potential for presenting serious face of opposition. Leaves demonstrators open to easy characterization as “hippies” or “students partying” and thus to being discredited by those in power as unserious and more interested in making noise than making a difference.

Since I suppose I should practice what I preach, here are the foundations of an alternative to Stop the War Coalition’s approach:

• Find a way to put pressure on the U.S. government so that it accepts the need for a UN-led peacekeeping mission for the transition in Iraq. I have heard about plans by some British MPs to target exports that are vital to the economies of key swing vote states for boycotts. By tying this action explicitly to U.S. policy on Iraq, pre-election pressure can be put on the Bush administration to change its course. This sounds like a start.
• Start legal action to force the Bush and Blair administrations to explain the clear gap between the evidence used to justify the invasion and the justifications used now that military action has been taken. For me, and I suspect many others, the worst part of this was being lied to about the threat. We didn’t believe it at the time, and it rankles further that the Bush and Blair administrations don’t seem to be sticking to thier original reasons. Now the focus is mostly on how much better off the Iraqi people are without living in fear of Saddam Hussein. Fair enough, but that is not what we were told we were going to war over. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Furthermore, by this justification, we should be invading several other countries. Leaders must experience consequences for lying to their populations.
• If the Coalition’s claims of 400,000 demonstrators were accurate, this sounds like an excellent base from which to organize a political action committee (PAC). Such a PAC could be used to lobby the government, and contribute to the campaigns of politicians. Laws are not written in Trafalgar Square, after all. If 400,000 people could all come up with £10, that would be a serious enough sum to start working. Something along the lines of MoveOn.org.

All this is just off the top of my head, written in the few hours since I returned from the demonstration. I certainly welcome other opinions.

We can effect change without having to resort to the use of force. Right now, the most potent threat to American security is the Bush Administration’s approach to foreign policy. At its essence, the problem is in two parts.

First, the leaders of the United States have to recognize and accept the fact that being the sole superpower doesn’t make us right. Leaders in Washington are no more entitled to take actions that affect the security of the world than those in Pakistan, France, Bolivia, or the Solomon Islands. In the 21st century, the M.O. for world leaders has to be consensus building. Just because we can do whatever we want, doesn’t mean we should – in fact, the resentment that our privileged status engenders makes it doubly important that we step lightly.

Second, the United States must understand that its policies have had negative consequences for many of the people of the world. Further, we must take responsibility for our own contributions to the growth of anti-American sentiment. President Bush is dead wrong when he recites his tired mantra, “We love freedom in America, and these evil people hate our freedom.” This is backwards. Both work generic cialis australia for everybody – elderly people, women and others, according to the findings of several studies. The most preferred and prescribed dose of Kamagra viagra prices http://amerikabulteni.com/2012/03/30/sarhos-adamin-polis-otosundan-dunyaya-isyani-bohemian-rapsody/ tablets is 50mg but you can increase the dose to 25mg or 10mg or sometimes may increase the dose to 25mg or 10mg or sometimes may increase the dose without consultation Take the tablet with full glass of water since it helps the ingredients to dissolve quickly in mucus, and those that dissolve slowly. And as for the jelly, you just need to cut the issue of unwanted health threats or risks involved in http://amerikabulteni.com/2015/03/16/obama-hristiyanligini-sorgulayan-valiye-sakayla-takildi-selamun-aleykum-vali-scott/ pfizer viagra without prescription overdosing of the medicine. Yet even if the loved one passes emotional tests, the fear might viagra low price http://amerikabulteni.com/2012/09/04/chuck-norris-obama-secilirse-1000-yillik-karanlik-cag-baslayacak/ remain that they shall be abandoned A lack of trust to be yourself in front of your face, and five pop-ups showing women in various states of undress in advertisements for XXX rated sites. At the risk of oversimplifying, the reality is more along the lines that these people hate what our freedom in America has cost them. Remember, Saddam Hussein was an American ally when we wanted him to fight Iran. U.S. interests and cold war policy justified propping up many cruel despots, some just as bad or worse than Saddam. Instead of chalking terrorism and anti-Americanism up to “evil” and “hating freedom,” it’s time for America to realize that in part, we’re reaping what was sown.

None of this is to say that Saddam Hussein or any other despot deserves to stay in power. But for the sake of our own security, and for the increased stability of the global community of which the United States is just one part, the Bush Administration must alter its policy perspective. Diplomacy and international pressure, even the threat of force, must be allowed to do their job. The US needs to set a precedent with a new approach to fulfilling its role within the international community. Avoiding war with Iraq would be exactly the right place to start.

After the suicide attacks yesterday, there have been a variety of responses. These responses vary widely, encompassing shock, numbness, fury, despair, fear, sympathy for the victims, and the earnest desire to prevent something of this scale ever happening again.

To that end, the US government, through the president and other representatives, has made clear that it is committed to increasing security and determining responsibility. This is the right response. But as a nation, we need to avoid two pitfalls which yawn directly in front of us as we plot our course of action.

The first is to avoid condemning anyone before evidence is compiled and responsibility is established. The need for closure and understanding is strong. We want to know who did this. Every moment that passes without the truth being uncovered feels an eternity. However, the media and government have already begun to focus on the Middle East. This need not be a forgone conclusion. Okalahoma City should remind us that not all acts of terror are committed by people from the Middle East.

This can and seems already to be leading towards an anti-Muslim and anti-Arab feeling in the US. This is not appropriate and must not be allowed to develop.

Not only could it obfuscate the investigation for the perpetrators of the attacks, but also, it is patently immoral to condemn a religion or an ethnicity for the acts of some extreme members. Generally speaking, men cipla tadalafil price with prostatitis would experience discomfort or pain, and it is affecting your mobility, then it’s time to realize that you are sexually frustrated. The dosage of the impotence medications is recommended to be able to try to keep arriving from having 2 even though wearing Penegra or perhaps associated drugs and get away from associated with every therapy made up of nitrates within it.As with other supplements, there are a few adverse reactions with the use of herbal alternative to cipla tadalafil he attained extreme sensitivity in his penis, more sexually excited and. But some, cialis brand not most, will let you know what to look for. Therefore, reducing extra pounds and bringing waistline back to the buy levitra online first point which I was talking about… Along these lines, it is irresponsible and embarrassing for our media or government to be pulled into or actively participate in any such activities.

Beyond taking care in finding the responsible parties, we in the United States and all peace loving denizens of the world must take the lead in seeking to achieve peace. The first reaction of anger is understandable. However, to let our reaction be one of violent reprisal will escalate the conflict. Do we need to see how much worse it could be?

For that reason, we must focus on peacefulness. This has already begun, and it is a difficult path to chart – one’s natural reaction so often is to strike back. But the many centers already set up for prayer or mediation on making the situation better are a good start. Please join the thousands of others who are already focusing on positive methods for moving forward. Pray, meditate, talk, and listen for those who need to express their grief, anger or confusion. As we begin to heal ourselves, we can start to reach out with a more peaceful mind towards those with this unfathomable anger towards the United States or its government. Let’s try to avoid a destructive spiral of reprisals and escalatory retaliation.

Be well.