Ever since the explosion of Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill, I have been glued to news reports about the progress being made to contain the spill, plug the leak, drill a relief well, and clean up the mess. Coincidentally, I was recently reading Collapse by Jared Diamond (which is an excellent book.) In this book, Diamond is discussing Chevron and some of the reasons the company has taken such a pro-environment stance in New Guinea and why mining companies do not behave in a similar manner. "No one in the oil industry today would deny that spilled oil is harmful, but mine executives do deny the harm of spilled metals and acid." Mr. Diamond, I would like you to meet a scapegrace named Mr. Tony Hayward, CEO of BP. Since the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20 (yes over two months ago), Mr. Hayward has repeatedly made comments that are repugnant to the senses. For example, Mr. Hayward was quoted as saying, "I want my life back." Well Mr. Hayward, so too do the residents of the Gulf. Unfortunately, your company created a mess that you and your colleagues seemingly cannot deal with. While I have watched this environmental catastrophe unfold second by second, I am struck by the lunacy of the British public. I have seen numerous interviews on BBC where someone interviewed has stated something like this: "President Obama is treating BP too harshly." This attitude is ridiculous! Let us think about this for a moment. A company is responsible for a disaster, cannot find a way to fix the problem, and the people affected ask for compensation. Hmmm. This sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I recently expressed my frustration with BP to a British colleague. His response, "Remember that it was your government that asked and allowed BP to drill there." Fair enough. SAFELY. My astonished response included me asking him whether or not he would like it if Exxon had dumped this much oil in the North Sea, English Channel, or Irish Sea? I also pointed out that had this been a US company, nothing different would be happening. There would still be a public outcry. You would not see Americans discussing how poorly Mr. Obama was treating Exxon. Another difference is that BP stock forms a significant portion of many 401k retirement and pension funds. Therefore, the lack of dividend payouts is adversely affecting these funds. Guess what? If you own a stock, you own a piece of a company. If you own a company, you are responsible for In the time it has taken me to write this, approximately 43500 gallons (164,665.4126 liters for you metric types) of oil have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. (Just for the sake of reference, that's enough fuel to drive a Hummer H2, one of the least efficient cars on the planet--using its worst case city MPG--around the circumference of the globe--at the equator--over 15 times.) Until BP can stop the spill, clean up the mess, and compensate those affected by this spill, BBC and the media, as well as the British public need to cease with this ridiculous spin and focus on fixing this mess.
what it does. Here is a newsflash: You own a company with an abysmal environmental record and this was bound to happen. Please stop complaining about the amount of money this is costing BP. It is not as if BP is a company with exiguous resources
20 June 2010
British Petroleum and British Attitudes
04 April 2010
Islam and Europe
As I read through the newspaper late last week, I started thinking about two seemingly unrelated articles detailing events in Europe and Islam and how they are somehow related.
The first article I read dealt with the recent passing of a bill in Serbia's Parliament that apologizes for the slaughter of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims by the Serbian Army and para-military forces outside of Srebrenica. T
his occurred in 1995 and was the worst war time atrocity committed in Europe since the end World War II. While this apology is undoubtedly welcome, there were two items of note: First, this bill was not passed unanimously. In fact, it barely passed at all, with only 127 out of 250 Parliamentarians supporting it. Second, though this bill was an apology, it did not declare this massacre as a genocide. Thus, the bill fell far short of what the Bosnians (and Pan-Islamic world) want and did little to slake their thirst for justice. Two other facts lead to cynicism concerning this bill: Serbia is in the process of applying for EU membership and several prominent individuals, such as Ratko Mladic, wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) are at large and believed to still be in Serbia and believed to be receiving support from Serbian Nationalist organizations.
The other article that caused me to think about Islam in a European context was the recent decision by the Belgian government to ban the niqab and burqa in public. Those who do not receive police permission to wear either garment will be fined. This is akin to asking the police for permission to wear a cross around one's neck and completely infringes upon the rights of Belgian Muslims to freely practice their faith. In fact, this bill was opposed by several Catholic Bishops.
These two issues are seemingly unrelated except that both deal with issues pertaining to Islam in Europe. There is definitely a mixed message emanating from Europe. Though religious freedom and anti-genocide protocols are ensconced in various EU conventions and rights laws, these freedoms and rights seemingly do not extend to Islam and thus make a mockery of these conventions and popinjays out of European Leaders who continually harp about the shortcomings of governments in predominantly Muslim countries.
How can Europe criticize Sudan's president for violating the rights various groups when it is not protecting basic rights of its own citizens? The adage about people living in glass houses throwing stones rings true. This is the type of double standard that has to cease if Europe ever hopes to have influence in the Islamic world.
02 April 2010
Iran and Sanctions
When Barack Obama arrived in Washington last year, there was l While Barack has already delivered on many of the promises he made during the campaign, the United States policy towards Iran needs some adjustment. The recent announcement that the United States and France would pursue another round (this will be the 4th) of UN sanctions against Iran is a mistake for a myriad reasons. Though Russia recently announced it would tacitly support this round of sanctions, China will not. China has veto power on the UN Security Council so any action will require their abstention or approval. Thus, any sanctions passed by the United Nations, no matter how bedizened with tough rhetoric, will be denuded and toothless. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will gleefully point out that the United States and France are hypocritical for allowing India, P Barack Obama initially hoped to engage the Iranian government. When this 
imitless optimism. I remember watching a Jib-Jab.com original that accurately illustrated the hopes the rest of the world had for his administration. Afterall, Obama was replacing one of the most devisive Presidents in American history and promised change on myriad issues.
akistan, South Africa, and Israel to flout the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and acquire nuclear weapons (though South Africa has dismantled their weapons) while placing an immense amount of pressure on Iran, which is part of the NPT. This hugger-mugger approach to the NPT reeks of ambiguity, which will undoubtedly be exploited by the Iranian government. Ahmadinejad will also point out how Iran has in fact stuck to the letter of the law (if not its spirit) and the International Atomic Energy Agency has not yet found any evidence of a nuclear program. No matter how one feels about Iran and its current government, a new round of sanctions is a losing proposition.
was rebuffed, the American administration sought to focus its energy on other issues, especially domestic ones. With the recent passage of the health-care bill, the Obama administration seems to be re-engaging in foreign affairs and on the issue of Iran's nuclear program. Sanctions are not the answer for this re-engagement. This sanctions policy will fail and give the Iranian government invaluable propaganda points. Instead, the Obama administration needs to engage the Iranian government and work with it if the United States is to have any influence on Iran's policies.
28 August 2009
Kiva Loan
Hi Blog Readers!
I just made a loan to someone in Uganda using a revolutionary new website called Kiva. You can find the link under causes I support.
You can go to Kiva's website and lend to someone across the globe who needs a loan for their business - like raising goats, selling vegetables at market or making bricks. Each loan has a picture of the entrepreneur, a description of their business and how they plan to use the loan so you know exactly how your money is being spent - and you get updates letting you know how the entrepreneur is going.
The best part is, when the entrepreneur pays back their loan you get your money back - and Kiva's loans are managed by microfi
nance institutions on the ground who have a lot of experience doing this, so you can trust that your money is being handled responsibly.
I just made a loan to an entrepreneur named Isiah Kakuba's Group in Uganda. They still need another $700.00 to complete their loan request of $4,750.00 (you can loan as little as $25.00!). Help me get this entrepreneur off the ground by clicking on the link to make a loan to Isiah Kakuba's Group too!
It's finally easy to actually do something about poverty - using Kiva I know exactly who my money is loaned to and what they're using it for. And most of all, I know that I'm helping them build a sustainable business that will provide income to feed, clothe, house and educate their family long after my loan is paid back.
Join me in changing the world - one loan at a time.
Thanks!
Nomadic Richard
31 May 2009
The Mick and Limey Show Part 1
In 1999, when I was at Howard University, Alex, one of my best friends, and I decided to host our own radio show. It was on the AM Howard University student radio station. For several months we did a morning show. We called it the Mick and Limey show since I have Irish ancestry and he has English roots. It was a hilarious exercise that ended when we became sick of waking up before 6am each morning.
Well, the Mick and Limey show is back on air, except this time we are on-line. Alex and I exchange e-mails all the time. I've decided to post some of those exchanges! Here is our latest. Enjoy
From Limey to Mick:
Are we beginning to see the sun setting on the US empire or am I missing something? Gone seem to be the days when the US said something and people would fall into line or powers would fall eg. Chile. Today, even the banana republics are beginning to talk smack without much fear. Piracy is rampant on the high seas, Isreal will not listen, North Korea, Burma and Zim are like whatever. My question would be what happened to weight of the US? Where did it go and when did it leave?
Was it after Vietnam with Panama and Grenada simple sideshows to fool us into thinking the US still had real power. Shoot, the UK fought and won the falklands war but no one with any real sense would consider us to have any power but there are still some crackpots. Sadly we call them the media.
Yes we all know the US has the largest most powerful army but what good is it if you can't use due to the political and economic ramifications? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying your 15 mins is about up just yet and I'm no neo-con...shoot I'm not even an American all I'm saying is these are interesting times which we live.
Thoughts,
Limey
From Mick to Limey:
Limey,
I think you are spot on on many points. Let's hope the sun is setting to some degree. (Though I'd still rather see the USA in the lead than China or Russia.) Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The US financial meltdown is evidence of that. How a few bankers managed to rip off the world and screw up the entire financial sector...eish. That's another story.
Here's the problem. The US is the world's largest debtor. It owes the world in its own currency. So if the $ falls to precipitously, it makes that debt owed worthless. The US just prints more money, and voila...it's out of debt, it's economy has taken a hit, but not a non-recoverable one. What's crazy is that despite all the anti-Americanism, frustration with foreign policy, etc., nobody wants to see the US economy fall because with it, then so too goes the world economy.
Politically, Bush messed it up. Full stop. I said this in 2004. On September 12, 2001, George W. Bush woke up as the most powerful man in world history. He was the leader of the most powerful empire and he had the entire world's sympathy. Imagine that..the whole world felt sorry for the big guy. How often has that happened? Over the next seven plus years, he managed to successfully erode that sympathy to the point where it had switched to loathing. Nice job there Bubba.
We are not safer. We are far poorer (from a balanced budget Clinton to the world's biggest debtor in 8 years). And US prestige has been eroded, perhaps beyond repair. Translation: Osama accomplished his goal of bringing down the US empire!
It's been frustrating to watch if you believe in America. If you believe the US had too much power, it's been a thing of beauty. I do think little countries such as Chile, etc., won't get too carried away because they need the US. But you are 100% correct that the days of Uncle Sam saying something and the rest of the world kowtowing are gone.
Cheers,
Mick
09 May 2009
The Inauguration of Jacob Zuma
I am sitting here at the moment watching Al-Jazeera. Unlike BBC and CNN, Al-Jazeera is covering the inauguration of Jacob Zuma as the fourth President of South Africa (third elected) of post-apartheid South Africa. While I am sure my good friend Hlengani is not a man of his word, since he has not emigrated from South Africa as he promised to do if Zuma was ever elected, I am sure he, like many, are bemoaning the fact that Zuma is now leading the most influential country on the continent. While Jacob Zuma clearly does not have the pulchritude of Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki, as I have watched events unfold from afar over the past few months, I have become more and more convinced that the emergence and election of Jacob Zuma is a good thing Before you throw a shoe at your computer screen hear me out on this. There are fo My belief that Zuma's election is a good thing extend beyond my own personal relationships though. The second reason I believe Zuma's election is a good thing is that he has weakened the ANC. Although I am not a South African, it should be obvious to everyone that the country needs a legitimate opposition party that is not merely a metamorphosis of an apartheid era party. This has not happened.After the 2004 election, the African National Congress received enough of the vote that it could have legitimately Though this has not occurred, the fact that during this election the ANC received less than 67% of the vote and can not change the Constitution on its own represents real progress. There is hope that legitimate multiracial opposition can emerge over the next five to ten years. The third reason I am in favor of Zuma's election is that believe it or not, I feel that Zuma's election shows the vibrancy of the young South African democracy. Thabo Mbeki sought a third term, which though technically not in violation of the Constitution, effectively tried to undermine the Constitutional stipulation that a President only serve two terms. The fact that Zuma was elected at the ANC conference in Polokwane shows that many South Africans within the ANC do understand the issues that are affecting the nation. Zuma r I personally doubt whether Jacob Zuma will be able to deliver on his promises. It would take a tremendous amount of thaumaturgy for Zuma to accomplish this goals and deliver on his promises. Yet I am willing to give him a try, since his presidency is the will of the people. I also believe that the ANC is in fact the best party to rule the country. (Though I would have voted for another party for the sake of trying to reduce the ANC to
ur reasons I feel this way. First, personally, as an American who lived in South Africa from 2002-2008, I had to endure nearly seven years of listening to South Africans denigrate Americans for electing such an incompetent nitwit as President. To be honest, I had no answer. I detested and still detest George W. Bush as a human. It will be up to history to judge him but I digress. However, as of today, I can now proudly smile at all of the South Africans who over the years derided Americans for our voting record. We have Barack Obama. You have JZ, and I do not mean the rapper! Enjoy the next five years of my derision.
an as the anti-Mbeki. While I supported Mbeki and feel that he is a visionary and has a fantastic Pan-Africanist view, Mbeki missed the boat on four critical issues: Aids, Zimbabwe, crime, and corruption. Mbeki's policies on each of these issues left a lot to be desired. His failures to effectively implement a nationwide AIDS policy to combat AIDS, statements that crime was the figment of white South Africans' minds, lack of ability to pressure Robert Mugabe into real reform, and the rampant corruption within the ANC during his term all contributed to his political demise. Zuma has portended that he plans to change these policies by tackling crime, formulating an AIDS policy, fixing government corruption, and facilitating Mugabe's removal from power. If he can achieve any of these changes, he will have achieved a great feat.
below 66%). In the meantime, Zuma will have to be re-elected in five years and if the South African public is not happy with what he achieves, he can be replaced. Despite what many say, this election proves that democracy is alive and well in South Africa. So let's all enjoy the moment of frisson when the South African national anthem is played momentarily. Nkosi sikilel' iAfrika!
06 April 2009
Iran and Nuclear Energy
Over this past weekend, I listened to Barack Obama address a European audience and say that a missile defense shield was necessary as long as Iran was pursuing a nuclear energy programme. I was extremely disappointed by this feckless statement and the the fear-mongering this statment pandered to. It was very reminiscent of Obama's predecessor and as illogical as many of Bush's ill-timed thought out utterances.
The fact that Iran has pursued nuclear energy for the past several years is not news. Neither is the United States position on this issue. While this issue has been discussed at length from one view point, that of the American government, I do not believe that it has been dealt with in any objective manner. I am going to attempt to address the issue of Iran's nucluear programme from a slightly different perspective.
That Iran is pursuing a programme designed to give it nuclear energy is
not in dispute. Iran's nuclear energy programme goes back to the 1970s when the United States backed the Shah's efforts to make nuclear energy a staple source of energy for a quickly developing Iran. The United States trained Iranian nuclear scientists, helped the Iranians purchase the parts of necessary to build their first nuclear power station, and supported the Iranians in their quest to procure alternate sources of energy. Despite the Americans seemingly supporting the Shah's government, the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations all sought to limit the possibility of nuclear proliferation and maintain American hegemony by imposing severe restrictions on how the Shah's government could use its newly aquired technology.
Not surprisingly, the Shah's government did not like the the restrictions imposed upon it. Equally not suprisingly, the American government did sanction nor support the continuation of the Iranian nuclear programme under the Islamic Revolution. However the programme was eventually continued. Thus, the current controversy.
My personal opinion is that Iran needs to be commended for trying to build a nuclear power plant. My arugement for this opinion is complex. Yet it boils down to several key points. First, if Iran was to try to wholly rely on the burning of fossil fuels, it would contribute significantly to pollution and environmental catastrophe. Next, Iran is trying to develop itself and needs alternatives to fossil fuel. Lastly, Iran has not violated any international laws and must be allowed that right to determine its own energy policy.
When the Islamic Revolution occurred in 1979, the Iranian population was around 32 million. Today, Iran's population is close to 70 million. This population explosion has increased Iran's energy needs. The Iranian government has sought to 
expand the number of villages that have access to electricity, which has served to further raise the energy demands of the country. To compound matters, the Iranian economy is growing at around 6% per annum. With this growth comes an increased need for energy.
One would think that Iran could simply turn on the tap and open up the pipelines to its oil reserves and provide the country with more energy. However, since the 1970s, Iran's oil production has actually decreased! This is due to Western sanctions and the fact that Iran's petroleum industry needs a massive amount of upgrading and modernization, which it cannot easily procure due to the Western blockade. This, coupled with the fact that Iran's energy needs have increased, has forced the Iranians to become a net oil importer. As astounding as it may be to consider, one of the leading members of OPEC actually imports oil. When one considers the implications of this fact, it is easy to see why the Iranian government wants to explore nuclear energy as an alternative form of energy.
The last point is probably the most controversial, yet it remains true. Iran has in fact complied with requests from the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA). Furthermore, Iran signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1968 and ratified it in 1970. While this was done under the Shah's government, the Islamic Revolution has not overturned this treaty. Therefore, Iran has a right, as recognized by international law, to develop nuclear energy as long as this is monitored by the IAEA.
The Rush Limbaugh's of the world love to point out that Iran may have the c
apability to enrich uranium. Yet so far, Iran has in fact complied with all IAEA requests. Furthermore, if one reads the wording of the non-proliferation treaty, it allows for uranium enrichment as long as this is done for peaceful purposes. Therefore, Iran is commiting no violation of any treaty, to which it is a party, by simply enriching uranium.
Add this to the fact that Iran's current known uranium deposits can produce the same amount of electricity as 45 Billion barrels of oil. Iran has just over 90 billion barrels of known oil reserves. However, some are in locations difficult to extract. Therefore, it is unlikely that all of their oil will ever be extracted. Thus, the Iranians could theoretically supply their own energy needs from nuclear energy and export all of their oil for profit, thereby improving the standard of living.
The United States and western governments assume that simply because Iran has a nuclear energy programme, this programme will be used to develop nuclear weapons. It is hypocritical to deny Iran this right. It is also cynical to force Iran to burn a non-renewable energy source when it can save this valuable resource and position itself to be an even larger player in the oil industry in years to come. Furthermore, the west did not protest too vehemently when Pakistan, another Islamic country that is far less stable than Iran, developed nuclear capabilities. Furthermore, Iran has repeatedly sought to eliminate nuclear weapons in the entire region (including in Israel). While this is obviously a political move designed to embarrass Israel, one must consider the brutal usage of weapons of mass destruction that Sadam Hussein's Iraqi forces hurled against the Iranians. The propinquity of the Iran-Iraq War has not allowed the Iranians to forget the destructive nature of these weapons. Could it not be possible that they simply want to eliminate these weapons in the region to protect themselves from the possibility that they could again be victimized by such weapons?
It is my hope that the Obama administration develops a velleity to help Iran develop its energy capabilities in a safe manner. If the Americans feel as though Iran is an enemy, then perhaps the old adage about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer should hold true and the Iranians should be brought into the family of nations rather than ostracized like a criminal step-child.
28 March 2009
Mugabe, Zimbabwe, and Humanity
Robert Mugabe...a name synonomous with feckless and corrupt despotism, is at it again. According to the Times, he and his wife recently purchased a luxury apartment, valued at almost US$6m in Hong Kong. Why does this enrage me?
In addition, the President's wife, Grace Mugabe, has recently embarked on a spending spree. She reportedly spent over $80k on marble statues in Vietnam and $12k on a handbag in Singapore. All of this despite the fact that Zimbabwe is in a huge economic crisis. The country has an inflation rate gauged to be close 231m % (that's 231,000,000%), and an unemployment rate hovering above 90%.
In short, the Mugabes epitomize all that is wrong with African dictatorships. Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Africa as late as the 1990s. The country produced a surplus of food and supplied its neighbours with a significant quantity of their food. All of this has changed and what was once a thriving country is now bereft of food, clean water, and hope.
According to Robert Mugabe, this is all the fault of colonialism and the West. I am often outspoken about the horrors of colonialism and how a significantly high percentage of problems on the African continent stem from the colonial era. I have also argued that this era has not completely ended and that neo-colonialism is an even more sinister force than colonialism was. Mugabe argued that the white Zimbabweans, who owned most of the farms in country, came by these farms illicitly and therefore the farms could be seized and given to the "war veterans."
Personally, I agree that the land in Zimbabwe needed to be re-distributed. However, that desire to have Africa for Africans needed to be developed by meeting the needs of Africans. Mugabe's blatant land grab did not satisfy the desire of the masses for land and only served to plunge his country into a desperate state. What is little known is that Mugabe has seized many farms that were black owned as well. Many of the farms seized by Mugabe and his cronies were purchased legally, under Zimbabwean law (as opposed Rhodesian law) by people who had a vested interest in the upliftment of Zimbabwe. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Robert and Grace Mugabe.
What is really upsetting about this latest episode in Zimbabwe involving the mis-use of state funds by Robert and Grace Mugabe is that in the midst of this crisis, people are dying simply because of the government's inability to purchase water-treatment chemicals. Mugabe is pillaging the treasury of a country where over 3500 people have died because of a cholera outbreak...a preventable disease that is occuring in Zimbabwe because the country does not have enough money to buy the chemicals to treat the drinking water.
Where are the morals in this? How can Robert and Grace Mugabe wake up each morning and look in the mirror knowing that their actions, greed, and corruption are directly leading to corpses strewn around the country. This is a mot juste example of how African leaders have mis-managed their countries post colonialism, and has directly contributed to the dire poverty that currently exists on the continent. Mugabe needs to honestly look at himself and find a way to step aside and let someone with morals lead Zimbabwe back to where it was a decade ago.
12 March 2009
Northern Ireland...an Imperfect Compromise
While I was student at Howard, one of my best friends and I decided to host a radio show. It was called the Mick and Limey show. He is a Limey...since he has English citizenship (as well as Jamaican and Canadian.) I was the Mick since my ancestors (at least some of them) are Irish. Though few would have understood the name of our show, I have always been proud of the fact that I have roots in Ireland. Northern Ireland has always been a source of personal angst for me. As an American, with Irish ancestry, I have always felt some sort of affinity for Ireland. It is on my list of top five countries I wish to visit, and I plan to trace my ancestry to enable me to pinpoint exactly where my ancestors emigrated from. Like many Americans of Irish ancestry, I have strongly identified with the Republican cause in the past and thus found myself supporting the Irish Republican Army.
Over the past decade, the global landscape has changed markedly. September 11th drastically changed how people view independence movements. Movements, which had previously enjoyed wide spread global support, suddenly found themselves under intense criticism because of the tactics these organizations employed. The Good Friday accord was signed in 1998, well before 9/11, and had as one of its provisions the caveat that all parties would use "exclusively peaceful and democratic means" to achieve their political goals. However, the Irish Republican Army did not formally renounce violence as a legitimate means of struggle until 2005, well after the tide of global public opinion had turned against using this as a legitimate means of achieving independence.
pute also centered on the British retention of Southern Irish ports and on whether or not Ireland would remain part of the British commonwealth.
The IRA lost the Civil War, but the cause to which they were devoted did not die. Violence has sporadically occurred in the intervening decades. Essentially, the IRA has morphed over the years, but as one faction has decided to share power and give peace a chance, another faction has decided that the only way for there to be peace is if Ireland is united and the entire island is under the control of Dublin. 
The Real IRA and the Continuity IRA have claimed responsibility for the recent murders of the soldiers and police officers in Northern Ireland. These groups have simply split off from the Gerry Adams led group which signed the Good Friday accords just over a decade ago.
English cruelty during the Potato Famine of the 1840s is but one example of this heinous occupation that is cited and used ot incite this strong anti-English resentment. Therefore, it is unfathomable to ultra-Republicans that anything short of a unified Republican Ireland could even be remotely considered an acceptable solution. Sadly, the division of Ireland was an imperfect compromise that continues to inflame resentment amongst a minority of the population, but until this minority is placated, there will only be a pinchbeck peace and sporadic violence will continue as a reminder of the English occupation and less than ideal settlement that led to the creation of the Republic of Ireland.
06 March 2009
What the Attacks in Lahore Mean
I first read about the attack on the bus carrying both match officials and t
he Sri Lankan cricket team on cricinfo.com. It is probably the website I spend the most time on due to the fact that cricket matches take a long time and cricinfo.com provides it's viewers with ball-by-ball updates of matches in progress. I therefore logged onto cricinfo to check the score of the Pakistan-Sri Lanka match on Tuesday, which should have been day three of this particular match.
To be honest, I thought I had opened the wrong web page. When I saw the news coverage of a terrorist attack, I though I had mistakenly opened cnn.com or another of the news sites I frequent. I had to double check the url of the page I had opened. Sadly, I was not mistaken. I had indeed opened cricinfo.com. I was at work and went downstairs to the office of the English subject coordinator, Will, who is English, and also a cricket fan. The initial reports were sketchy and since I was relying only on the internet for reports, I couldn't be sure of who was hurt, injured, or even dead. Unfortunately, too many people did lose their lives. We were both shocked.
It was not until I reached home in the afternoon and was able to turn on the television that I was able to procure the ful
l story. What died that day was not just several drivers and Pakistani security personnel. Many other things perished as well.
First, Pakistani cricket is on life-support. Australia, West Indies, India, and South Africa have all refused to tour Pakistan in the past few years citing security concerns. Personally, I viewed this as a joke. Afterall, who would attack a bunch of innoculous foreign cricketers applying their craft in a country that is probably second only to India in terms of passionate cricket support? I criticized the cowardly acts of the cricket boards of all of these countries. I was wrong. Sri Lanka was not even supposed to be touring Pakistan. India was. They refused after the Mumbai terrorist attacks last year. This was the first test series Pakistan had played on home soil in 14 months. It will be the last for quite some time. Pakistan can now only hope to "host" home series in United Arab Emirates (which is great for me as I will be able to attend some matches in Abu Dhabi or Dubai) or England. Either way, this does not bode well for the game in Pakistan.
Secondly, Asian unity died. Cricket on the sub-continent is perhaps more of a unifying factor than any other single entity. In the midst of a violent and on-going civil war in Sri Lanka between the government and Tamil rebels, Tamils and Sinahlese both play side-by-side on the Sri Lankan cricket team. Muttiah Muralitharan is Tamil, yet is basically the face of the Sri Lankan team and perhaps one of the greatest bowlers of all time. In Pakistan, Muslims, Christians, and Hindus all play cricket for the national team. Same goes for India with Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs. I recently asked an Indian driver here, who is Muslim, who he roots for: India or Pakistan. His answer was unequivocal: India. In short, passion for cricket takes precedence over other loyalties. If you are a group of religious fanatics, hellbent on destroying vestiges of secularity within a society, destroying cricket in the sub-continent would be a good start. The first step towards the destruction of Pakistani cricket was achieved this week.
Thirdly, innocence about sport was lost. Since the 1972 Munich Olympics, there have been few incidents involving terrorist activities at sporting venues. Billions have bee
n spent procuring the safety of matches for football, rugby, cricket, and Olympic venues. This, coupled with the fact that many try to make sport out to be apolitical has succeeded in luring us into a false sense of security. I chided the above mentioned countries for not touring Pakistan. No more. The fact that innocent cricket players (who were actually doing Pakistan a favour by standing in for their more fancied Indian rivals) were targeted is sickening. Although several players were hurt, one can only be thankful that these attackers were rather amateurish and missed the bus with their rocket launcher and that the bus driver managed to speed over the grenade thrown before it exploded. Otherwise, players themselves would have died rather than been injured.
Lastly, the Pakistani government lost face. The government had guaranteed the safety of the Sri Lankan team. Obviously, the government does not have it within its grasp to keep their word. This is problematic for a fledgling government in a what is increasingly viewed as a failed state. If one cannot protect foreign cricketers, how can security for anyone be offered with any real guarantee?
I just hope that the attacks in Lahore do not inextricably link politics with sport. This seems to be happening in the aftermath and immediate hand-wringing that is taking place. I also hope that the Pakistanis themselves are irate enough about the potential destruction of their national pasttime that they take exception and force the various parties to sit down and negotiate a peaceful solution to the problems plauging the country. Lastly, I hope that other cricket playing nations stand by the Pakistani Cricket Board and try to assist them financially by staging neutral venue matches. For the good of the game, for the good of peace on the sub-continent, and for the good of global sport, these hopes need to become a reality so that the tragedy of Lahore is not repeated and no sporting team suffers the horror of Israeli athletes in Munich or Pakistani cricketers in Lahore.
Nomadic Richard
Hugo Chavez
Please note that this is an article I submitted for publication in January of 2007. It was not published. I recently came across it and decided to publish it on my blog even though it is slightly outdated. - Nomadic Richard
Hugo Chavez is one of the most devisive leaders on the world stage today. World opinion (if not Venezuelan opinion) is split. Chavez is the object of intense loathing on the one hand from groups that say he is an autocratic and somewhat authoritarian despot who seeks to emulate Fidel Castro and transform Venezuela into a communist state. The converse opinion paints Hugo Chavez as a Brobdingagian philanthropist who is the first Venezuelan President to truly implement policies designed with the interest of the proletarian lower classes at heart.
George W. Bush has proven to be the “Great Divider,” despite earlier his record and and reputation of uniting politicians from both sides of the aisle whilst governor of Texas. Yet
, excpept for a period of just over two years from the end of 2003 until the first half of 2006, there has generally been a consensus on Bush. Partisan politics aside, Americans overwhelmingly favored how Bush handled the country immediately following September 11th. We approved of the war in Afghanistan and the fight against the Taliban just as much as we now loathe the flibbertigibbet who has brought us the debauchery that has become our policy in Iraq. We approved and disapproved of George Bush together as a country. The same cannot be said of Hugo Chavez. Rarely has a world leader evoked such a dichotomy of devisive opinions. The questions arise: Who is Hugo Chavez and why is he so devisive? What to make of Hugo Chavez?
By the lights of the Bush administration, the President of Venezuela is an anti-American trouble maker, a sychopant of Fidel Castro, who 
is keen to play politics with Venezuela's oil industry by influence peddling throughout the Western Hemisphere. To the frustrated Venezuelan opposition, Chavez is a leftist dictator who incited and then exploited a wave of class and racial divisions and rode it to the presidency, and who, in office, has assumed despotic new powers at every chance. To others, Chavez is out-of-touch utopian who sooner or later will ruin the Venezuelan economy. Chavez is refreshingly free with his opinions of the Bush administration as exemplified by his speeches at the United Nations and numerous published interviews. He freely calls the United States a terrorist state, ridicules George W. Bush, and generally makes a nuisance of himself to the current administration. He is convinced that the Bush administration backed, or at least conscienced, a coup attempt against him in 2002, a claim that existing evidence supports . In a non-susurrus tone, Chavez repeats this allegation at every turn.
Chavez’s governing style is populist, and he routinely lambastes Venezuela's elite class. This is a convenient castigation, which endears him to his populist supporters yet, since the opposition, and until the rise of Chavez, Venezuela’s political landscape, has been dominated by this landed gentry. However, Chavez won a free and fair election in 1998 with 56% of the vote, a number many world leaders from Mugabe to Bush must envy. His support base and poll numbers have meteorically risen since then. Chavez has survived a coup attempt and a strike and with each emergence, his popularity has risen. Furthermore, Chavez has for the first time enfranchised the 80% of Venezuela’s population that live in townships outside of Venezuela’s cities or labor on the multitude of plantation like ranches throughout the country. The opposition’s claims of race and class baiting makes political sense in a country with the glaring socio-economic inequalities that exist in Venezuela. With 80 percent of the population living in abject poverty and with the vast majority of this group indigenous or black, race is inextricably linked to class. Thus, the consolidation of power by enfranchising this group makes politically sensible.
The Chavez government has brought healthcare and education to many of the ranchos and rural areas, which before now have seen little of either. These “missions” are paid for by profits stemming from Venezuela's oil industry, which Chavez contrversially nationalized. Chavez
replaced a government that, though democratic, was widely seen as corrupt. The redistribution of wealth, social policies, and the perception that Chavez is not in the hip-pocket of Washington, has endeared him to the masses of Venezuelans that form the core of the Chavez base. The main point used by the Venezuelan opposition is that Hugo Chavez is autocratic. The opposition points out that Chavez has used censored the media and restructured the judiciary system. The censuring of the media that has occurred is not censorship in its purist form. The Chavez government has regulated a few television stations. How is this different than the South African government of Mandela and Mbeki, which owns the controlling stake in SABC, one of the two television stations in the country? Governments all over the world control some aspects of the media within their borders. Why should Venezuela be different?
The judiciary system, according to Richard Gott, author of the book Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution, was a “complete mess” when Chavez was first elected. The judiciary branch attempted to block all attempts at reform. Chavez simply tried to stack the courts in much the same way that Franklin D. Roosevelt unsuccessfully attempted early in his presidency. The comparisons between FDR and Chavez are not as farfecthed as they seem at first glance. Roosevelt’s New Deal included a progressive income tax system. So does Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution. The New Deal created Social Security in the United States. The Bolivarian Revolution is attempting to mimic this. Roosevelt advocated huge public works projects in order to ameliorate unemployment during the Great Depression. Chavez is embarking on a plan that includes massive spending on public works projects to ameliorate Venezuela’s massive unemployment. The Tennessee Valley Authority was created under Roosevelt to, among other things, provide cheap electricity to the masses of the population in the United States. Chavez is investing Venezuela’s vast oil revenue into sources that will provide cheap electricity to the masses of the population in Venezuela and Latin America. What the American government seemingly fails to realize (then again this administration always seems to miss the boat on foreign policy issues) is that Chavez is here to stay and he could be used in a useful partnership to end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. According to Hugo Chavez, Venezuela has the largest supply of crude oil in the world. Venezuela has the largest supply of natural gas in the Western Hemisphere and the eighth largest supply in the world. Is this the grandiose bragging of a madman? Not according to the United States Department of Energy, which agrees with these statements.
What’s the catch? The reasons the United States need Chavez are obvious, but why does Chavez need the United States? Despite the seemingly endless supply of Venezuelan oil, Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan people cannot easily benefit from this resource. The crude oil contained within Venezuela is a heavy crude oil that is much more costly to drill, process, and refine. It is not cost-effective to drill Venezuelan oil unless the price of oil is at $50 or above. This may seem a high cost until one remembers that the price of Brent crude was hovering around $75 per barrel at times during the past year. Chavez is more than willing to sell the United States all of the oil it needs if in exchange the United States would work to help him keep the oil price around $50 per barrel. This could potentially be a win-win situation for both the Venezuelan and American people and would protect investments in heavy crude production. However, because of the Bush family relationship with the Saudi government, which is far from democratically elected, and Bush family interests in Middle Eastern oil, it is not desirable for this administration to genuinely explore alternative means of procuring the petrol energy upon which the United States is reliant. Thus, the Venezuelan oil industry languishes, and Hugo Chavez is forced to find alternate sources of consumption for their supplies.
This is seen in Washington as influence peddling and beligerance, however Chavez has been forced into this position by the United States government’s refusal to purchase more Venezuelan crude. Chavez has sought to sell more oil in South America, Cental America, and the Caribbean. He has increased subsidized sales to Argentina, Uruguay, Haiti, Cuba, Dominca, the Domincan Republic, and several Central American countries. According to Chavez, “[Venezuelan] oil is helping the poor.” Chavez offerred assistance, in the form of cheap petrol, to facilitate the clean-up and recovery of New Orleans. This offer was refused by the White House. Chavez has delivred cheap gasoline to filling stations in the Bronx and other poor communities. In addition to the many altruistic intentions that Hugo Chavez has repeatedly demonstrated, he has started institutions that promote Venezuelan culture as well as Latin American culture and seeks to limit the influence Pax Americana has on the television and film industry within Venezuela. This has been accomplished through the creation of subsidized television stations that broadcast a high content of Venezuelan shows. Furthermore, he has yet to demonstrate many of the characteristics that historically have manifested themselves in past dictators. Thus, the allegations of Chavez transforming his government into a despotic autocracy are grossly exaggerated and generally baseless. Chavez is simply seeking to free Venezuela and Latin America from the styming effect of American protectionist economic policies, which negatively affects the Caribbean, Central America, and South America and creates a dependence on the United States.
In seeking to alleviate poverty in the Western Hemisphere, Chavez has sought to cut the historical strings through which the United States has proven to be a less than benevolent puppeteer. When the real Chavez stands up, his policies and viewpoints have angered the historical powerbase both locally in Venezuela and abroad in Washington. Yet these same policies have endeared him to the the masses of the Venezuelan population who view him as a modern day Robin Hood. Viva Chavez! Viva!
03 March 2009
27 February 2009
On Death Row, Nigerian Draws the Hanged
I saw this article in early January. I think this is an excellent article that bears reading.
- Nomadic Richard
On death row, Nigerian draws the hanged
By KATY POWNALL Associated Press Writer
LAGOS, Nigeria (AP) - The doomed man's eyes stare blankly ahead as he shuffles down a dark corridor, spreading a hush through the death-row cells. The hangman pushes a black hood over the convict's head and tightens a noose around his neck. The trapdoor opens beneath his feet with a clang that reverberates around the stone walls. A gurgle, one last rattle of chains, then silence.
Through the iron bars of his cell near the gallows of this Nigerian prison, Arthur Judah Angel watched the hangman do his morbid work for almost a decade, witnessing the hangings of more than 450 of his fellow convicts. He committed their names to memory and many of their images to paper.
Now, 51 drawings that survived Angel's incarceration are attracting the attention of human rights activists and art lovers alike, allowing the artist to turn his years of horror into activism against the death penalty.
"I had to document our ugly world," said Angel, 46, who spent a total of 16 years in prison for a murder he says he didn't commit before being freed in 2000. "It was drawing that kept me going in there. It gave me a purpose."
Angel was beaten and thrown behind bars in January 1984 when he went to visit a friend who had been taken into custody at a neighborhood police station. He was 21 then and planned to begin university that year.
Five days later he was charged with murdering a policeman. Police asked for a bribe to free him, but his mother was too poor to pay, he says. So Angel was held for two years until his case went to court. After a six-day trial in which police were both the complainants and only witnesses, he was sentenced to hang.
On death row, he lived in a seven-foot-square cell with up to 13 other condemned criminals. A bucket in the corner was the toilet. At night the cellmates had to lie down side-by-side to sleep. If one wanted to turn in the night, he would have to stand and then squeeze himself back in.
The cell was one of 18 which housed over 200 condemned men in Enugu prison _ one of Nigeria's largest.A detailed pencil drawing by Angel on rough pink cardboard shows the semi-naked prisoners hunched in awkward positions. Scrawled across the grimy walls are the names of previous occupants and the dates of their execution. Angel named the drawing "Sleeping in Limbo."
"That existence is one between life and death. You don't belong to either world," Angel explains.
Condemned criminals were not allowed to keep pens or paper so Angel's first prison drawing was done on a cell wall with charcoal smuggled from the kitchen. It was a cartoon cowboy designed to cheer up his cellmates, but it also caught the eye of the wardens."They started coming to me and asking me to do drawings for them," he recalled. "I would draw cards or portraits for them and in return they would allow me a pencil and a spare piece of paper."
By night, Angel turned his artistic focus from the images he was commissioned to do, to the macabre sights around him.
The cell's concrete roof had a small hole in the center that provided a circle of light when the moon shone. Angel would jostle for position beneath the hole and squat with a sheet of paper on his knees to do his secret drawings.
Some of his pictures are scrawled on book pages, others on faded cardboard. Many are rough at the edges, slightly torn or damaged by damp. Most of these dark artworks did not survive.
The 51 that endured were smuggled out by his parents when they visited. These now provide a unique insight into daily life on death row: from the shuffling, chained and hooded figures driven by the guards' clubs toward the gallows, to the stooped heads and empty expressions of the other inmates, a captive audience at the execution."You don't know if next time it will be your time to go," Angel says. "From Monday to Friday you expect executions in the morning. When the gallows are prepared, we all got nervous. You hear the chains clanking, and the trap door banging. You see the hangman walk past the cells. Most inmates don't have the strength to eat before midday."
Angel was prepared for execution once _ fed his last meal with his legs chained _ but at the end of the day his name was removed from the list.
"I once saw 58 executed in one day," he says. "But I wasn't meant to die in there."
In October, Amnesty International asked the Nigerian government to declare a moratorium on executions, saying the country's criminal justice system was "riddled with corruption, negligence and a nearly criminal lack of resources."The London-based rights group said over half of the 736 inmates facing death were convicted on the basis of written confessions that many said were extracted under torture.
In addition, at least 80 death row inmates were sentenced with no right to appeal, Amnesty said, and others faced decades of delays on appeals because of missing case files or a lack of lawyers to represent them. The group used Angel's images to illustrate its reports and organized exhibitions of his work to further its campaign against the death penalty.
In what amounts to an acknowledgment of flaws in its criminal justice system, the government has appointed two commissions of inquiry, both of which also recommended a moratorium on death sentences.
No such action has been taken, but on Nov. 14, President Umaru Yar'Adua pardoned a man who had been on death row for 22 years and ordered the justice minister and attorney-general to review prison inmates' records and bring other "deserving cases" to his attention. It was not clear what prompted the pardon or what constituted "deserving cases."
Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation, with 140 million people according to government census figures. Despite being Africa's biggest oil producer, poverty, violent crime and corruption are widespread.
Angel's luck changed when a representative of the British Council, the British government-funded cultural organization, got one of his drawings. He visited Angel on death row and organized two exhibitions of his work in Enugu town in 1993 and 1994.
The exhibitions were well attended and widely covered by the media, and soon petition drives were organized to demand Angel's release. In 1995, a prominent human rights lawyer took his case and after a series of appeals he was released in February 2000.
Angel now works as an artist and a human rights activist, painting in a small studio in a rundown suburb of Lagos, Nigeria's biggest city. He has married and has three small children.
He sells the portraits and landscapes he now paints, but his real passion remains the works depicting what he saw in prison. Rights groups from around the world have used his 51 death row works to lobby for the abolition of the death sentence, and Angel says he could never sell them."These works represent the 16 years that were taken from my life," and even if Nigeria abolishes the death penalty, the pictures "will remind the government that we mustn't go back to such a time," he says. "These are works that price tags cannot be attached to."
(Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
