Another victim of polarization?

American political discourse grows more strident as fewer cater to the middle ground. American chlidren grow more obese...or suffer from over-use injuries typically associated with mid-thirties professional athletes as the "playground athlete" slowly vanishes. And now? the clash between ultra-low cost shopping and consumer activism brings about a collapse of the "middle ground" supermarket:

As the low-cost grocer Winn-Dixie filed for bankruptcy this week, the news sent a shudder - and a sense of tragedy - through the world of stockholder-owned grocery stores.

[...]

"The whole culture of food and eating is changing right in front of our eyes," says Harvey Hartman, president of the Hartman Group Inc., a retail consulting firm in Bellevue, Wash. "Now we have a customer who has changed, who is moving forward, and these old established brands are irrelevant to them."

[...]

This checkout conundrum has been sneaking up on middle-of-the-road grocery stores, which can now only wonder how they fit into the habits of the modern-day shopper. "Grocers don't know who they are," says Mr. Hartman. "They're fighting Wal-Mart on one flank. They have a store within a store to fight the natural-foods marketplace. They're doing prepared foods on another flank. They have lost any kind of meaning to a particular customer."

[...]

Christina Aristakos, a vegetarian, calls this a "major revolution" in grocery shopping. People are paying "more attention to their food supply," she says.

[...]

On the other flank is an equally strong trend toward "commoditization," epitomized by the rock-bottom prices in Wal-Mart's well-lit aisles. In many ways, Wal-Mart is a destination in itself, a place where shoppers can get everything from motor oil to flour. But it does have its limits. "Wal-Mart is the basket you fill up, get the cheap stuff, throw something at the kids," says Mr. Banks. "But when you want a nice rack of lamb or ribs, you're not going to go to Wal-Mart."

[...]

All this and other forces contributed to Winn-Dixie's decline. It's an "old company that fell asleep at the wheel a long time ago and finally went off the road," says David Livingstone, a grocery store expert in Pewaukee, Ill. "Without any meaningful attempts to compete, Winn-Dixie got squeezed."

I think we can all agree that Shakespeare's Hamlet said it best:

Alas, poor [Winn-Dixie!] I knew him, Horatio: a fellow of infinite [aisles], of most excellent [generic brands]: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at it. Here hung those [fruits] that I have [weighed] I know not how oft. Where be your [discounts] now? your [deli]? your [carts]? your [pages] of [coupons], that were wont to set the [shopper] on a roar?

Well...okay. Perhaps Hamlet didn't say it EXACTLY like that. But you get the picture, right? There is a growing concern that the 'market placement' of whole/organic foods (most of those dedicated to selling these products are priced out of range of the average shopper - and certainly the low-income shopper) is creating a nutritional gap between rich and poor that further reduces the idea of "equality of opportunity" - if Johnny is too under-nourished to concentrate in school, then how is he going to succeed? More from a British website called The Race to the Top:

Diet is not the sole or perhaps even the main cause of these inequalities. But poor diet underlies poor health and reinforces inequality. Based on her research on nutrition in low-income households, the public health nutritionist Elizabeth Dowler summarises the differences in diet between low and high income households as follows:

• Poor households eat less varied foods
• People in poorer households are less likely to eat fresh fruit, wholemeal bread, lean meat and oily fish - all of which are recommend for healthy living. (The gap in fruit consumption in particular has widened over the last two decades. Fruit consumption by the lowest income group is only a third of that of the top income group, about 560g/person/week compared to 1,700g/person /week).
• At all ages, people in poorer households have lower nutrient intakes than people in richer households, and the gap has widened over the past 20 years
• Pregnant women on low incomes have very poor diets and are more likely to bear low birthweight babies
• Children who are poorly nourished are unlikely to grow well; they are more likely to become obese; children who come to school hungry, with no breakfast, are less likely to benefit from schooling and learn well (Dowler et al 2001).

Supermarkets
Whole foods

We come in peace?

The White House today confirmed rumors that European intelligence agencies had confirmed the presence of Martian WMD programs. Unnamed sources high in the administration have confirmed that preliminary plans for dealing aggressively with these new proliferators were in the works.

"We cannot sit back and wait for the Martians to come to us! We must act now - before they develop the capability to destroy Earth!"

Meanwhile, a Martian spokesman was equally adamant that their programs are peaceful and meant merely to produce new energy for planetary consumption.

Satire

Taking a tour down Memory Lane.

Reading an entry on the Intel Dump today (building on this report from the WSJ), I was reminded of the old Newsweek article discussing the "Salvadoran Option" - and my response that what Pentagon brass seemed to be elaborating upon was more aptly described as the "Afghan Option." Here's the gist of Phillip Carter's Intel Dump entry:

The essence of "foreign internal defense" (FID), which is essentially what the mission to train Iraqi forces is, is to leverage the existence of an existing warrior class and to build it into a fighting force capable of accomplishing common goals. One of the most important things that must be done at the outset is to find those warrior-leaders and warrior-soldiers capable of raising arms against their enemies. FID doesn't work like conscription; you can't take a citizenry and transform them into a fighting force with these kinds of methods, at least not without a lot of time and effort. FID works best when you can co-opt an existing band of brothers -- like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan -- and embrace it with U.S. precision firepower and C4ISR capabilities.

Thus far, our efforts to train Iraqi security forces have not followed this FID model -- and they have floundered. We have attempted to transform a group of average citizens in Iraq into soldiers capable of going toe-to-toe with some very bad guys, and ultimately, being able to kill their fellow citizens. It takes a lot to create that kind of a force; it takes years to inculcate that kind of skill, professionalism and warrior ethos. We may be able to impart the basics to the Iraqi security force personnel -- such as how to shoot and maintain their weapons, conduct a squad patrol, etc. But it's a giant leap from that baseline of proficiency to what these "pop up" units have: a fighting spirit.

The U.S. would be well advised to mimic its past success in Afghanistan by finding more warriors like the ones in these units, and enlisting them in the common cause of Iraqi security. Lt. Gen. Petraeus had it right -- let's train the Iraqis to handle their own security as quickly and effectively as possible, so that we can bring our men and women home.

And with this, Phillip is also explaining why it has taken so long to get the 'real' Afghan army on its feet. Until individual militia leaders and warlords really started to believe the nation was going to hold together - and they could gain as much from this as from resistance - good recruits were in short supply. Or they left after receiving training. That's changing now in Afghanistan - but it was long, slow process to get there. The same needs to take place in Iraq. Thus the need for the "Afghan Option" (so woefully misunderstood by the authors of the Newsweek piece). Until the regular Iraqi forces are seen as a valid means of combating the insurgency, it will be difficult to raise aggressive units from scratch. Indeed, the most successful Iraqi units to date consist largely of Kurdish Pesh Merga and old Iraqi army commandos - folks with a proven 'warrior' disposition. The difficulty in training and advising such forces then becomes instilling battlefield discipline and a standard of ethics acceptable to the U.S. military. And for those looking to lay down cracks about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo or elsewhere, save it. Those remain (despite all the hype) isolated cases that go strongly against the military's grain. And don't flash anecdotal stories at me in an effort to prove otherwise. I've been out there, I've seen the soldiers in action, and I've been one myself - I know how the majority think and how a properly functioning command structure responds to allegations of abuse.

Iraq
Military

My latest find...and a look at the future of blogging

Yes...I still use Bloglines (although when I forget to check it for a few days, the number of unread entries can be daunting). But I've recently come across another useful blog/news aggregator: findory.

I haven't spent enough time using it to see how well it 'customizes' itself to my tastes...but it should be interesting to monitor its progression. Kinda-sorta reminds me of the MSNBC newsbot - although the MSNBC service only lists 5 stories in its "Personalized" section.

And now for something completely different...I found this article on Wired (via Findory):

After years of juggling a full-time job and a high-profile blog, Jason Kottke is calling it quits.

Quits for the job, that is.

From now on, the New York web designer will no longer be commuting five days a week to his day job at a Manhattan financial services firm. Instead, he'll be devoting himself full time to building out his blog, kottke.org, a scattered collection of writings and photos on topics ranging from web design to the politics of Girl Scout cookie sales.

Now there's a man with confidence in his blogging. I'm embarrassed to say I've never visited his site (I swear I'm heading there right after I finish this post...). Interestingly, Jason has forsaken advertising and plans to survive solely on reader contributions. He also accepts that he'll likely be making far less money as a blogger than as a web designer...but considering the fact that he no longer needs to commute, can choose where to live based on price rather than access to work, and will be engaged in a true labor of love, that doesn't seem like such a rough trade off. It'll be interesting to see how much this sort of phenomenon starts to take off. Full-time "free lance" bloggers (or even hard-core part-timers) could be the vanguard of a new media revolution. If enough skilled bloggers take this path, Yahoo and MSN continue to support RSS feeds on their customizable "home" pages, and sites like Findory, Bloglines, etc. continue to grow in popularity, at what point do people begin to turn first to bloggers as a source of news and commentary?

Consider the case of Stephen Vincent and his blog/book In the Red Zone. Steve just picked up and went to Iraq. He didn't work for a major news agency, he didn't embed himself with the military, and he really isn't beholden to anyone but himself. The stories and perspectives he presents are far different than anything coming from the mainstream media (MSM) on either side of the aisle. He is neither a U.S. military cheerleader nor an Al-Jazeera inspired conspiracy theorist. He is a perfect example of new media. Consider also the increasing number of military blogs - often written straight from the front lines. All of these new sources of information and insight promise to deliver stories from an angle the big boys of the media can't match - and will do so far more quickly as well. When your editors are your viewers and the story evolves after its posting, the process of delivering a story changes dramatically.

Now don't get me wrong...there will always be a place for MSM sources...but they will have to evolve to survive - and adapt many of the tools of the blogger. Take a look at articles published on Slate for an example of what I'm talking about - numerous embedded links, and easy access to comments. Better example? CNet, which now allows trackbacks to its articles. Maybe Jason Kottke seems like the exception now...but I have the feeling, ten or twenty years from now, the folks getting the funny look will be those suggesting a magazine requiring a large staff and tied to its own reporting pool for its stories.

Wired also offers this story elaborating on the woes of print media as the revolution advances.

Oh yeah...and for those of you wondering what the small hyperlinks at the bottom of my posts are...those are Technorati Tags. Click here to check 'em out.

Blogging MSM Internet

How's Johnny gonna go to college without a decent fastball?

The NY Times has an article on the rising number of over-use and overtraining injuries among child and teen athletes. The reporter, Bill Pennington, takes the time, however, to address more than just the issue of overbearing parents - a welcome change from some of the other articles of this type. He also takes a look at the technical aspects of injury prevention and sheds some light on the issue of coaches that don't understand proper training techniques and help create the conditions that lead to such childhood injuries. Below are examples of the two separate problems (coaches and parents) from the article:

"I recently had a mother ask me if there isn't some kind of shot or fix-it procedure I could do for her 11-year-old daughter's ankle so she could be ready for an upcoming regional competition," Dr. Smith, the Philadelphia orthopedist, said. "I told her that if it were the Olympic Games coming up, perhaps we could treat this situation differently. But as far as I understood, her upcoming competition wasn't the Olympics.

"At this point, the daughter is giggling but the parent is in the corner crying. I said: 'This isn't Curt Schilling in the World Series. It's not worth not being able to run anymore for a plastic gold-plated medal.' "

[...]

Dr. Micheli, of Boston Children's Hospital, and many of his colleagues said they believed that better coaching would help reduce overuse injuries among children.

"The coaches are volunteers and mean well, but they are not trained," Dr. Micheli said. "And every five years, a new batch comes along and the problems go on unabated. We are vigorously promoting mandatory coaching certification programs where youth coaches can get the education they need to protect the children.

"I think town leaders will eventually say to soccer leagues, 'We'll give you the access to our fields but we want certified coaches.' "

There's another angle to look at here as well - and it makes for an odd dicotomy. On the one hand, we have child and teen athletes developing injuries typically associated with late career pro athletes, and on the other we have rising rates of childhood obesity spurred by inactivity. I think the article (perhaps accidentally) alludes to a bigger problem with this statement:

Doctors lament the loss of what has become a cultural artifact: the playground athlete. Two decades ago, sports for children were often unorganized, with pick-up games common in schoolyards and community parks.

"Children might have played baseball, basketball and football all in the same day," Dr. Micheli said. "This was good for their bodies, which developed in balance. Now young athletes play sports supervised by adults who have them doing the same techniques, the same drills, over and over and over.

The 'playground athlete' was a title available for children on both ends of the spectrum - the serious athlete and the "wanna-have-fun" kinda kids. As the venues for playground athletes slowly disappear, we see diametrically opposed problems emerge from the extremes. On the one hand, the "real athletes" are pushed to focus, train, and specialize too early leading to a surge of over-use injuries. On the other hand, kids without that same sort of drive (whether internal or parentally-induced) are becoming more obese with fewer opportunities to engage in activities that might reverse the trend. From the Times article:

"I agree there are more overuse injuries, but I am still more worried about the high rate of inactivity and obesity in children," said Dr. William O. Roberts, president of the American College of Sports Medicine. "We need more kids to do a lot more and a few kids to do a little less."

The loss of the middle ground has forced us to deal with the dangers of the two extremes. Hey...is that a political analogy or WHAT?

Health Fitness

Didn't anyone tell him?

Poor John Howard. Apparently no one else informed him that the appropriate role for countries other than the U.S. and Britain in Iraq is to offer a golf clap for the elections, mouth vague statements about how important stability in the country is, and then seek ways to avoid any sort of commitment.

It's like he's more interested in helping Iraq than trying to walk the fine line of compromise between a reluctant populace and a powerful ally. What's he THINKING?

Mr Howard says Iraq is at a "tilting point" after the country's landmark elections and Australia will send an extra 450 soldiers to what he describes as a "reasonably violence-free" area of southern Iraq.

The soldiers will mostly come from Darwin's 1st Brigade will leave in about 10 weeks. They will train Iraqi forces and provide security for Japanese troops involved in the humanitarian effort.

Mr Howard says the extra soldiers will replace a withdrawing Dutch contingent.

"Unless additional security could be provided to replace the Dutch, then there was a real possibility the Japanese could no longer remain there and that would be a serious blow to the coalition effort," Mr Howard said.

Iraq
Coalition
Australia

Defending Rumsfeld? That's, like, SO 2002.

I caught this article on the (relentlessly conservative...) Town Hall website ref: Rumsfeld and the pressure he takes from all sides these days:

Almost every time Mr. Rumsfeld opens his mouth in public, people accuse him of arrogance, rudeness, evasiveness and insubordination to people who aren't even his superiors. Day after day, week after week, month after month, this brilliant, sagacious man is treated like a punching bag by people who couldn't hold his briefcase. We are talking about a man who is in his late sixties, independently wealthy, professionally accomplished beyond the wildest dreams of his detractors, and who has nothing personally to gain through his position.

[...]

To them, Secretary Rumsfeld is an exasperating paradox, a man who they think craves more power, yet just this week recommended against the Pentagon taking charge of CIA paramilitary operations. He's a fossil out of step with modernity, but who advocates a futuristic, leaner military machine. He's an ogre who delights in placing our troops in harm's way, yet resists the quarterbacks' calls for more troops in Iraq. This guy just drives them crazy.

[...]

While Old Media agents like Milbank are indignant about Rumsfeld's refusal to grovel, I savor his politically incorrect answers and his unwillingness to manufacture phony responses to accommodate their childish insistence on his divulging the unknowable. There is no substitute for such Rumsfeld gems as, "There's never been a war that was predictable as to length, casualty or cost in the history of mankind."

I challenge you to read the transcript of Rumsfeld's testimony and Milbank's piece. Study carefully every Rumsfeld response Milbank chose to highlight, and tell me what on earth is wrong with any of them.

The article above (written by David Limbaugh) references this piece originally published by Dana Milbank in the WaPost from earlier in the week. I think he gets a bit carried away in describing Rumsfeld's wonderful work...and I've already voiced my own concerns ref: Rumsfeld (here and here). The written transcript David refers to can be found here. Having quickly skimmed through it, I find several instances where I agree with David. Consider this comment from Mr. Milbank:

Asked about the number of insurgents in Iraq, Rumsfeld replied: "I am not going to give you a number."

Well that's certainly quite rude! Let's see what the transcript says (notice I've highlighted the portion Milbank chose to quote in his article):

SKELTON: Mr. Chairman, an additional question regarding, as we all know, of course, American troops are still paying a deadly price.

[...]

So may I ask, what is our current estimate of the size of the insurgent force? And how much uncertainty is connected with that estimate, Mr. Secretary?

RUMSFELD: The intelligence community looks at that. The CIA does, DIA does, others do. And they have differing assessments over, at different times.

And, as you know, they're made up of former regime elements, Baathists, and they're made up of Zarqawi-type jihadists and terrorists, and they're also include a varying number of criminals who are paid to do these things. And it's that aggregation that constitutes the insurgents.

I am not going to give you a number for it because it's not my business to do intelligence work.

Maybe, Dick, you want to comment on it.

MYERS: Well, I think your description is right. The primary insurgents that we need to be concerned with, there are two types.

One is the al Qaida-associated Zarqawi folks in-country and the foreign fighters. We think that is a fairly small percentage of the total number of insurgents.

And then we have the former regime elements and Sunni extremists that are hard core. The hard core, the ones that need to be captured or dealt with on the battlefield, is a smaller percentage of the overall total, which includes folks like common criminals and it includes folks that are opportunistic and perhaps because they don't have a job are willing to take money to attack the coalition or dissatisfied because they don't see a political future for themselves or their families or their tribes. So the number is, like all insurgencies, very hard to measure.

These are generally small cells. They don't keep very good records as we capture individuals you can't simply go into their paraphernalia and say, “Ah-ha, here's their organizational diagram, “ because they don't have one. So the estimates are hard to come by.

And it goes on from there. Bottom line: Rumsfeld did NOT respond with a pithy, one sentence reply. Instead, he turned the question over to someone he thought more well-qualified to answer. Again from Milbank:

How long will the war last? "There's never been a war that was predictable as to length, casualty or cost in the history of mankind."

And again from the transcript:

ORTIZ: Mr. Secretary, Mr. Chairman, welcome to our committee today.

I was looking at the chart that you have there: neutralize insurgents, ensure legitimate elections and so on down the line.

To do that, how long will it take us to get there?

RUMSFELD: I'd be happy to start and maybe General Myers wants to comment.

There has never been a war that was predictable as to length, casualty or cost in the history of mankind. Anyone who attempts to do it is, within a relatively short order, proven to be not quite as wise as they thought they were.

You say, “How long will it take? “ The goal is to have the Iraqis have the security capability to manage their own insurgency.

We can predict how long it will take to train up and equip various types of forces.

RUMSFELD: And we have materials we send up to the committee weekly that explain all of that and show all the types of forces and the numbers and what the projection is.

The question is: How does that capability match with the actual problem of the insurgency? Is the insurgency going to grow or decline?

General Myers pointed out that the nature of the insurgency is dependent not simply upon the security forces to deal with it but also on the political progress and the economic progress. And both of those are making headway. So that ought to be encouraging.

But I regret -- I'd dearly love to be able to give you a specific date. I can't.

Rumsfeld may not tell everyone what they want to hear...and he may have a "just do it myself" attitude that makes it difficult for other federal agencies to work in conjunction with DOD. He may have placed too much faith in the analysis of neo-cons and intel-types who listened too closely to the Iraqi National Congress and Iraqi National Accord. But, as David Limbaugh says, Dana Milbank's article has little to do with Rumsfeld's actual testimony to the House committee. If people disagree with Rumsfeld and choose to seek his removal, they would do themselves far more of a service by covering real stories rather than cherry-picking quotes from a transcript they are confident most people won't take the time to read or watch.

This of course, brought another topic to mind. In years past, a Washington Post article, without any changes, would have been published - maybe sent over the wire to other papers, and that would have been that. We wouldn't have seen a transcript from the Congressional hearing and there would likely have been little chance to question the article in a public forum. Not anymore.

I read this piece from the WaPost (via MSNBC) earlier today in which a Post reporter documents the current woes of newspapers...without ever stopping to consider the need for a wider reinvention of the medium. Instead, the article concentrates on how "difficult" it is to fund the old-style journalism model with Internet advertising. No kidding. When a revolution comes, those who try to fit the old square peg into the new round hole aren't going to do too well. And suggesting that charging fees for access to the site...in order to sustain an unworkable model is an ugly admission that someone isn't looking far enough forward.

Peggy Noonan wrote this insightful piece on the Wall Street Journal's online Op-Ed page. I'll quickly cover a couple of her predictions:

Some brilliant rising young reporter with a growing reputation at the Times or Newsweek or Post is going to quit, go into the blogging business, start The Daily Joe, get someone to give him a guaranteed ad for two years, and become a journalistic force. His motive will be influence, and the use of his gifts along the lines of excellence. His blog will further legitimize blogging.

Most of the blogstorms of the past few years have resulted in outcomes that left and right admit or bray were legitimate. Dan Rather fell because his big story was based on a fabrication, Trent Lott said things that it could be proved he said. But coming down the pike is a blogstorm in which the bloggers turn out to be wrong. Good news: They'll probably be caught and exposed by bloggers. Bad news: It will show that blogging isn't nirvana, and its stars aren't foolproof. But then we already know that, don't we?

Some publisher is going to decide that if you can't fight blogs, you can join them. He'll think like this: We're already on the Internet. That's how bloggers get and review our reporting. Why don't we get our own bloggers to challenge our work? Why don't we invite bloggers who already exist into the tent? Why not take the best things said on blogs each day and print them on a Daily Blog page? We'd be enhancing our rep as an honest news organization, and it will further our branding!

Does she sound too far out? I don't think so. Take a look at several recent pieces published by Jack Shafer at Slate (here, here, and - most meaningfully - here). Let me highlight the simple steps Jack took at the end of the last linked article - with probably five additional minutes of work, he tied the blogosphere into his work:

Watch the bloggers work me over here. (I've collected some comments below.) I'll send a U.S. dollar to the first who writes "Shafer doesn't get it." Send e-mail to pressbox@hotmail.com . Disclosure: The conference covered by airfare and lodging. (E-mail may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)

Bloggers Rip My Flesh: Here are comments from the blogosphere about my "Blog Overkill" column. Note on methodology: I harvested them from Technorati, Daypop, Blogdex, and from e-mails sent to me by bloggers.

By just including links to Daypop, Blogdex, and Technorati, Jack has opened the door for those who wish to find opinions that either support or disagree with his...and by advertising this, he has increased the odds that people will write about what HE writes. And by doing THAT, he is ensuring more hits for his own site as people read others' work and are referenced back to the original article. Readership? Up. That's what advertisers want to hear. That's the money that can drive online news - without subscription fees.

Jeff Jarvis elaborates on the relationship between MSM and blogger (and its evolution) here as he builds upon an exchange of correspondence with Bill Keller of the NY Times. Mr. Keller shows a greater understanding for the blog and its role than many bloggers might expect...and raises the equally important point that the Times serves as a major "jumping-off point" for blogging in general. Now if only they'd stop shoving their articles into a paid archive!

Update:

Hindrocket at Power Line takes a much more negative view of the Jarvis-Keller exchange:

Let's just note a few blind spots here: First, Keller is right to note the challenge to print journalism, but the big problem is not competition, it is what Keller called "failures in credibility." The print media can't beat us and other bloggers when it comes to speed. Ultimately, news organs like the Times can only survive if people believe that their slow, ponderous pace generates better accuracy and thoughtfulness.

Rumsfeld Journalism MSM

So much for 'functional fitness.'

You know, as the weather has gotten colder here, I've spent less time walking/running up the mountain behind our apartment, less time running up MP Hill on Yongsan main post, and MORE time using the elliptical trainer at one of the gyms on post. I FOOLED myself into thinking it was the same thing..."Hey, look at this cool heart rate read-out! I'm hitting 170 and it doesn't even feel that bad! My legs aren't getting tired! This is the workout of the future!" I'd even gone so far as to mock a friend of mine who's been running his ass off lately to get "back in shape" (he's already in shape...he just doesn't know it...). So have I found the workout of the future? A way to build functional fitness (take a look at the article in this link...good stuff) without teeth-gnashing, gut-wrenching hard work?

To read the rest of this post, click here.

health
fitness

Does this make me a geek?

I noticed an odd entry in my statistics yesterday - it was a reference to "translate.google.com" and when I clicked on the referring page, I found myself faced with one of my Blog entries...translated into German. I don't know enough German to judge the quality of translation, but I was fascinated by the capability. Fascinated enough that I went to Google, hunted down a German news page, and had it translated. Here's the result. Perfect? Nope. Not by a long shot. Fascinating? To me...yes. As this technology develops, think of the implications. I can literally go to any web page in any language, and find out what's being said - straight from the "horse's mouth," so to speak. So far, there are only a few languages available for translation - but the list is growing, as is the comprehension capabilities of the translation sites.

If you're interested in taking a look for yourself, check out the Google translation page here.

Internet Search Technology Google

My apologies...

I've got exams this week...AND I'm finalizing the paperwork for a new contract, preparing for a (brief) trip back to the States, getting together my tax info to mail to my accountant (he'd never even HEARD of PGP! What's the world coming to...?), and trying to keep my wife happy inbetween all of the above-mentioned activities.

NEXT week, though...Whoo-ee. I've got BIG plans for next week!

...Oh all right. ONE link then. But that's IT. I have studying to do, for cripe's sake.

Official "certified" Iraqi election results from Reuters:

Iraq's Shi'ite alliance won a slim majority of seats in the country's new National Assembly, the Iraqi Electoral Commission said on Thursday, based on final results from last month's historic election.

The United Iraqi Alliance, a coalition of mainly Shi'ite Islamist religious parties, had been allocated 140 seats in the 275-seat National Assembly, the Commission said in a statement.

Around 8.5 million votes were cast, representing a turnout of some 58 percent of the more than 14 million eligible voters.

Feel free to discuss....

Iraq
Elections

The world according to Kim

The NY Times published an excellent Op-Ed piece today elaborating on North Korea's internal monologue to its citizens - and the effect this monologue is likely to have on North Korean attitudes:

To North Korea, diplomacy is another form of war. Under the leadership of Kim Jong Il, the Foreign Ministry has bullied the United Nations into submission and outwitted the United States into providing food aid - all the while developing a formidable nuclear arsenal.

This is, of course, the hard-line view of North Korea that prevails in some quarters in Washington. Yet it is also the official North Korean view of North Korea.

Interesting that there are exactly two (perhaps three, if one includes Japan) nations that take the hard-line view of North Korea. More interesting, of course, that one of those nations is North Korea itself. Contrast this with the latest words from South Korea's "Unification Minister."

South Korea's top policymaker on North Korea said Monday North Korea's claim to have nuclear weapons was unproven and Seoul's controversial engagement policy with the North would remain, at least for now.

North Korea explicitly said for the first time last Thursday that it had atomic weapons. The reclusive communist state also said it was pulling out of six-party talks aimed at ending a two-year impasse over its nuclear programs because of what it called U.S. hostility. "There is no doubt that North Korea has 10 to 14 kg (22 to 31 pounds) of plutonium, but there is no evidence that the North has turned it into plutonium bombs," Minister of Unification Chung Dong-young told parliament Monday.

"We see it as a claim to own nuclear weapons, not an official statement of being a nuclear weapons state," he said.

Chung also heads South Korea's National Security Council, which advises President Roh Moo-hyun.

How does that go again? "We see it as a claim to own nuclear weapons, not an official statement of being a nuclear weapons state..." What is THAT supposed to mean? He says he's got a gun in his pocket and he's holding up the bank...but we shouldn't label him as a bank robber...? The Times Op-Ed continues:

School textbooks, wall posters, literary works: all celebrate a cynical "attack diplomacy" that makes a frightened and uncertain world dance to the drum of Kim Jong Il. Again and again, comic effect is derived from stories of stammering American and international officials trying to placate the relentless "warriors" of the Foreign Ministry. Washington's refusal to follow through on veiled threats of military action is mocked as a failure of nerve.

[...]

The North Korean people were probably the least surprised by the Central News Agency's admission last week. For years now domestic propaganda has claimed that the military has weapons capable of destroying any enemy nation in a single day, and there is an entire genre of poster art showing the United States Capitol under a missile attack.

Much of this stands in obvious contradiction to the agency's expression of a desire for "peaceful coexistence." The possibility of agreeing to disagree is all but excluded by an official worldview that allows for only three types of foreigners: hawks, who want to destroy the country through war; doves, who want to destroy it through subtler means; and those who acknowledge the greatness of the Kim regime.

[...]

Few things are more important to Pyongyang than its propaganda apparatus. Even when the rest of the nation came to a standstill in the mid-1990's, it never missed a beat. And yet Americans tend to dismiss North Korea's official culture as too ludicrous to warrant careful monitoring.

The glorification of "attack diplomacy" must be taken seriously. Either it reflects Kim Jong Il's real attitude, in which case any negotiations - bilateral or otherwise - are unlikely to bear fruit; or it is only part of a larger effort to shore up pride in the regime, in which case it still creates a mood - in the People's Army and the North Korean public at large - that will oppose any meaningful concession to the outside world. Either way, it is time that America started paying as much attention to North Korea's official rhetoric as North Korea does to America's.

I've included less than half of the Op-Ed - it's worth reading in its entirety for those looking for specific examples of aggressive propaganda. Also worth a look: some articles from the English-language South Korean newspapers. The conservative Chilsun-Ilbo posted this editorial questioning the South Korean 'soft' approach while the Korea Times site offers a more forgiving take on the South Korean response. I can't help but wonder how much attention folks in the South are paying to North Korea's internal rantings to its citizens.

NKorea Nuclear Diplomacy

Election results from Iraq

Here are the latest Iraqi election results, as reported by Steven Vincent from In the Red Zone (who, in turn, got them from Abbas Khadim) -

Winners (based on 30,750 votes/seat):

The United Iraqi Alliance (UIA): 4,075,295 (132 seats)
The Kurdistan Alliance: 2,175,551 (71 seats)
The Iraqi List (PM Ayad Allawi): 1,168,943 (38 seats)
Iraqis or Iraqiyyoun (President Ghazi al-Yawer): 150,680 (5 seats)
The Turkomen Iraqi Front: 93,480 (3 seats)
National Independent Elites and Cadres Party: 69,938 --Surprise! (2 seats)
The Communist Party: 69,920 -- they expected to win big! (2 seats)
The Islamic Kurdish Society: 60,592 (2 seats)
The Islamic Labor Movement in Iraq (Shi'i): 43,205 (1 seat)
The National Democratic Alliance: 36,795 (1 seat)
National Rafidain List (Assyrian Christians): 36,255 (1 seat)
The Reconciliation and Liberation Entity (Sunni/nationalist): 30,796 (1 seat)

The number is not 275 seats yet. The balance of the seats will be distributed among the parties on the basis of their gains in total votes (whatever that means!)

Losers (no seats):

Iraqi Islamic Party (main Sunni group headed by Mohsen Abdel-Hamid): 21,342 -- they would have done much better had the Sunni Arabs voted in large numbers.
The Monarchy Movement (Jordan's best hope) 13,470
Assembly of Independent Democrats (headed by Sunni elder statesman Adnan Pachachi): 12,728
National Democratic Party (headed by Naseer Kamel al-Chaderchi, Sunni lawyer and member of the former Iraqi Governing Council): 1,603

Total votes: 8,550,571

Invalid votes: 94,305

And, of course, the spin has already started. When initial results were released and the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance had a majority of the votes (over 50%) cast, this was a nightmare because it meant they could form a majority faction within the National Assembly and dictate constitutional terms. With less than 50% of the vote, the nightmare of today is Shiites will ally with the Kurds - who are mysteriously transformed from America's 'closest allies in Iraq' (under the old think-speak) into Iranian pawns:

And the winning Kurdish alliance, whose co-leader Jalal Talabani is the top nominee for president, has roots in a province abutting Iran, which long served as its economic and political lifeline.

My thoughts? The fact that the primary Kurdish and Shiite slates have emerged as the two strongest (but without enough of a majority to dictate terms) means whatever government emerges (and whatever constitution is hammered out over the next nine months) will require compromises between the two groups with the greatests disparity of views (Sunni - often secular - Kurds vs. strongly Islamic Shiites). That's a good thing...it means they have a chance to solve their problems over a council table rather than over the sights of their rifles. The next key step? Attracting enough moderate Sunnis to begin sapping support for the insurgency. Easier said than done, eh...? Bottom line: the elections are a noteworthy event...but neither as positive as the most ardent conservative pundits would like to brashfully trumpet nor as negative as the most ardent liberal pundits would like to angrily mutter.

As for those reports of surging violence: John Cole says, 'not so fast:'

While it is far too early to tell, it apepars that there has been a significant drop in coalition fatalities since the elections held at the end of last month. It has only been two weeks, so it is too early to jump to any firm conclusions, and violence could accelerate this weekend, but the numbers are striking (A graphic from the Iraq Coalition Casualties homepage can be viewed here).

I haven't seen any numbers regarding the death toll among Iraqis since elections - and the general inability to differentiate between civilian, military, police, and insurgent deaths makes for difficult estimating.

Iraq Election Politics

Democracy and the Internet

From a personal favorite of mine (Personal Democracy Forum), we have a point...and counter-point ref: the Internet and its effects on society in general and politics in particular. The roots of the argument are simple. For Zephyr, the Internet is a tool for revitalizing old structures and methods of organization. For Mr. Turk, the Internet is far more. It changes the equation, allowing people to accomplish goals individually without the burdens associated with "old-fashioned" volunteerism. I think, in the end, Michael is closer to the truth. While there will always be a place for "show up" volunteerism and activism (just as there will always be a place for brick and mortar commerce), the power of Internet activitism shouldn't be underestimated - and shouldn't be constrained by attempting to use it merely as a tool to prop up old methods of operation.

Point from Zephyr Teachout:

There's pretty good evidence that humans actively enjoy belonging to ritualized, secular societies that meet pretty regularly, weekly and monthly. Once upon a time, so many of us were engaged in local organizations with regularized membership and leadership roles that an observer wrote, "Here then we have the great American safety-valve—we are a nation of presidents." (My thanks to Theda Skocpol for unearthing that gem, and much of the research I am now citing.) Even as late as the 50's, there were more than twenty federated organizations which each counted between one and twelve percent of all Americans as their members. Think of the AFL-CIO, the Free Masons, the American Legion, the YMCA, the Elks, and so on.

[...]

Right now, the DNC website communicates to a newcomer that what it most wants you to do is contact the media, contribute, or raise money. It also has a great "Get Local" drop down, which pitches you to a page with information about your local party and links, which you can then follow to find local party events – many of which, depending on the state, sound intimidating to newcomers.

The DNC has taken great steps towards enabling local organizations, but I hope it takes it a step further, aggressively pushing the national DNC meetup – or some similarly ritualistic community event that takes place in a public space at a predictable time wherever you are – and making clear that what it most wants from its members is local involvement. The DNC can aggressively use the Internet to push vibrant federation far past where it’s been pushed to date.

Any visitor to the DNC’s website, and any member of the DNC email list should be run—not walked—to the next meeting of local Democrats in their area. Ideally, the meeting would take place in a public place, so that the timid and uncertain would feel like they could just check it out, without committing. Ideally, the meeting would happen within a week or two of any given day – with a promise for another meeting near in the future – so that the DNC website visitor would get the real sense that they were being invited to join an ongoing community, not just sit in on a brown bag lunch.

[...]

Americans are notorious transients. We’ve been changing homes at a clip rate since the 19th century. The large federated structures that bloomed in the late 19th century and early 20th century made room for our national habits of transience by making it easy to recreate – and re-find – similar community structures from one community to the next. The Knights of Columbus junkie in Madison could easily pick up his Knights of Columbus habit when he moved to San Francisco, and stop by the chapters on the way. If he ended up settling in a new town, he had the tools to start his own Knights of Columbus.

The internet allows a much faster generation of similarly federated structures to spring up – or, at the very least, it allows for the radical restructuring of existing organizations to accommodate our needs for power and community. I’m not convinced the incentives of added loyalty and engagement are sufficient for the nonprofits to seize the opportunity and take the risks of federating their power, but I hope they are.

Right now, most sites are focused on keeping you on their sites – but in my humble opinion everybody can benefit if sites see as one of their primary jobs as pushing you off, into local face-to-face associations.

The voluntary associations of the last two centuries are largely gone, and I don’t know that we should make an effort to recreate them in their old form. Given other pressures and our suburban, transient living habits, it may be impossible to recreate cross-sectional voluntary associations without the internet. But if we start to think of the internet as an organizing tool first -- a database of places as well as ideas, a database of calendars as well as pictures, we can also build a completely new social structure. It won't look like the voluntary associations of the 1950s, but it might get us past the isolation of the aughts.

And an aggressive counter-point from Michael Turk:

I spent a good deal of time reading and digesting Zephyr Teachout’s article on the nature of society, the need to be a part of social groups and the desire to use that need to organize. It really is an interesting read – unfortunately, in my opinion, it’s wrong in almost all of its assumptions and conclusions about the nature of people, society and the transformative power of the Internet.

Invoking Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone and Peter Najarian’s Great American Loneliness, Zephyr seems to argue that people need societal collectives to be complete but ignores the fact that the trends they document stand in stark contrast to the Locke-esque belief she espouses. Everything she cites reinforces the notion that people are growing further and further apart, but there is little recognition given to the possibility – or probability – that this may be by choice.

[...]

Nobody argues that removing the constraints placed on the citizen by a government institution, which is open for limited hours only, is bad. Yet, they will categorically object to the concept of removing constraints placed by other institutions and decry the notion that people are choosing not to interact with inflexible institutions.

This is true not only in government, but in commerce. Online retailers serve customers who want to spend their time doing something other than shopping. I could travel to a bookstore; hope they have the book I want; discover they don’t; drive to another store; spend an hour in traffic; and possibly, if the book is popular enough to be stocked, but not so popular that it has sold out, be able to complete my transaction.

Or, I can visit Amazon.com or BarnesAndNoble.com. I can choose a book; place my order; and have the item in my possession the next day. The transaction has taken only moments of my time and my need is met. By going online, I have avoided the burden of the institution.

The same principles applied to eGovernment and commerce apply to activism.

[...]

Zephyr’s thesis assumes two things with which I find fault. First, it assumes that choosing not to interact with others based on outmoded institutions is somehow a character flaw on an epic scale. The person who chooses to pursue individual – rather than group – activities is somehow defective.

Second, it assumes a model of Internet activism that is based on preserving institutional practices so we have a sense of belonging, rather than requiring our institutions to modernize those practices to meet our changing human behavior. She says online activists should be “run – not walked” to a local meeting without ever questioning whether the individual is perfectly capable of contributing to the cause without ever meeting another person face to face.

Her model of Internet-based activism seems to be a bunch of like-minded activists gathering together to sit around and talk about why we like our candidate and how we could actually help him if we weren’t sitting in a coffee shop telling our life stories to one another.

[...]

An individual contributing to the process not based on archaic structures and controls, but based on their sense of civic involvement using tools that provide empowerment with no strings attached. Activism built not on institutions, but on the desire of people, in the comfort of their own home, to take the initiative to talk with friends, family and neighbors and make their opinion heard.

This is the transformative power of the Internet.

Internet Activism Politics

Lessons in democracy

I just read this article on Mahmoud Abbas today in the International Herald Tribune. Although the title (and the gist of the article) concerns Palestinian-Israeli relations, there are some interesting pointers in there for partisan hacks in the U.S.

Let's start with this one:

He revealed that Hamas had made a commitment to him to run in the July elections for the Palestinian legislature, continuing Hamas's "conversion into a political party."

Turning opponents into legitimate political opposition...that sounds like a novel idea. Let's see how we compare:

Nader's decision to run was made in the teeth of a ferocious campaign by the liberals to discourage him. The Nation ran a full-page editorial demanding he not run. A “don't run” internet site was set up to barrage Nader with thousands of email petitions. Editorials, cartoons and letters to the editor in pro-Democratic Party capitalist newspapers hammered the same message. Well-off liberals have cut funding to advocacy groups that Nader has championed.

Following Nader's decision to run, Reverend Al Sharpton, who is running in the Democratic Party primaries as an anti-war and progressive protest candidate, said: “The only reason [Nader] is running is either he's an egomaniac or as a Bush contract... I'm going on a national crusade to stop Nader.”

"National crusade to stop Nader." Nice. That's showing the democratic spirit. So what else did Mr. Abbas have to say about his domestic opponents?

Asked if Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which are labeled terrorist organizations by the United States, want what he wants, he laughed and said: "No, of course they don't want what I want! They want to come to power if they can. For that they ran in municipal elections and after that they will go" to the legislative elections. "And if they win, of course they want power. And it is their right. It is the competition of democracy."

Asked about Hamas's recent victory in local elections in seven of the 10 Gazan cities and villages, Abbas said: "This is democracy. We have to congratulate Hamas and say, 'O.K., you won.' "

Do we REALLY have to "congratulate..." and say, "O.K., you won...?" That just seems so un-American these days.

And what, Mr. Abbas, should one do if his/her party fares poorly?

His own mainstream Fatah faction had made many mistakes, he said. The vote "is a good lesson for Fatah to realize its position toward this and that and prepare themselves for the coming elections" for Parliament on July 17.

Fatah is already working to renew itself and bring in a younger generation "in parallel" with preparations for the elections, Abbas said, including work to form a new government, expected within the next week. There are some in Fatah who worry Hamas could win more than 40 percent of the vote.

Abbas argued that democracy would help tame the radicals. "Of course they should be converted into a political party," he said. "It's good for us, we're talking about national unity."

National unity? Hm...what does the new Chairman of the DNC have to say about that?

HOWARD DEAN, THE favorite to be the next head of the Democratic National Committee, made his case in midtown yesterday, promising to make his party operate more like the GOP - at least when it comes to elections.

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization," the failed presidential hopeful told the crowd at the Roosevelt Hotel, where he and six other candidates spoke at the final DNC forum before the Feb. 12 vote for chairman.

Well at least the Republican leadership is showing a spirit of national unity, right?

In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.

Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year's intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if "the majority of the majority" supports them.

So when can we get some Democratic and Republican leaders over to the Middle East to set Mr. Abbas straight...?

Politics Mideast Elections Partisanship

Environmentalism with a nod to reality.

I first came across the name "Patrick Moore" yesterday while researching a bit on biodiesel (I couldn't help but run across other alternative energy issues when researching one). The specific context yesterday was his advocacy of nuclear power as the only "ready right now" green energy source.

Patrick is one of the founders of Greenpeace who has since left the organization because he believes his old organization has lost its way, as his Miami herald Op-Ed piece (registration required) indicates:

By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism. I became aware of the emerging concept of sustainable development: balancing environmental, social and economic priorities. Converted to the idea that win-win solutions could be found by bringing all interests together, I made the move from confrontation to consensus.

Since then, I have worked under the banner of Greenspirit to develop an environmental policy platform based on science, logic and the recognition that more than six billion people need to survive and prosper every day of the year. The environmental movement has lost its way, favoring political correctness over factual accuracy, stooping to scare tactics to garner support.

We're faced with environmental policies that ignore science and result in increased risk to human health and ecology. To borrow from the vernacular, how sick is that?

[...]

Environmentalism has become anti-globalization and anti-industry. Activists have abandoned science in favor of sensationalism. Their zero-tolerance, fear-mongering campaigns would ultimately prevent a cure for Vitamin A deficiency blindness, increase pesticide use, increase heart disease, deplete wild salmon stocks, raise the cost and reduce the safety of healthcare, raise construction costs, deprive developing nations of clean electricity, stop renewable wind energy, block a solution to global warming and contribute to deforestation. How sick is that?

To get a better idea of what Patrick is talking about, take a look at his website's front page and then take a look at the Greenpeace front page.

While Moore deals with finding practical - feasible - solutions to environmental issues, Greenpeace attacks the Bush WMD counterproliferation policy (wait a minute, doesn't that sound a bit more like political activism?) and coal plants as a "dirty" source of energy. Of course, since Greenpeace ALSO actively campaigns against nuclear power, I'm left to wonder what options remain in the short term. Hydropower, by the way, is also unacceptable.

Here's what Wired has to say about nuclear energy and the quest for non-polluting energy sources:

What is a rapidly carbonizing world to do? The high-minded answer, of course, is renewables. But the notion that wind, water, solar, or biomass will save the day is at least as fanciful as the once-popular idea that nuclear energy would be too cheap to meter. Jesse Ausubel, director of the human environment program at New York's Rockefeller University, calls renewable energy sources "false gods" - attractive but powerless. They're capital- and land-intensive, and solar is not yet remotely cost-competitive. Despite all the hype, tax breaks, and incentives, the proportion of US electricity production from renewables has actually fallen in the past 15 years, from 11.0 percent to 9.1 percent.

What's their solution? Keep working on renewable sources...but put aside carbon-emitting energy sources as soon as possible. Sounds a bit better than shrill cries of "Stop everything! We're all dying!"

Environmentalism Activism Energy