India's Bangalore city renamed Bengalooru - washingtonpost.com
Now for a more traditional geographical topic - the renaming of a city.
Why would India, or any place for that matter, want to change a name of a city, particularly the name of a city of some importance?
They might feel compelled if the city's name was one not of their choosing. Bangalore represents the anglicized name of the actual name of the city, Bengalooru. During the British colonial era, the name was changed from Bengalooru to Bangalore.
In order to protect the local culture from the influx of newcomers - this city is an Indian technopole, home to more than 1,500 computer software and technology support firms - traditional names are replacing the anglicized names.
There are some opposed. Listen to the report on TheWorld. It cost money to change a name. Billboards and signs must be changed. People's business cards must be changed. Promotional materials, letterhead; just changing a name can have far reaching implications. Some suggest that the price is too high; the name was fine and the money could be used for funding social services. Maybe so.
Check out this transcription of the October 19th, 2006 U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing. Tom Casey, Deputy Spokesman, gets taken to task not only on the Kiev-Kyiv name change, but also why the United States still calls Myanmar "Burma" and how the U.S. can support both Greece and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) when FYROM really wants to be called Macedonia - only Greece won't let it because Greece already has a state called, "Macedonia," that is right next door to the country that wants to be called "Macedonia."
Whew.
Thursday, November 2, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Knock the French While U.S. Society Devolves
WP: France devises a baby boom - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
People love to knock the French. We can't have French Toast anymore; it's called "Liberty Toast." French fries? Nope - "Liberty Fries." Why? Recall the events after 9/11 and how the French refused to support our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
History will be the final arbeiter of their choice, but fives years later, their decision seems sound. The world of public opinion favors their response, not ours or the British. In recent articles in the Mail & Guardian, British commanders lament the focus of activities on Iraq. The inbalance of attention in Iraq has prevented sufficient resources from being available to assist with the rebuilding of Afghanistan. The complete failure of U.S. policy and administration in Iraq has prevented focused and sustainable development in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration hired James Baker, Bush Sr.'s secretary of state, to evaluate Iraq. Baker says Iraq is a "hellava mess."
If the rumors are true, then Syria and Iran will be the new administrators of Iraq, according to several newspaper accounts. Aren't these members of the Axis of Evil? Iran was one of the original members. Syria is member by proxy due to its support of Hizbollah in Lebanon.
Let me get this straight: The Bush White House, apparently after the November elections, will negotiate with the Axis of Evil a plan to administer the new Iraq?
Where am I going with this?
We have immediate issues within our own borders. We have immediate need to address education, crime, and families. Our national government likes to use touchy-feely language like "points of light" and "no child left behind" but has no backbone to really support any of these measures. Would the world really be so worse off today if Saddam Hussein was still in power? Look at what France is doing to support each family. It sounds as if they are listening to what is going on with their people and doing something about it.
I offer that perhaps if we took care of ourselves at home, be more consistent in word and deed at the national level, the world would look upon us differently.
People love to knock the French. We can't have French Toast anymore; it's called "Liberty Toast." French fries? Nope - "Liberty Fries." Why? Recall the events after 9/11 and how the French refused to support our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
History will be the final arbeiter of their choice, but fives years later, their decision seems sound. The world of public opinion favors their response, not ours or the British. In recent articles in the Mail & Guardian, British commanders lament the focus of activities on Iraq. The inbalance of attention in Iraq has prevented sufficient resources from being available to assist with the rebuilding of Afghanistan. The complete failure of U.S. policy and administration in Iraq has prevented focused and sustainable development in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration hired James Baker, Bush Sr.'s secretary of state, to evaluate Iraq. Baker says Iraq is a "hellava mess."
If the rumors are true, then Syria and Iran will be the new administrators of Iraq, according to several newspaper accounts. Aren't these members of the Axis of Evil? Iran was one of the original members. Syria is member by proxy due to its support of Hizbollah in Lebanon.
Let me get this straight: The Bush White House, apparently after the November elections, will negotiate with the Axis of Evil a plan to administer the new Iraq?
Where am I going with this?
We have immediate issues within our own borders. We have immediate need to address education, crime, and families. Our national government likes to use touchy-feely language like "points of light" and "no child left behind" but has no backbone to really support any of these measures. Would the world really be so worse off today if Saddam Hussein was still in power? Look at what France is doing to support each family. It sounds as if they are listening to what is going on with their people and doing something about it.
I offer that perhaps if we took care of ourselves at home, be more consistent in word and deed at the national level, the world would look upon us differently.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Uhoh-istan: Five Years in Afghanistan
Afghanistan: Is Victory Turning to Defeat? - Newsweek: International Editions - MSNBC.com
It is hard to believe that five years have passed since the U.S. deposed the Taliban in Afghanistan. I remember when the Taliban came to power; the newsworthy anecdote of their ascendency came when they demolished two 3rd Century A.D. Buddhist statues hewn from enormous hunks of sandstone.
After 9-11, they became part of the focus of our anti-terrorism efforts, and rightly so. They provided assistance to the planners of the 9-11 attacks, gave them safe refuge, a place to call home, and resources.
Five years later, they still have a safe place to call home, and it is the very same country from which they planned the attacks of half a decade ago. According the article, once one leaves Kabul, the Taliban have control of the countryside. Opium production in Afghanistan is the highest in years, even with U.S. anti-drug efforts and 40,000 U.S. on the ground.
The true focus of our anti-terrorism effort, should have been Afghanistan, not Iraq. If the White House were truly interested in driving a nails in the coffin of terrorism, Afghanistan should have been the graveyard.
It is hard to believe that five years have passed since the U.S. deposed the Taliban in Afghanistan. I remember when the Taliban came to power; the newsworthy anecdote of their ascendency came when they demolished two 3rd Century A.D. Buddhist statues hewn from enormous hunks of sandstone.
After 9-11, they became part of the focus of our anti-terrorism efforts, and rightly so. They provided assistance to the planners of the 9-11 attacks, gave them safe refuge, a place to call home, and resources.
Five years later, they still have a safe place to call home, and it is the very same country from which they planned the attacks of half a decade ago. According the article, once one leaves Kabul, the Taliban have control of the countryside. Opium production in Afghanistan is the highest in years, even with U.S. anti-drug efforts and 40,000 U.S. on the ground.
The true focus of our anti-terrorism effort, should have been Afghanistan, not Iraq. If the White House were truly interested in driving a nails in the coffin of terrorism, Afghanistan should have been the graveyard.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Pope's comments on Islam
Pope's comments on Islam hit 'civilization clash' fault line csmonitor.com
I recommend reading the Pope's actual statement rather than reading any synopsis. Having said that, here is an analysis by Joshua Trevino (The Brussels Journal) and from the desk of Dan Murphy (The Christian Science Monitor).
The irony of Muslim extremist calling for suicide attacks against the pope should be lost on no one. The pope obviously was quoting a 14th Christian cleric and was not expressing his own opinion.
Some points of fact: Islam was created by the sword and spread by the sword. The ramifications of this we see today in Iraq. Sunnis and Shi'as kill each other as a direct result of a feud that began after the death of Muhammed and the struggle to nominate a successor. Hence the split into the Sunni and Shi'a sects, the most popular. There are others.
The vast majority of Muslims worldwide do not adhere to the violence advocated by Muslim Extremists. Their belief system has been hijacked by these Extemists / Conservative Muslims. Many writers do not like the use of the word, "hijacked," as they state that Islam was founded on violence and parts of the Qu'ran advocate violence against the non-believer, therefore Extremists could not have hijacked a theology with violence since the theology itself was born of it. There is fear among Muslims that voicing opposition to the Extremists will mark them as targets. Perhaps I should say that the Moderate Muslim has grown spiritually beyond the violence from which they were begotten.
Islam has become defensive. Historically, they have been beset upon. The Crusades, the fragmentation of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, coupled with the partitioning of the Middle East after WWI, and assassination of Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953 have left a legacy of treachery, jealousy, animosity, and resentment within many Islamic cultures.
In this light, if we put ourselves in Muslim shoes, we can see a little bit why Muslims become indignant. Add into this the crusade-like references coming from the White House and the threat of a clash of cultures feel very real to them.
Note: --------------------------------------------------------
Islam is the world's 2nd largest religion, after Christianity, with about 1.3 billion members. Indonesia, population 245 million (CIA.gov), is the world's most populuous Islamic country.
I recommend reading the Pope's actual statement rather than reading any synopsis. Having said that, here is an analysis by Joshua Trevino (The Brussels Journal) and from the desk of Dan Murphy (The Christian Science Monitor).
The irony of Muslim extremist calling for suicide attacks against the pope should be lost on no one. The pope obviously was quoting a 14th Christian cleric and was not expressing his own opinion.
Some points of fact: Islam was created by the sword and spread by the sword. The ramifications of this we see today in Iraq. Sunnis and Shi'as kill each other as a direct result of a feud that began after the death of Muhammed and the struggle to nominate a successor. Hence the split into the Sunni and Shi'a sects, the most popular. There are others.
The vast majority of Muslims worldwide do not adhere to the violence advocated by Muslim Extremists. Their belief system has been hijacked by these Extemists / Conservative Muslims. Many writers do not like the use of the word, "hijacked," as they state that Islam was founded on violence and parts of the Qu'ran advocate violence against the non-believer, therefore Extremists could not have hijacked a theology with violence since the theology itself was born of it. There is fear among Muslims that voicing opposition to the Extremists will mark them as targets. Perhaps I should say that the Moderate Muslim has grown spiritually beyond the violence from which they were begotten.
Islam has become defensive. Historically, they have been beset upon. The Crusades, the fragmentation of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, coupled with the partitioning of the Middle East after WWI, and assassination of Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953 have left a legacy of treachery, jealousy, animosity, and resentment within many Islamic cultures.
In this light, if we put ourselves in Muslim shoes, we can see a little bit why Muslims become indignant. Add into this the crusade-like references coming from the White House and the threat of a clash of cultures feel very real to them.
Note: --------------------------------------------------------
Islam is the world's 2nd largest religion, after Christianity, with about 1.3 billion members. Indonesia, population 245 million (CIA.gov), is the world's most populuous Islamic country.
Friday, September 22, 2006
The Dog Gets Humped by U.S. Marshalls
FreeTheDog
Andrew Luster is a sociopath. The heir to the Max Factor cosmetics fortune was convicted and found guilty of 84 acts of drugging, rape, and abuse of women over a 4-yr time period. He is currently serving a life sentence in federal prison.
Thanks to Duane "The Dog" Chapman, the world's most famous bounty hunter. Dog, his brother, Tim, and son, Leland, went to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico and hauled his worthless ass back to the U.S. to face his punishment for his crimes. Apparently, Mexico didn't think this guy was very important. They didn't arrest and help extradite this piece of human garbage, one of the FBI's 10 Most Wanted Felons, at the time.
But when Mexico starts barking for The Dog, our law enforcement agencies were sure quick to roll over and hand him over, doing for Mexico what Mexico wouldn't do for us. Apparently, vigilante justice, AKA Bounty Hunting, is illegal in Mexico. The Dog, his brother, and son, now look at 6 months to 4 years in a Mexican prison. If convicted, it would be a safe bet that one of those three won't walk out. Mexico's prisons are quite unlike their touristy places.
Why did this happen?
First, as I stated earlier, Bounty Hunting in Mexico is illegal, at least the parts where you conspire to hold someone(s), then actively engage in holding that person against his/her/their will is concerned. Secondly, the statute of limitations is nearing expiration. Dog arrested Luster in 2003, the statute of limitations is 3-4 yrs (the record on this is unclear), so I guess the Mexican authorities decided to act while they could. Third, this could be a case of Quid Pro Quo. The United States wants a drug kingpin bad, the main guy that has been pushing drugs under the tunnels in So. California and Arizona. We give the Mexicans The Dog, they give us the Drug Lord.
Sounds fair, huh? We give them a guy that pulls criminals off the streets, and get a high profile drug kingpin in return, someone Mexico should give us regardless, if they are really interested in curbing the drug trade.
Visit The Dog, sign the petition and voice your support.
Andrew Luster is a sociopath. The heir to the Max Factor cosmetics fortune was convicted and found guilty of 84 acts of drugging, rape, and abuse of women over a 4-yr time period. He is currently serving a life sentence in federal prison.
Thanks to Duane "The Dog" Chapman, the world's most famous bounty hunter. Dog, his brother, Tim, and son, Leland, went to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico and hauled his worthless ass back to the U.S. to face his punishment for his crimes. Apparently, Mexico didn't think this guy was very important. They didn't arrest and help extradite this piece of human garbage, one of the FBI's 10 Most Wanted Felons, at the time.
But when Mexico starts barking for The Dog, our law enforcement agencies were sure quick to roll over and hand him over, doing for Mexico what Mexico wouldn't do for us. Apparently, vigilante justice, AKA Bounty Hunting, is illegal in Mexico. The Dog, his brother, and son, now look at 6 months to 4 years in a Mexican prison. If convicted, it would be a safe bet that one of those three won't walk out. Mexico's prisons are quite unlike their touristy places.
Why did this happen?
First, as I stated earlier, Bounty Hunting in Mexico is illegal, at least the parts where you conspire to hold someone(s), then actively engage in holding that person against his/her/their will is concerned. Secondly, the statute of limitations is nearing expiration. Dog arrested Luster in 2003, the statute of limitations is 3-4 yrs (the record on this is unclear), so I guess the Mexican authorities decided to act while they could. Third, this could be a case of Quid Pro Quo. The United States wants a drug kingpin bad, the main guy that has been pushing drugs under the tunnels in So. California and Arizona. We give the Mexicans The Dog, they give us the Drug Lord.
Sounds fair, huh? We give them a guy that pulls criminals off the streets, and get a high profile drug kingpin in return, someone Mexico should give us regardless, if they are really interested in curbing the drug trade.
Visit The Dog, sign the petition and voice your support.
Lets Circumvent the Geneva Conventions
GOP hopes to parlay deal on detainees
Let's take a quiz: In what country can you be arrested, detained indefinitely, and have any combination of the following happen?
a) Be delivered into the hands of another country
b) Be tortured
b) Have what you say under duress be used against you
c) Not be allowed to see the evidence against you
d) Have heresay evidence used against you
e) Have your rights as provided under the Geneva Convention ignored
f) Be tried and convicted without being present (even though you are detained)
g) The individuals torturing you have immunity from prosecution, should, say, be terminated while being questioned.
Your Choices Are:
1) Iran
2) Syria
3) North Korea
4) Venezuela
5) The United States
And the answer (if the Senate had capitulated and given the White House what it desired) is:
The United States, our self-described bastion of fairness, democracy, life, liberty, and happiness.
Let's take a quiz: In what country can you be arrested, detained indefinitely, and have any combination of the following happen?
a) Be delivered into the hands of another country
b) Be tortured
b) Have what you say under duress be used against you
c) Not be allowed to see the evidence against you
d) Have heresay evidence used against you
e) Have your rights as provided under the Geneva Convention ignored
f) Be tried and convicted without being present (even though you are detained)
g) The individuals torturing you have immunity from prosecution, should, say, be terminated while being questioned.
Your Choices Are:
1) Iran
2) Syria
3) North Korea
4) Venezuela
5) The United States
And the answer (if the Senate had capitulated and given the White House what it desired) is:
The United States, our self-described bastion of fairness, democracy, life, liberty, and happiness.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Ridiculous Rendition Rendered
Rendition Rendered - Yahoo! News
Ok, so let me get this straight: President Bush establishes the membership of the Axis of Evil. I think it goes something like this: Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, and Iraq. These countries the government feels are developing WMDs for use, directly or indirectly, against the United States.
However, it appears that lately, the United States and its allies can bend the rules in order to take advantage of lax rules regarding the humane treatment of detainees. So, we send detainees off to where? One of the Axis of Evil countries, Syria. What?
First, denials of rendition and secret CIA prisons. Then, yes, we do have secret CIA prisons. Why? Because our normal legal system won't work against such diabolical enemies that we have to make up a new legal system as we go along, without worldwide scrutiny.
As if that is not bad enough, the United States engages in the services of a country (Syria) whom we are not fond of for extracting "intelligence." Can "intelligence" be an oxymoron in this case? And, as it turns out, the man was innocent. Ten months spent in a Syrian prison. For being a Muslim, on a Watch List.
Do you know who else was with him on the Watch List? His son, who is around 16 months old. But I can understand this. Anyone who has changed a diaper knows that it could easily be mistaken for a biological weapon.
Ok, so let me get this straight: President Bush establishes the membership of the Axis of Evil. I think it goes something like this: Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, and Iraq. These countries the government feels are developing WMDs for use, directly or indirectly, against the United States.
However, it appears that lately, the United States and its allies can bend the rules in order to take advantage of lax rules regarding the humane treatment of detainees. So, we send detainees off to where? One of the Axis of Evil countries, Syria. What?
First, denials of rendition and secret CIA prisons. Then, yes, we do have secret CIA prisons. Why? Because our normal legal system won't work against such diabolical enemies that we have to make up a new legal system as we go along, without worldwide scrutiny.
As if that is not bad enough, the United States engages in the services of a country (Syria) whom we are not fond of for extracting "intelligence." Can "intelligence" be an oxymoron in this case? And, as it turns out, the man was innocent. Ten months spent in a Syrian prison. For being a Muslim, on a Watch List.
Do you know who else was with him on the Watch List? His son, who is around 16 months old. But I can understand this. Anyone who has changed a diaper knows that it could easily be mistaken for a biological weapon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)