OSLO, Norway - Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Friday, and the former vice president used the attention to warn that global warming is "the greatest challenge we've ever faced."
World leaders, President Bush among them, congratulated the winners, while skeptics of man's contribution to warming criticized the choice of Gore.
Gore in a statement said he was " deeply honored ... We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."
"It is the most dangerous challenge we've ever faced, but it is also the greatest opportunity we have had to make changes," he later said at a brief news conference in Palo Alto, Calif.
Gore did not take any questions. As he walked away a reporter asked if he would run for president, but Gore did not respond.
Gore’s film "An Inconvenient Truth," a documentary on global warming, won an Academy Award this year. He had been widely expected to win the peace prize.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Sunday, September 09, 2007
No End In Sight
"No End in Sight" is the most coolheaded of the Iraq war documentaries, the most methodical and the least polemical. Yet it's the one that will leave audiences the most shattered, angry and astounded.
Directed by Charles Ferguson, making his feature debut, the film relies mainly on interviews with people who were either inside the Bush administration or on the ground in Iraq in those crucial early months following the fall of Baghdad. Most of those interviewed are either career diplomats or career military officers, not anti-administration types by any stretch. Some, like Richard Armitage, were in the White House inner circle. Yet they describe an administration of such colossal ineptitude and baseless arrogance as to boggle the mind.
Ferguson doesn't impose an interpretation on the material. Some will come away from the film convinced that invading Iraq was a monumental mistake, while some will think that it might have worked. Some will come away confirmed in the opinion that the United States needs to pull out as soon as possible, while others will find confirmation for the belief that leaving now would be the worst possible course.
Yet "No End in Sight" is likely to unite everyone in the common opinion that the invasion and occupation were mismanaged on an epic scale. It's not just that "mistakes were made," to use the tired passive-voice cliche of feigned contrition, but rather that only mistakes were made. In instance after instance, the administration ignored genuine experts in favor of people with flashy, erroneous notions. They ignored the advice of people on the ground in favor of functionaries in Washington with neither military experience nor familiarity with the Islamic world.
Directed by Charles Ferguson, making his feature debut, the film relies mainly on interviews with people who were either inside the Bush administration or on the ground in Iraq in those crucial early months following the fall of Baghdad. Most of those interviewed are either career diplomats or career military officers, not anti-administration types by any stretch. Some, like Richard Armitage, were in the White House inner circle. Yet they describe an administration of such colossal ineptitude and baseless arrogance as to boggle the mind.
Ferguson doesn't impose an interpretation on the material. Some will come away from the film convinced that invading Iraq was a monumental mistake, while some will think that it might have worked. Some will come away confirmed in the opinion that the United States needs to pull out as soon as possible, while others will find confirmation for the belief that leaving now would be the worst possible course.
Yet "No End in Sight" is likely to unite everyone in the common opinion that the invasion and occupation were mismanaged on an epic scale. It's not just that "mistakes were made," to use the tired passive-voice cliche of feigned contrition, but rather that only mistakes were made. In instance after instance, the administration ignored genuine experts in favor of people with flashy, erroneous notions. They ignored the advice of people on the ground in favor of functionaries in Washington with neither military experience nor familiarity with the Islamic world.
Can We Win The War in Iraq?
Dissecting the U.S. deployment of 133,000 troops on the ground in Iraq, Edward Luttwak of the Center for Strategic and International Studies recently calculated that only 28,000 are actually in the field at any given time.
To put that number in perspective, Luttwak points out that the New York City Police force has 37,000 police officers - yet U.S. coalition forces are being asked to keep control over a nation of 28 million, including the urban hotspots of Baghdad with its 6 million inhabitants, Mosul with 1.7 million, Kirkuk with 800,000 and Fallujah, a Sunni stronghold with a population of 250,000.
That's just 28,000 soldiers to interdict insurgents and jihadists coming over the borders with Syria and Iran, to patrol all the cities, protect all the oil fields, pipelines, banks and utility infrastructure... and to provide cover for the U.S. military bases, airfields and convoys.
It gets worse: the latest plan proposed by the administration cuts U.S. forces to just 104,000 troops, with an increasing share being National Guard and Army Reservists who, rather than playing their usual supporting role, are this time headed for the front line - because when it comes to Iraq, it's pretty much all front line.
To give you some sense of the danger, small arms are so abundant that $10 will buy you, retail from a street vendor, an AK-47 machine gun and all the ammunition you can carry.
Which brings us to the question addressed in this special WWNK feature, can the U.S. win in Iraq?
To put that number in perspective, Luttwak points out that the New York City Police force has 37,000 police officers - yet U.S. coalition forces are being asked to keep control over a nation of 28 million, including the urban hotspots of Baghdad with its 6 million inhabitants, Mosul with 1.7 million, Kirkuk with 800,000 and Fallujah, a Sunni stronghold with a population of 250,000.
That's just 28,000 soldiers to interdict insurgents and jihadists coming over the borders with Syria and Iran, to patrol all the cities, protect all the oil fields, pipelines, banks and utility infrastructure... and to provide cover for the U.S. military bases, airfields and convoys.
It gets worse: the latest plan proposed by the administration cuts U.S. forces to just 104,000 troops, with an increasing share being National Guard and Army Reservists who, rather than playing their usual supporting role, are this time headed for the front line - because when it comes to Iraq, it's pretty much all front line.
To give you some sense of the danger, small arms are so abundant that $10 will buy you, retail from a street vendor, an AK-47 machine gun and all the ammunition you can carry.
Which brings us to the question addressed in this special WWNK feature, can the U.S. win in Iraq?
Friday, September 07, 2007
Corruption in Iraq not discouraged
One after another, the men and women who have stepped forward to report corruption in the massive effort to rebuild Iraq have been vilified, fired and demoted.
Or worse.
For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation methods.
Or worse.
For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation methods.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Why David Rosen is suing Kamehameha
I AM THE attorney who is preparing to sue the Kamehameha Schools and its trustees to have their use of a racial classification to exclude those with no native Hawaiian ancestry declared illegal ("Lawyer's search for clients to sue Kamehameha raises questions," Star-Bulletin, May 23). I am not doing this for financial gain or to make a name for myself, as many have asserted. My motivation, while difficult to believe for some, is principle.
Friday, February 09, 2007
It's not your money once it's flown
It's been a weird week, financially speaking. First I get a call from the savings-and-loan outfit that handles my home mortgage. We have it set up so the monthly house payments come directly from a checking account.
The assistant mortgage manager says, "Mr. Memminger, I just want to let you know there was a little problem with your account."
"Didn't we cover the mortgage payment this month?" I asked.
"Sure," he said. "The problem is that we accidentally took out a little more from your account than was needed, about an extra thousand bucks."
I said, "No problem, just put it back or credit next month's payment"
He said, "Well, actually, Mr. Memminger, we've been thinking about getting some new furniture for the lobby, and your overpayment would sure help out in that department."
I said I wasn't interested in buying furniture for their lobby and for them to return my money.
He said, "The thing is, it's technically not your money now since we have it. And it would be for the greater good of the bank and all of our customers in general if we could just go ahead and use that overpayment to improve the bank's infrastructure."
I said, "You can stick your infrastructure. Give me my money back."
He said the matter would be taken up by the bank's board of directors. He hung up before I could protest.
... Had the world gone mad? Apparently, yes, because when I got home, I turned on the news and found out that the state had overcharged residents more than $763 million in taxes. Gov. Linda Lingle at least wanted to give $100 of that overcharge back to the taxpayers. After all, it was our money. But Calvin Say, speaker of the state House, said there were all kinds of things that overcharge could be spent on, and he didn't think any of it should be returned to the taxpayers.
I'm not sure what he wants to spend it on, but I think I heard something about lobby furniture, infrastructure, employee raises and some kind of air compressor. Apparently, when it comes to other people holding money that belongs to you, possession is more than nine-tenths of the law. Weird.
The assistant mortgage manager says, "Mr. Memminger, I just want to let you know there was a little problem with your account."
"Didn't we cover the mortgage payment this month?" I asked.
"Sure," he said. "The problem is that we accidentally took out a little more from your account than was needed, about an extra thousand bucks."
I said, "No problem, just put it back or credit next month's payment"
He said, "Well, actually, Mr. Memminger, we've been thinking about getting some new furniture for the lobby, and your overpayment would sure help out in that department."
I said I wasn't interested in buying furniture for their lobby and for them to return my money.
He said, "The thing is, it's technically not your money now since we have it. And it would be for the greater good of the bank and all of our customers in general if we could just go ahead and use that overpayment to improve the bank's infrastructure."
I said, "You can stick your infrastructure. Give me my money back."
He said the matter would be taken up by the bank's board of directors. He hung up before I could protest.
... Had the world gone mad? Apparently, yes, because when I got home, I turned on the news and found out that the state had overcharged residents more than $763 million in taxes. Gov. Linda Lingle at least wanted to give $100 of that overcharge back to the taxpayers. After all, it was our money. But Calvin Say, speaker of the state House, said there were all kinds of things that overcharge could be spent on, and he didn't think any of it should be returned to the taxpayers.
I'm not sure what he wants to spend it on, but I think I heard something about lobby furniture, infrastructure, employee raises and some kind of air compressor. Apparently, when it comes to other people holding money that belongs to you, possession is more than nine-tenths of the law. Weird.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
President Bush: Hero or Villain?
When people were asked in an AP-AOL News poll to name the villains and heroes of the year, Bush topped both lists, in a sign of these polarized times.
Bush won the villain sweepstakes by a landslide, with one in four respondents putting him at the top of that bad-guy list. When people were asked to name the candidate for villain that first came to mind, Bush far outdistanced even Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader in hiding; and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who is scheduled for execution.
The president was picked as hero of the year by a much smaller margin. In the poll, 13 percent named him as their favorite while 6 percent cited the troops in Iraq.
Bush won the villain sweepstakes by a landslide, with one in four respondents putting him at the top of that bad-guy list. When people were asked to name the candidate for villain that first came to mind, Bush far outdistanced even Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader in hiding; and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who is scheduled for execution.
The president was picked as hero of the year by a much smaller margin. In the poll, 13 percent named him as their favorite while 6 percent cited the troops in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)