] To the outside world, Zanzibar is a laid-back tourist's
] paradise but in recent months, Islamic groups have
] spearheaded a campaign to cleanse the island of
] "corrupting" practices such as homosexuality and alcohol.
]
] In August, the government of the semi-autonomous island
] archipelago that forms part of Tanzania, outlawed gay sex
] and set prison terms of up to 25 years for men and seven
] years for lesbians.

Well first, I'm appalled. But second, this makes me think about an interesting side question related to the gay marriage issue in the U.S. If we did legalize gay marriage, would that make the Islamic fundamentalists hate us more? Or what about other "regular" countries that weren't Islamic, but did have more conservative social views... Would it make them have a lower opinion of the U.S.? And how much should that factor into our decision?

It seemed that during our election season, there were a lot of Americans (especially liberals) calling for us to make decisions in order to have the respect of other countries. Should our stand on gay marriage be considered in the same light, in terms of how other countries perceive us?

Secrecy, stones and insults: the gay life on Zanzibar

] In its present form, the bill gives same-sex couples who
] live together in long-term relationships legal rights
] similar to those heterosexual couples enjoy.
]
] At the moment gay people may have no claim on the
] property they share if their partner dies and they are
] not registered as a legal owner.

I'm interested to see how this plays out in the U.K. It's also intriguing how they're trying to extend it to cover siblings.

Vote in the U.K. on 'Gay Partnership' Bill

] Palestinian columnists have recently published articles
] assessing the four years of the Intifada, in which they
] admitted that the grave harm caused to the Palestinians
] stemmed from their choice of suicide/martyrdom operations
] as the primary method of struggle. In addition, the PA's
] status as the leader of the Palestinian people has been
] undermined, and signs of anarchy in Palestinian society
] have increased. Some of the accounts described the
] Palestinians as closer to defeat than to victory, and
] complained about the lack of political achievements, lack
] of goals, and lack of strategic planning. The following
] are excerpts from the columns:

Fascinating reading, and fills me with more hope about that area than I've had in awhile.

The multitude of writers seem to be agreeing that random acts of violence against Israeli civilians are *not* having the desired effect. That "courage and bravery" are not enough, but that they need to think more strategically, and work to end the violence first, and then address the refugees' problems second.

If they can do that, I can definitely see myself supporting their cause with more fervor. Before, every time I started agreeing with the Palestinians, then some suicide bomber would go blow himself up in a mall, killing a bunch of innocent civilians, and I would lose sympathy for Palestine again. So I'm fully in agreement here: Stop the violence, and then let's talk and make things happen.

MEMRI: Palestinian Columnists analyze the Intifada

Decius wrote:
] The Dems are going to be out for a long time if they can't be
] honest with themselves.

Yeah, I've been giving some thought about this. Like "Why did I vote for Bush?" I mean, I'm not a Republican, I'm an independent. In the past, I've voted Democrat, I've voted other parties. I could have voted Democrat this year, but I didn't, because I didn't like Kerry's message.

I've been listening to the opinion folks on the radio trying to make sense of why Kerry lost. For me, it's so simple that I want to scream at the radio: "Because of all the fucking mud!" Kerry didn't have his own message, he didn't have a plan, he wasn't offering to lead -- all he was doing was saying, "I'm not Bush. Bush sucks. Bush is bad. Vote for me, so Bush doesn't win." And that message wasn't enough for me. Further, it systematically alienated me, because I didn't see Bush as the anti-Christ, I didn't see Bush as an evil man, I didn't see Bush as a simpleton surrounded by corrupt Machiavellian advisors. I don't see the War in Iraq as a huge mistake, I don't think Bush systematically lied to the American people. And the more that Kerry pounded away at, "*Everything* Bush has ever done, or ever *will* do in the future is 100% wrong," the more I disliked the idea of voting for Kerry, and the more that I disliked the Democrat strategy.

There are things I still prefer on the Democrat platform than the Republican, especially when it comes to social issues. But I couldn't agree with them on the systematic demonization of the Bush administration. And I think that's where they really lost my vote.

RE: Two Nations Under God

] 19 October 2004 -- Elections in Iraq, scheduled for
] January 2005, are on track and should take place if the
] situation holds, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi
] Annan said today.

Elections in Iraq on track, Annan says

A "from the ground" report that offers a different perspective on what's happening in Iraq. This is an excerpt of a letter from a North Carolina chaplain who's reporting on the status of NC National Guard troops stationed there.

] We continue to be very fortunate in that our area of
] operation has remained relatively stable. Our unit is
] making strides in training the Iraqi National Guard,
] Iraqi Police, and New Iraqi Army. These three components
] are essential to the long-term success of our mission.
] The quicker these units are trained to standard, the
] quicker we will be able to hand over authority to the
] Iraqi people! Also, we are spending money daily in order
] to improve the daily living conditions of the people. We
] have put in new wells, restored schools, paved roads,
] provided medical care, and distributed school supplies,
] just to mention a few of the countless projects! I know
] that the news only shows the 'negative' side of things,
] but there really is a lot of good being accomplished and
] progress is being made daily towards a free and
] democratic Iraq! The elections are also just around the
] corner, so we are in the planning stages of registering
] voters, locating polling areas, etc...This is definitely
] going to be a stressful time, as the insurgents make one
] last effort to derail the democratic process!

Chaplain from North Carolina sends letter from Iraq

] The panelists included: U.S. Rep. Melissa Hart,
] R-Pennsylvania, USA Today reporter Tom Squitieri, Lt.
] Col. Steve Grove of the U.S. Army and Col. John C. Burns,
] a faculty member of the Naval War College. The discussion
] was led by political analyst Jon Delano.
]
] While the speakers offered varying points of view on the
] situation in Iraq, all agreed that Americans must support
] and respect the troops currently fighting the battle.
]
] "I believe we have an unanimous agreement around the
] country that the men and women and the leadership are
] doing the best job that they can do," Delano said.
]
] The panelists also agreed that the war, not only in Iraq
] but on terrorism as a whole, is not one which will be
] over soon. But, instead, one that may last for
] generations.
]
] "The global war on terrorism is generational," said
] Burns, a 1980 graduate who rejoined the Naval War College
] faculty in August following a tour as the chief of
] operations for the Coalition Force Land Component
] Command.
]
] Burns and Grove, a 1983 graduate who has served on two
] deployments in Iraq as senior intelligence officer for
] the 82nd Airborne Division, believe that Americans at
] home are not necessarily hearing the successes of the
] battle in Iraq, but instead the sensationalized headlines
] from the media.

Washington & Jefferson College: Four Graduates Give Views on Iraq

Note: Someone on Memestreams recently challenged me to find *good* news about Iraq that wasn't coming from people directly associated with the Republican Party. So you'll be seeing several links in that theme . . .

] Athraa Hasoon paints a different picture. The Baghdad
] University professor told a crowd at Calvin College she
] lives a normal life, "Everybody goes to jobs. The
] children go to schools. It's okay."
]
] Hasoon and Hayder Abdulkarin are touring the country as
] part of the "Iraq-America Freedom Alliance." They tell
] crowds America is making a difference.
]
] Abdulkarin, a doctor who lost an uncle to Saddam says his
] country is no longer a prison, "Sometimes you need to pay
] for your freedom if you want to make a peaceful country."

Two Iraqis came to West Michigan to talk about the good news

] A LEAKED report has exposed the extent of alleged corruption in
] the United Nations’ oil-for-food scheme in Iraq, identifying up
] to 200 individuals and companies that made profits running into
] hundreds of millions of pounds from it.
]
] The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam
] Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council
] before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices
] against UN-backed action.

I would very much like to see a copy of this report... If anyone finds a copy of it online, could you please meme it? Thanks.

Saddam 'bought UN allies' with oil

] But as Adam Clymer pointed out yesterday on the Op-Ed page of
] The Times, front-page coverage of the 2000 debates emphasized
] not what the candidates said but their "body language." After
] the debate, the lead stories said a lot about Mr. Gore's
] sighs, but nothing about Mr. Bush's lies. And even the
] fact-checking pieces "buried inside the newspaper" were, as
] Mr. Clymer delicately puts it, "constrained by an effort to
] balance one candidate's big mistakes" - that is, Mr. Bush's
] lies - "against the other's minor errors."

Personally, I've been getting disgusted lately with the lies coming from the Kerry campaign, though of course those too can be looked at as "word-twisting" or "a matter of perspective."

For example, in Kerry's speeches, and this editorial, they're saying things like, "Bush let Osama get away. Bush ignored North Korea. Bush turned Iraq into a haven for terrorists, when it wasn't before." Or when Kerry speaks in absolutes like when he said that *every* decision that Bush has made has been the wrong one. Every single one? Give me a break. All of those assertions are so clearly false, it just turns my stomach and makes me tune out any other *good* points that Kerry may have. The rhetoric is absurd.

It's clear hypocrisy: Accusing Bush of misleading the American public, while Kerry is systematically doing misleading of his own!

- Elonka

RE: The New York Times -- Op-Ed Columnist: Swagger vs. Substance