Weekly update (minus serious talk!)

Weekly Update:

Since Holly wants to know about Webster, we'll start out with him today!



As you can see by him sitting on my shoulder, he is doing very well. It's been so warm here lately that the birds are coming out (there was a beautiful Blue Jay outside our window on Sunday), so he's been having a great time chasing the birds through the window.

The highlight of last week/this week was definitely taking a trip to Vancouver on Sunday to check out the Olympic festivities. It was awesome! The city was so packed and there was such amazing positive energy (we didn't see any protesters), it was so amazing. There were athletes walking about in the streets with their team clothes on, and it was so awesome to see everything.



The Olympic Flame! Hooray, there it is!

Also, here's a picture (from a ways away) of Olympic Village:



You can almost make out the infamous kangaroo flag on the Australian bloc.

I had an awesome time.

And then, there has been some knitting. Actually, there's been quite a bit of knitting, but I'll just share one picture today:

My ravelympics project/lace KAL project:



Citron in progress, and another Webster shot!

Those are all the exciting bits for now. Have a great week everyone!

The Opening Ceremonies

Warning: Completely serious post ahead with nothing to do with knitting or Webster. I'll post about knitting and Webster in a different post so those who don't want to read about Rwanda can skip this one!

Today I want to write about the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics. Vancouver is quite near here, and so I think that made it especially exciting to watch, knowing that all the excitement and amazing international cooperation was happening less than an hour away.

I loved the part at the very, very beginning where the snowboarder rode in and jumped through the Olympic Rings. I also love watching the different countries and feeling that maybe it is possible to get along, about some things.

But by far, the best part of the evening came toward the end; when the Olympic flag was brought into the stadium, bore by distinguished Canadians. These were people like Donald Sutherland (I didn’t realize he was Canadian), or others that either played to peoples’ heartstrings or popular culture.

And then, there was one man who wasn’t smiling. And as soon as I saw him, I gasped and jumped to my feet. The Canadians did an amazing thing when they included Lt. General Roméo Dallaire in the procession.

Lt. Gen. Dallaire was the UN chief of mission in Rwanada. He was the man in charge of the “peacekeeping” force that had to stand by and watch the genocide unfold, pleading all the while for the international community to do something and getting turned down by the UN and the US at every turn. When someone finally did do something, the French in Operation Turquoise, it was the genocidaires that were aided, not those being raped and massacred.

If you’re up for it, I highly recommend his book, Shake Hands with the Devil: The failure of Humanity in Rwanda. It’s quite a long book, and if you’re (like me), prone to nightmares… make sure you are prepared. His story is haunting and discouraging, and does not have a happy ending.

Until perhaps last night.

The inclusion of Lt. Gen Dallaire in the opening ceremony was, I feel, notable in a few different ways.

Firstly, it was an incredibly profound way to recognize a man who tried so hard and did so much, but yet saw so little results.

Dallaire has struggled since his return from Rwanda, understandably, with PTSD and related ailments. Some of these struggles have been very public and very embarrassing to him and his family. Recognizing and embracing this man is a powerful tribute to other veterans around the world who may also be struggling with similar issues. It shows that Canada is not ashamed of this man, despite the fact that he is experiencing PTSD. It shows that Canada is, in fact, proud of this man and what he did. PTSD or no. It was a powerful statement to veterans about acceptance and love.

Finally, it shows that Rwanda, at least in Canada, has not been forgotten, it shows that the courageous nature of those that give all of themselves to stop genocides are treasured and valued in the world. That atrocities are not tolerated and there are amazing and truly awesome people in the world that will give anything and everything they can to stop awful things from happening.

Honoring this man by including him as a flag bearer showed Canada honoring all of these things- and was, for me, the best part of the ceremony.

Reflecting

I watched college kids- apathetic college kids- gather around a television and cheer and cheer today. It was beautiful. Well- I saw them gathered and I heard the cheering because somebody had to man the library! I had to watch the inauguration on BBC because I couldn't get it to stream on C-SPAN, CNN or Fox- which was pretty intense.

I also realized something today- it has been about six months since I've moved here, to "live with" Ranger Man, and (pre-deployment) he's been here about 6 weeks. I haven't yet decided if that's a good ratio or a bad one.

I spent the weekend baking, knitting and reading- altogether not a bad (long) weekend all things considering.

I even took pictures of my Finished Objects from my compulsive Christmas knitting. There are pictures of the socks that are literally three inches longer than my foot. It's kind of funny looking. Someday soon I'll release them from the the confines of Ranger Man's camera and set them free into my flickr account. Right now, there is a cat on my lap so I must go.

Little Blue Diplomacy

Um. Read this.

Newest tool for winning over Afghans? Viagra.

My question: What happens to the rape rate after these 'gifts' are offered? (not, of course, that rape would regularly get reported there anyways...)

There is part of me that truly agrees that commodities such as this are much more effective agents of soft power than cash. This is actually quite a large part of me. You can't possibly finance (or arm with hard weapons) anything bad, and the connection you make is probably much more personal and real with your asset. However... at what cost does encouraging dirty old men to have more sex? How appreciative are their four wives, and are they sticking to only their wives?

Does doling out viagra inadvertently lead to an Afghanistan where women become even more oppressed?



And about the other stuff- I still don't want to talk about it. At least the internet router is turned back on in this house and I can connect to the outside world again.

Secession.

Secession? People are talking about secession? Is it bad that reading that article kind of made me giggle?

For the record: I live in Georgia, and I haven't heard anyone talk about secession. But- I also stay out of the 'country' parts of town (not really sure where they are, but I stay away none the less).

But then I was thinking: What if it's not just MSM crazy over-reacting yellow reporting? Theoretically, what would secession look like in 2009? And how on earth would I avoid it and get back to the land of the Yankee? What would they do with all the soldiers on post? Would every single member of the US Armed forces stationed south of the Mason-Dixon (or its 2009 equivalent) line be moved North of the line? Logistically, how is the possible? Do they know how long that would take?

Apparently I've been a little too engrossed with schoolwork lately, because once I actually started thinking about that, it was quite an interesting proposition. Silly and giggle-prompting yes, but still interesting.

This is NEWS?

Reporting something in the news should mean that that 'thing' or newsitem is newsworthy. There are a few checks on the newsworthy checklist, but basically it should be new and relevant information. NEW information. Something that people don't already know. Something that people shouldn't already know.

Seriously?

No kidding. You think? This AP writer could possibly up for the duh of the year award.

NO KIDDING the Taliban and AQ weren't on good terms before we started bombing.
NO KIDDING said bombing strengthened a bond that had previously been tenuous at best and really only tolerated due to convenience.

There is no freaking way that this should be presented as novel information.

(Can you tell I'm a little riled up about this? Come ON people- get a clue! Do some research about what is actually going on!)

The very worst part.

Okay- yes. It is appalling that John Edwards had an affair. yadda yadda yadda. Keep it in your pants, poor Elizabeth etc. Don't lie... got it.

The worst part about the whole thing?

"They" are printing the name of the CHILD he says he did not father.

What happens when this poor kid grows up and googles herself? The first thing she's going to see is this crap. That is absolutely uncalled for. The name of the baby, until it is proven to be his, should be privileged information. They won't print rape victims names (and um, that is the story) and thereby perpetuate victim stigma... but they can release the name of an innocent child who did nothing but be born? The child is not the story- the story is that poor choices were made- lots of them. This child has nothing to do with that and does not deserve to be immortalized in this way by the press. That's the really trashy part of this whole thing, if you ask me.

Link to: Yahoo story, NY Times Story I got too nauseous to keep looking after that.

On being female and a blogger.

But can't blogging be anonymous? No one can see anything you don't put on your blog. If you feel like you're not going to be taken seriously because you're female, make your blog gender-neutral for crying out loud.
If you're going to write a blog in which you intentionally write about being a woman... be prepared to face the consequences. Those consequences are that your experiences, at best, are only able to relate to half the population.

This is not the same as someone looking at me, seeing my blonde hair and dismissing my intelligence. The internet is the one place that doesn't apply to. Gr. I am mostly a feminist, but seriously? For some reason this just rubbed me the wrong way.

A couple hours later...

Let me edit this and explain myself a little more clearly.

If you have a "mommyblog" you should expect to be taken seriously by a niche audience only.

If you are trying to have a competitive political blog- you should be savvy enough to know that being a woman is going to be a bit of a turn off and not broadcast that until after you've gained credibility. You should know that. It may not be right, it may not be PC- but that's the way it is. And if this recent political season has taught us anything- it's taught us that gender still matters. I do think that it would be interesting to see if there are similar issues regarding bloggers of different races- and why not. I agree- it shouldn't matter what one's gender is when commenting on politics, for the most part. If that's the case, then be gender neutral for crying out loud, don't complain when people see female and discredit it because that's a fact of life. Gain credibility without gender and then gender can be revealed. I'm all about the sucker punch.

Very Interesting.

Good piece here from the LA Times.

I don't know if I ever explicitly stated this, so I'll do it now. For the last year, while on the Island, I was getting my MA with a number of military personnel doing the same thing. These were officers who had "been there and done that" and their respective branches sent them to school for some PME to advance their careers.

Now that I've been outed on milblogging.com, I figure I have no reason to be super-secretive about it anymore, although I'm definitely not giving any identifying information about any of the other students in my classes.

One of the classes that has been the most useful was a COIN class I took this last spring. In this class were a couple of SF officers, a logistician, a former NG member, an (I think) regular Army artillery guy and the list goes on. There were also civilians like myself. All but the NG guy were officers.

I say this all not to laundry list my contacts from class, but to show the range of viewpoints that existed there. The topic of this article came up multiple times in that class (as well as in other classes, to differing degrees). Granted this was a COIN class so our focus was definitely in that direction- but while we agreed that ignoring the possibility of a conventional war was not wise, reverting to post-Vietnam when the US decided that we weren't going to engage in any more COIN operations was equally unwise. There are compelling arguments for future conflicts being both directions- and really- should we forget that we are actually fighting insurgents? Knowing that young American men and women are getting on planes every day to go fight the insurgents, don't we want to equip and train them the absolute best that we can in helping them to come back to their families?

My thoughts are these:
Yes, there are conventional threats. No doubt about it. But we also have numerical and equipment superiority over any of those threats. That means that they won't come to fruition any time soon.

There are unconventional threats right now. Ignoring AQ, hezbollah and hamas is, as far as I'm concerned, tantamount to letting the enemy fight the "War of National Survival" that is talked about in the article without responding.

Those who would fight a conventional war are not doing so because they are actors with a degree of rationality- i.e., survival is a priority for them.

For other organizations such as those mentioned above, rationality is (granted, from our prospective) more um... fluid. Survival may be an overarching end goal- but it is not a priority. If everything is destroyed in the attempt to wipe out the infidel then the virgins just come faster for the martyrs. Fighting an enemy who does not fear death and does not value life in the same way we do is really scary and it can't be overlooked as a national security goal.

So what do I think about the article? Assuming that the research wasn't biased- I think they did a decent job covering both sides of the issue, although I'm not convinced that the bias isn't more pronounced than it should be. Meaning, I'm not convinced that the majority of officers really feel this way. But I could be wrong. I sometimes am.

Sounding Familiar...

Oh. My. Gosh. According to CNN, France is sending troops to Chad to protect French Nationals there.

Wouldn't you think that at some point policy-makers would start to see patterns forming? And at that point wouldn't you think that policy-makers maybe could try to make a difference in the world? That maybe by not following the pattern, or by making a new pattern would be possible?

Seriously- It's almost eleven on a friday night, and here are some headlines...

NYT:
"Somalia: Doctors Without Borders Pulls Out"

"Spreading Banditry Dilutes Benefits of a Plan for Ethnic Peace in Kenya"

the headlines for a region of the world that is historically underreported. urgh.

Machetes, Spears & Bows and Arrows, Oh My!

I don't know about anyone else out there, and perhaps it is just because I've done an inordinate amount of research on Rwanda, or perhaps I'm simply over sensitive, but even just the word, machete, gives me chills. But now lets add spears and bows and arrows to the mix.

Several of the reports that I've read about Kenya have emphasized the use of traditional tribal weaponry, especially in stark contrast to the polished suits and air conditioning enjoyed by the politicians who seem to be encouraging the violence. (duh... look at the history of Kenyan politics and elections and violence will no longer seem novel...) Here's something new from Reuters, written by one Nick Tattersall. According to this, the death toll has now risen to more than 700. But the use of traditional weaponry is important, I think. Well, it scares the crap out of me reading about it, I can't imagine what it would be like to have a man dressed in fur rugs holding a ginormous bow and arrow come to the door... the psychological implications are enormous and are indicative that this fight is not about the election. It's about something more and that there is no quick and easy fix.

Side note, is it a sign of the hopelessness of the situation that the best mediator available is Kofi Annan- whose record in Rwanda (when he was the head of the DPKO at the UN) is way, way under par in halting ethnic violence? ugh. Again, I've got too much of a Rwanda spin and so it is hard for me to look at him objectively but really... I'm frustrated.

Kenya- an explanation?

So is it possible to have free and fair elections in Africa? I think Ghana has proven that free and fair elections and steps toward a consolidated democracy are possible, and until recently, Kenya would have been grouped into a similar category. What makes Ghana different? Here's my analysis, as to why the 2000 election in Ghana could easily have turned into the same situation but didn't.

(1). International encouragement and support. Not only was there monetary aid and international observers, but there was moral support as well, to encourage Rawlings to abide by term limits, etc. This encouragement I think was vital in setting a climate of peaceful change of power.

(2). Stronger Civil Society. Somehow, the civil society that encouraged Moi to return to a multiparty state and hold elections in 1992 has not carried through. There is no group in Kenya which holds enough legitimacy or trust of the people to legitmize elections or candidates or to encourage compromise or consensus. Ghana has a more vibrant civil society.

(3). And possibly most crucial. Ghana's politics - possibly because of differences in colonial rule and colonial independence - has never been as inextricably intertwined with ethnic and tribal affiliations as Kenya's. Add to this the fact that the NPP in Ghana made conscious efforts to appeal to broader constituency base than its Ashante reputation and there is a firm commitment to democracy. This has absolutely not occurred in Kenya, where politicians in elections have incited ethnic violence as a way to solidify support.

This led to a veritable powder keg... And we know what has happened as a result. This is just my opinion and analysis, and obviously not that deep. References available upon request for the factual bits.

Crap.

The talks failed- Kenya's opposition (which is a little simplistic; Kenya is not a two party system...) are officially resuming their protests.

There's a bit to this story- there's no simple us against them rhetoric in a country with over 40 ethnic groups, and it's not merely an issue of vote rigging and tampering with the electoral process. There is some good information here about the situation, from Kenyan, not international sources.

I think both sides have been flinging the genocide accusation back and forth- and the International community has of course been denying it. Without going into too much detail about my own theories of recognizing genocide- basically it's too soon to tell. And unfortunately, it would be a completely different kind of genocide than we're used to (as they all are...), so that would lengthen the recognition process as well. I doubt it's happening now, but I don't doubt that it could quickly devolve into exactly that given a little encouragement.

yuck.