Genocide in Darfur

Sudan Darfur Map

The genocide in Darfur is staggering: Since February 2003, as many as 200,000—and possibly as many as 400,000 people—have been murdered in Sudan’s Darfur region. More than two million victims have been displaced and many of these victims are women and children. In addition, thousands of women have been raped, and it is reported that almost 80 percent of children under five years old are malnutritioned. Despite these horrific statistics, reports continue to pour in about aerial bombings and genocidal attacks against Darfur civilians. U.N. peacekeeping forces are stationed in the area appear to be unable to stop this genocide in Darfur.

Origins of Genocide in Darfur

The roots of the genocide in Darfur begin with the ethnic and tribal conflict occurring between non-Arab rebel groups—the Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudan Liberation Movement—and the Janjaweed, a primarily Sudanese Arab militia group consisting of camel and cattle herders who have joined with the Sudan’s People’s Armed Forces (although the Sudanese government denies any involvement or support for the Janjaweed).

genocide in Darfur

Although the genocide in Darfur has deep historical roots, it erupted in February 2003 primarily over water and land. Overpopulation, drought, and climate change resulting in desertification caused the camel and cattle herders to seek water and new territory. In the process, they moved their herds into territory already occupied by farmers. The government opposed these advances and non-Arab rebel groups accused the Sudanese government of oppression. The Sudanese government responded by launching vicious air assaults, which were also supplemented by slaughterous ground attacks staged by the Janjaweed. Initially, the conflict occurred in Darfur, although it has since spilled across the border into Chad and into the Central African Republic (CAR) because as refugees have fled into these areas the Janjaweed have followed. To understand the genocide in Darfur more viscerally, look at this civilian refugee camp known as Creida pictured to the left. This one camp contains a refugee population of 137,000.

Responses to the Genocide in Darfur

As early as 2003, United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, pronounced the Darfur situation “genocide.” But global foreign policy response has changed little. Currently, the United Nations and the African Union have installed small peacekeeping forces in the region but because they are restricted by the Sudanese government in what these forces can do, where they can go, and what equipment they can use, the Janjaweed still have free reign to attack, murder, and rape. As a result, public policy has largely been to ignore it.

Save Darfur

One high profile activist who has been involved in trying to change global public policy and save Darfur from the beginning has been actress, author, and activist Mia Farrow. She has visited the Darfur region three times—2004, 2006, and 2007. She has also published photographs of Darfur and written several articles discussing the plight of Darfur victims. Recently, she was also assisting in the “Dream for Darfur” campaign—a campaign to pressure China at the 2008 Olympic games into influencing the Sudanese government to halt the genocide and human right violations occurring in Darfur.

Farrow is not only asking for a change in public policy toward genocide in Darfur, she is also asking for your personal help. If you want to save Darfur, the first step is to spread the word. Then, step up and do you part. She has established an organization, MiaFarrow.org, to inform concerned citizens and tell them how they can save Darfur. You can also learn more about Farrow’s articles, hear her speak out about Darfur, and view photos from her Darfur visits.

Tags: crisis in Darfur, Foreign policy, genocide darfur, genocide in darfur, public policy, save Darfur

Obama Transparency Talk

Apparently Obama’s response to Chicago Tribune reporter John McCormack’s questions about the Blagojevich affair have riled certain media commentators, who are now questioning Obama’s commitment to transparency. What a bunch of whiners. They either don’t understand the role of transparency in public policy, are desperate to make some news about something, or are just exaggerating the issue to pressure Obama into saying something that will excite them.

Here’s what happened during a recent news conference by President-elect Obama:

Obama Transparency Questioned

To this, commentators offered numerous complaints. For example, here’s Ethel Fenig at the American Thinker,

In other words, asking a legitimate question about Obama’s relationship with his state’s governor, even though it was not the purpose of the press conference, indicates The Office of the President-Elect will cut off all reporters who probe too uncomfortably in sensitive areas. A troubling message.

Mr. President-elect, this is the second time I have observed you doing this. Cutting off a reporter because the question didn’t suit you. Mr. President-elect, this sort of approach reminds a lot of us of the current administration now packing up to go, and it frankly doesn’t fly in a democracy. You don’t get to choose the questions you get asked at a news conference.

… You’ve made a deal with the prosecutor to keep a lid on certain information about this investigation until next week. Fine. But that doesn’t give you a blanket excuse to dismiss any and all questions associated with Blagojevich or anything else. You are the one who embraced openness, and you could stand to be a little more open to it.

..These are desperate times for many Americans and most of this country wants you to succeed. But you will not succeed if you discard the very ideals you promoted during your campaign: directness, honesty, candor, transparency, openness.

Wow, he declines to answer a question twice and he’s already being chided like small child for ruining democracy? But here’s the thing: Sure, you don’t get to choose the questions, but in democracy you can choose whether to answer them. Isn’t it reasonable to wait a week because the investigators had asked him not to say anything?

Now what we don’t want is the President of the United States making all kinds of misstatements and half-baked guesses about what happened. It would probably make headlines and keep the reporters awake, but it would be horrible presidential leadership. A little information control is reasonable. Its not like the Obama team has “lost” basically all the emails of two presidential terms, like Bush did.

What is Transparency?

These reporters are confusing the importance of transparency in pubic policy with answering every question asked. But it is ridiculous to think that the President of the United States has to answer every question immediately. Moreover, its petty to start whining that transparency, and in fact democracy, is gone because a few questions weren’t answered. This perverts the meaning of governmental transparency and also distorts the facts.

Tags: Obama transparency

Where is Presidential Leadership in the Economic Crisis?

Like many people, I’ve been wondering, “What is President Bush doing about the economic crisis?” Apparently, not leading. Maybe hiding under his desk. CNN suggests that nobody is really stepping up to provide direction.

As the United States writhes in a collapsing economy, analysts and observers are wondering: Who’s skippering the ship? President Bush has been noticeably absent from the machinations aimed at righting the nation’s financial course.

Although the CNN article weakly cites President-elect Obama for not stepping into the limelight, the article also allows that the Obama camp is likely working behind the scenes and would show should leadership by naming a Secretary of the Treasury, which now appears done in the form of Tim Geithner.

President Bush should really have been front and center during the last few months. He at first did go on television to urge the passing of the bailout, but since then he has been largely in hiding. He should have been regularly reassuring Americans that everything possible was being done and outlining the steps that he was taking. At least the President-elect is moving in that direction with his weekly broadcasts on change.gov.

Tags: Barack Obama, George W.Bush, Presidential Leadership

Bleak Predictions in the ODNI Global Trends for 2025 Report

This was recently released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence:

News Release No. 19-08
November 20, 2008

ODNI Releases Global Trends Projections

By 2025, the accelerating pace of globalization and the emergence of new powers will produce a world order vastly different from the system in place for most of the post-World War II era, according to a projection by the federal government’s top intelligence analysts.

The projection, prepared by the National Intelligence Council of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, was made public by the ODNI today.

The ODNI report, “Global Trends 2025 – A Transformed World” projects a still-preeminent U.S. joined by fast developing powers, notably India and China, atop a multipolar international system. The world of the near future will be subject to an increased likelihood of conflict over scarce resources, including food and water, and will be haunted by the persistence of rogue states and terrorist groups with greater access to nuclear weapons, the report says. Widening gaps in birth rates and wealth-to-poverty ratios, and the uneven impact of climate change, could further exacerbate tensions, “Global Trends 2025” concludes.

The report extrapolates from current and projected trends. It is not a prediction, and the authors stress that “bad outcomes are not inevitable.”

“International leadership and cooperation will be necessary to solve the global challenges and to understand the complexities surrounding them,” the report concludes.

“By laying out some of the alternative possibilities we hope to help policymakers steer us toward more positive solutions.” Other projections in “Global Trends 2025”: include:

• Russia’s emergence as a world power is clouded by lagging investment in its energy sector and the
• persistence of crime and government corruption.
• Muslim states outside the Arab core – Turkey, Indonesia, even a post-clerical Iran – could take on
• expanded roles in the new international order.
• A government in Eastern or Central Europe could be effectively taken over and run by organized crime.
• In parts of Africa and South Asia, some states might wither away as governments fail to provide security
• and other basic needs.
• A worldwide shift to a new technology that replaces oil will be under way or accomplished by 2025.
• Multiple financial centers will serve as ’shock absorbers’ in the world financial system. The U.S. dollar’s
• role will shrink to ‘first among equals’ in a basket of key world currencies.
• The likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used will increase with expanded access to technology and a
• widening range of options for limited strikes.
• The impact of climate change will be uneven, with some Northern economies, notably Russia and
• Canada, profiting from longer growing seasons and improved access to resource reserves.

The Global Trends series examines geopolitical trends and analyzes their likely outcomes, in an attempt to prompt public discussion of possible responses. The projections have covered five-year intervals, beginningwith Global Trends 2010 issued in November 1997.

A full copy of the report is available online at: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html

# # #
The Director of National Intelligence oversees 16 federal organizations that make up the U.S. intelligence community. The DNI also manages the implementation of the National Intelligence Program. Additionally, the DNI serves as the principal adviser to the president, the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council on intelligence issues related to national security.

Tags: Global Trends, public policy, public policy analysis

What Are the Indicators of the Financial Crisis?

It would be nice to have a concrete way to know if the financial crisis is getting better or worse. Or course the indicators would probably include the housing market, asset-backed securities, commercial paper, interest rates, GDPs, and the availability of credit.

I couldn’t come up with a complete picture, but here’s what’s out there as of today,

1. Banks are lending. According to Jon Hilsenrath at The Wall Street Journal,

Banks actually are lending at record levels. Their commercial and industrial loans, at $1.6 trillion in early November, were up 15% from a year earlier and grew at a 25% annual rate during the past three months, according to weekly Federal Reserve data. Home-equity loans, at $578 billion, were up 21% from a year ago and grew at a 48% annual rate in three months.

2. Bank depost interest rates are going. Up as a result of the demand for bank loans, banks are waging a rate war for deposits. This could be good news for small investors or other people with cash.

3. Home inventories are decreasing. This is one of the big indicators of how the economy is doing: whether home prices continue to fall or have reached a low point and are going up. Lately, I have seen both anecdotal evidence (some of my relatives bought first homes) and some other articles (one about increased buying in central California) suggesting that buying is beginning to happen. However, as the referenced article points out, the backlog is still huge. So prices may not move yet.

4. Some key interest rates have returned to their pre-crisis state. In particular, the 3-month LIBOR that had risen sharply to 4.7% or so has fallen back to the range of 2.8 to 3.1%. Similarly, commercial paper rates for top-tier corporations have fallen below their pre-crisis levels. So the Federal Reserves’ actions in that market appear to have thawed the ice for now.

According to David Goldman at CNN Money,

The credit environment has been slowly improving. Borrowing rates are retreating from historical highs, the commercial paper market is expanding and market gauges are showing a return of confidence.

5. Central banks around the world have lowered interest rates. This should make credit easier for at least somebody.

6. Money is flowing back into money markets. One of the precipitating factors of the great panic was when the Reserve Primary Fund “broke the buck.” The outflow of money from the money market funds that are critical to financing business operations threatened to bring the economy to a halt. While the net inflow helps, it doesn’t mean all their problems are solved.

7. Alan Greenspan says the best indicator is the LIBOR-OIS spread. Again from CNN Money,

Alan Greenspan, the former Fed chief, has said that we will know the credit markets have returned to normal when the Libor-OIS spread returns to just a hair above the anticipated Fed funds rate. That will show that banks are confident about the market conditions and have resumed normal lending practices. Libor-OIS was less than 0.8 percentage points before Lehman collapsed. It reached a record high of 3.64 on Oct. 10, and sits at 1.74 today. So according to Greenspan, we’re only about half-way to recovery.

The good news for the little investor is that it could be argued that many investments are now cheap. See the article. But you’ll have to make your own call on whether to “buy” it.

Tags: financial crisis, global financial crisis, indicators of the financial cris, U.S. Financial Crisis

Post-Election Crazy Talk

Now that the election is over, I’ve been seeing a lot of crazy talk in the news. At least its not all coming from the McCain campaign.

Bush's Brain

Some is though. At least a few of McCain’s team are ripping on Governor Sarah Palin, calling her essentially an ignorant hillbilly. Now, I was not a Palin fan, but didn’t these guys select her as their candidate without really knowing anything about her? And now they are surprised and angry? This scorched-earth style is just so reminiscent of Schmidt and Wallace’s mentor, Karl Rove. If you don’t believe me, read Bush’s Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential.

Then there are people who are criticizing whatever name is floated for the Obama administration. Critics want him to get moving immediately and produce results. But, they also want him to do that without using anybody who has been in government before, especially from the Clinton or Bush administrations. (Those people are not change, they are “more of the same.”) Further, the critics also don’t want him to use the people who helped him get elected.

Now, let’s take a step back. How do you move fast? To move fast, you have to quickly find and bring in qualified and experienced people. Otherwise, there is going to be a long learning curve. But, since there has been a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for the last 20 years, the pickings are kind of small. And Obama has already said seances are out.

On top of that, how do you find people fast if you ignore the people you know well and trust? Searching for and vetting people is a time consuming process. This would take months even for a handful of people. Picking people without that kind of a process can be disaster, as the McCain apparently found out the hard way.

Why Great Leaders Don't Take Yes for an Answer

So realistically speaking, there are going to be a lot of Democrats and people who helped him get elected or who know people who helped him get elected in his administration. This is not cronyism, its just the way it has to be done. What he needs to do to create change though is bring together a mix of experienced people who have different perspectives and orientations, as well as a deep knowledge of government and world affairs. A great book recommendation for him is Why Great Leaders Don’t Take Yes for an Answer: Managing for Conflict and Consensus. In the book, Professor Roberto discusses how leaders should organize the decision-making process for best results. While the book is geared toward corporate leaders, the principles still make sense for political leaders. In fact, the author recounts in detail how President Kennedy revamped the decision making in the White House after the Bay of Pigs disaster. So the debate here is not whether President-elect Obama will be tapping Democrats and people he knows, but whether he will tap ones that bring a diversity of perspectives and a wealth of current and profound knowledge.

Tags: Obama, Palin, Presidential Leadership, Public Discourse

How The Press Manufactures Drama in the Polls

Today in the Wall Street Journal we have the headline “Gap Narrows in Florida and Ohio, Not Pennsylvania.” The article has a lot of graphs and looks pretty impressive. But taking a wider view shows that this is a red herring. I don’t know if the writer knows this or just didn’t bother to look past one poll, but let’s look at how the false drama works. According to the WSJ,

Sen. McCain now is within striking distance in Florida, where Sen. Barack Obama leads 47% to 45%, a new poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute finds. Less than a week ago, Sen. Obama led by five percentage points there.

One is led to think that Senator McCain has closed the gap by 5% points. But, take a look below at this screen cap from WSJ’s own superb “At the Polls” interactive graph. The green line shows the trajectory of the Quinnipiac poll.

WSJ Graph of all Florida Polls

You can easily see that the Quinnipiac Poll, which used to show the most extreme Obama lead, has switched to now barely show the narrowest Obama lead. But the average of polls hasn’t really changed. In other words, there is no reason for Obama to be worried.

So, what about Ohio? The situation is even more–that is , less–dramatic. The WSJ article says,

In Ohio, considered a Republican must-win, Sen. Obama still has a comfortable lead of 51% to 42%, Quinnipiac found. The good news for Sen. McCain is he appears to be closing the gap there; last week, Sen. Obama led by 14 points.And here is the chart of all polls:

And here is the graphic of other polls. The green line shows the trajectory of the Quinnipiac poll:

WSJ Compilation of Polls for Ohio

Clearly, the Qinnipiac poll has only gone from being way extreme to mildly extreme. This is hardly a gain for McCain in the polls.

McCain’s “Dangerous” Rhetoric Creates Real Danger

Senator McCain was forced to drop his attempts to associate Senator Obama to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. In the end, McCain himself had to defend Obama as a “decent man.” The problem, of course, was that calling Obama a terrorist was inciting people to feel physical action, such as killing a prospective future President of the United States, would be justified. Yet, McCain doesn’t seem to have learned the danger of peddling fear.

He’s now calling Sen. Obama, Speaker of the House Pelosi, and Sen. Harry Reid “dangerous.” To this, Ms. Pelosi responded,

“It’s interesting to hear Senator McCain talking about the dangerous Obama, Reid, Pelosi. Dangerous is not really a word that should be a part of a national debate as we go into a presidential race.”

While this may seem a small thing, and perhaps part of the rough-and-tumble of modern politics, citizens who want a well functioning democracy should view these kinds of comments harshly. Just like the Ayers problem, labeling senators, congresspeople, and other political figures as “dangerous” incites violence. The word “dangerous” implies something untoward, life threatening, and illegal. Uniformed people will begin to think that there is a real physical threat, and that they are then compelled and justified to take dramatic action. Hence the people at Gov. Palin’s rallies who were shouting to “kill” Sen. Obama. This is unprofessional and should not be tolerated in political discourse.

Tags: McCain, Obama, Pelosi

C02 Lags Temperature and Human Causes of Global Warming

As I was researching some of the comments on a previous post, here are some interesting items that I found:

1. C02 has historically lagged temperature, a fact that is often cited by global warming skeptics.

Temperature and CO2 are difficult to measure and compare. The time resolution is low, and while C02 is an atmospheric gas with a more global nature, temperature is always relatively local. Tom Rees explains this and gives links to data that you can review.

RealClimate explains that while it is true that CO2 lags temperature, this does not affect the global warming theory. The CO2 amplifies the temperature rise. So the concern is not that the increased CO2 we are creating today caused the rise, but that it will continue to amplify it.

2. The best explanations so far regarding why global warming is human caused:

RealClimate gives an explanation based on the measurement of carbon isotopes.

Ecobridge describes outputs of human activity that cause carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas.

Here’s what NASA has to say,

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800’s. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth’s surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun’s energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

Finally, see the “Causes of Change” in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, as well as these global warming and climate change policy research sites:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

NASA

Tags: climate change, environmental, Global Warming, greenhouse effect, policy research, political issues, public policy, public policy analysis, social issues

Global Temperature Regains 20 Years of Lost Movement

While perusing the arguments on global warming, I happened across an article by Lorne Gunter that claims that “30 years of warmer temperatures go poof.” The article asserts that because recent global temperature anomalies went down to around the 0 mark, the temperature rise claimed by global warming researchers has been erased and all the global warming concerns have been much ado about nothing. To support this claim, Mr. Gunter uses this graph of this data from UAH:

Global Temperature with Incorrect Trend Line

The graph shows a “Global trend line” through the data, but this trend line is incorrectly drawn. See the graph below, made from the same data set:

Global Temperature with 100-Month Moving Average

In this second graph, a couple of things are clear. First, a correctly drawn trend line (in this case a 100-month moving average) shows a flattening but no significant decline. Second, the data in the second graph goes a few months further into 2008, where the temperature anomaly as risen, thus “regaining” about 20 years of the supposed 30 that were lost. The fallacy of the claim is thus clear: The temperature anomalies move in fairly wide swings. What is important is the rising mean temperature anomaly, not what the level is at any given month.

Mr. Gunter, unfortunately, is widely known for his outlandish claims. For a wonderfully detailed and well-linked analysis of other errors in the aforementioned Gunter article, see this greenfyre post.

Tags: climate change, environmental, Global Warming, greenhouse effect, policy research, political issues, public policy, public policy analysis, social issues