Politics - Armchair Philosophy

Politics

Roger I. Abrams: NHL Hypocrisy

The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com Mar 11, 2010 | 1:58 pm PST

Last weekend, Matt Cooke of the Pittsburgh Penguins blindsided Boston Bruins star Marc Savard with a hit to his head while both were trailing the play into the offensive zone. Savard suffered a serious concussion that will likely end his season. Cooke suffered nothing. The National Hockey League general managers quickly agreed this week to a new rule that would have made Cooke's savagery a violation of the playing rules of the game. However, the rule only takes effect next season.
Violence and organized hockey have always had a tempestuous relationship. A pastime born on the frozen ponds of Canada, ice hockey was derived from English field hockey and the Irish game of hurling. James G. Creighton formulated the rules of modern ice hockey while studying engineering at McGill University, and in 1875 the first game was played under Creighton's rules at Victoria Skating Rink in Montreal. According to a wire dispatch from the Kingston Daily British Whig, the game ended in a brawl: "Shins and heads were battered, benches smashed, and the lady spectators fled in confusion."
The men of Canada are generally appreciated for their calm demeanor and their ability to survive in a sometimes harsh physical environment. A remarkable change occurs, however, when it comes to a brutal body check delivered in a timely manner to an opposing player who has touched the puck. Fights break out during the normal course of a hockey game, part of a passionate, masculine culture of aggression that lies at the core of the sport. The game is stopped while the referees allow the fisticuffs to proceed. The only saving grace is that while skating on ice players normally lack sufficient traction to do too much damage to an opponent.
Unsure of the sport's ability to draw fans outside of Canada, the League has always been committed to a bit of mixed martial arts. The fans have responded positively to the prospect of going to see a boxing match (where a hockey game might break out). Fans will scream for blood and be pleased to witness a good bout. Color commentators and play-by-play men on television will analyze the fight as if it was an essential part of the game. Maybe it is.
What is it about sports violence that is so attractive? Some would offer this negative judgment: it simply appeals to our baser instincts, to the worst in human nature. Face it - that is just the way we are, even if it is not the way we should want to be in some hypothetical universe. Take Grand Theft Auto and put it on ice as part of our visual culture.
Sports violence appeals to our sense of contingency. We all are here on this earth for a while, facing an inevitable end. There is something about the human spirit that wants to face down mortality. We do that by allowing (and encouraging) our appointed surrogates to face danger on our behalf and survive.
An appetite for violence in sports is something we learn socially. The internet is filled with videos of eight-year-olds fighting on the ice, copying what they see on TV, not just in sports but across the spectrum of cable channels. Studies establish that a child will witness 40,000 fake murders on television by the time he is 18.
While we can change hockey, if we want to, or even change television programming -- I am told they now sell TV sets with an on-off switch that can be turned off -- we will have more difficulty changing people. If we are attracted to sports violence and willing to pay for it, someone will be willing to sell it to us. There are some who find exhilaration in watching violence, even euphoria. This is especially the case with men and boys who find in watching violence an opportunity to confirm their gender role. Men must be fearless, and boys have to prepare for that role.
The National Hockey League's decision not to punish Cooke for his assault was explained by Colin Campbell, who is in charge of discipline for the NHL. He told the press that his hands were tied. While the injury to Savard was regrettable, Cooke's hit was "legal." "Matt Cooke did not jump, and did not do anything that we found illegal in his actions even though, again, you don't like what happened." Cooke was a recidivist; he has been suspended by the League twice in the last year.
The NHL's hypocrisy is not only blatant, it is also dangerous. With less than 20 games left in the regular season, cheap shot artists how have free range. I hope the Bruins do not take next Thursday's visit of the Penguins to the Garden as the opportunity for revenge, but the NHL has set up the confrontation by its failure to take action. Sydney Crosby should go visit Halifax. If there is a confrontation, the fault lies with the NHL.

Sam Wasson: The Night of the Oscar

The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com Mar 11, 2010 | 1:54 pm PST

Oh boy it was a grim Oscars. So grim I've put off writing this. Now here I am and I feel like the Underground Man from Notes From the Underground or that guy from Camus (or was it Sartre?) who...

Oh boy it was a grim Oscars. So grim I've put off writing this.

Now here I am and I feel like the Underground Man from Notes From the Underground or that guy from Camus (or was it Sartre?) who begins his book with "My mother died today, or was it yesterday?" What, I wonder, is the point of going on? It seems almost silly to ascribe significance to a ceremony in which Taylor Lautner makes it to the stage, but Lauren Bacall and Roger Corman are only allowed to wave from the audience. Yet therein lies the significance.

In trying to appeal to the young, in trying to stay fresh and relevant, and in trying to keep the show moving at the pace of contemporary attention spans, the producers of the 82nd Academy Awards turned what could have been a meaningful evening into a bloodless night of dinner theater. They made it Weekend at Bernie's. The Kodak Theater was Bernie.

Admittedly, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has been old too long; they're right to want to try a new tactic. If their members do not reach out to young people, serious film awareness could and probably will become a thing of the past, and the Samuel Goldwyn Theater will become an adjunct of Cedars-Sinai. But tread lightly, good people of Mantilini: to revoke history is to revoke the very essence of your establishment. Giving Oscar a facelift isn't going to make him seem any younger; it's just going to make him seem not himself.

The very thing that gives the Academy its gravity is, like the British Empire, the sense of tradition that once fortified the Oscar ceremony. Imagine what coronations would be like if Westminster Productions decided to bring in young royals and cut out all that old fashioned business about God and Country and the Henrys and Elizabeths. England would become a role-playing game, with Parliament instead of a twenty-sided die.

I love James Taylor, but the "In Memoriam" segment should not be a music video, no matter how somber the accompaniment (I couldn't help but think, "Karl Malden is dead and James Taylor will collect swag.") Nor should the necessary rundown of the year's Scientific & Technical Award Winners be dashed off like a homework assignment in the moments before class. (This segment will forever feel irrelevant if it is constantly treated as if it is. In truth, the Sci-Tech Awards are just as relevant, if not more relevant, than many other Oscar categories. These are the people who make film work, literally work.) Want to make the Scientific & Technical Awards fun? Then tell us the truth about the amazing things these gifted artists have achieved.

Why were people dancing to film music? Michael Giacchino should not have to compete with backflips. Why Neil Patrick Harris? He's fun, I know, but how is he relevant to motion pictures? And why such a long tribute to John Hughes? No doubt about it: his influence on teen culture of the '80s was as formative as Salinger's was on the '50s, and he should be honored in kind, but when Bergman died three years ago, I don't recall seeing him in more than a few images in the "In Memoriam" reel. Do you see what I mean? Something is terribly, tragically off. Perhaps the Academy could make up for it by financing a Bergman revival. Perhaps they could get hot young actors to introduce the films. But what would they call the series, Girls Gone Wild Strawberries?

Of course I know Bergman won't keep people tuned to the television sets. I know that's not a practical solution. But without the great legacy of film in attendance, the Academy Awards will become just another Bar Mitzvah-looking award show. And God knows we already have The Golden Globes.

P.S. I was there for the whole thing. As my date and I left, we saw Michael Haneke lingering outside. He was holding court in a circle of three or four people and he was laughing. He was laughing.

Saad Khan: Is Karachi the Taliban's New Haven?

The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com Mar 11, 2010 | 1:52 pm PST

The recent arrests of high profile Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders from Karachi have sounded alarms in quarters that are concerned about the security of the largest metropolis of Pakistan. Karachi is the most volatile city of Pakistan and its ethnic and political diversity has failed to meld into a coherent -- and stable -- urban atmosphere. The actual situation is quite the contrary where ethnic and political violence spills into the streets and the city comes to a standstill -- and this happens quite often.

Ethnic tensions -- and their political implications -- have provided the Taliban and Al-Qaeda with a safe haven in Karachi. All the recent arrests have been made in the Pashtun slums of Karachi, cities within a city where there is little rule of law and tribal culture reins supreme. It is easy for the Taliban and their Al-Qaeda cohorts to find refuge in these slums without ringing any security alarms. A sizable chunk of population in these slums comprises of refugees from Afghanistan and tribal areas of Pakistan. There is no registration and no statistical information about them though tribal elders say that there are around 250,000 Afghans living in Karachi. The number can be as high as 500,000 given the geographical spread of the city and the springing up of new slums.

Although Pakistani intelligence agencies have been able to break into the secretive world of Karachi's slums but they are still hesitant to conduct a massive cleanup operation in these areas. The reason behind this reluctance is seeped in the political clouting that has mired the very democratic roots in Pakistan. There is also a strong perception that Pakistani intelligence agencies are still harboring the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives in these slums and that the recent operations were but just a sham exercise to silence the rising American demands of "do more."

Karachi has a population of more than 15 million but there are only 30,000 semi-trained and poorly armed policemen. Paramilitary forces have also been deployed since 1990 but they mostly remain on the fringes of law enforcement, except during extreme rioting. Corruption runs rampant in both forces and it is an open secret in Karachi that they receive extortion money from criminals and drug dealers. This provides excellent opportunities for terrorists to ensconce themselves into slum areas of Karachi and carry out their nefarious plans.

Although the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives have made good use of Karachi's mishmash of Pashtun slums, the same very strategy can turn the tables against them. A surgical operation in these illegal slums of Karachi will yield considerable results, if there is serious political will behind that -- and approval from the powerful Pakistani military. But will that actually happen?

Chances of a surgical operation to root out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders are quite low. Apart from the ethno-political repercussions of any operation, there are certain elements of the Taliban that get support from the Pakistani military establishment. Even Mullah Baradar's arrest was made only recently although Pakistani intelligence agencies were aware of his whereabouts for months, if not years. There have been reports that they only took action against him after he sidestepped them and charted out his own, individual course in negotiations with the Karzai government. They are still counting on other Taliban leaders to act as their proxies in any future development in Afghanistan and thus cannot take any stern action against them.

Karachiites are concerned about the whole situation but they have no say in matters of national security. MQM, the main political party of Karachi and a junior coalition partner in the provincial and national government, did initially raise its voice against the rampant militarization in Karachi but since has kept mum on the issue given the volatile ethnic repercussions (MQM mostly represents the liberal Mohajirs of Karachi but enjoys little support from other ethnic groups). There have been some hush-hush civil society protests but they have failed to gather any ground.

Given the current geopolitical scenarios, Karachi is most likely to remain as the haven of Taliban. They have maintained a low-key presence in Karachi and have not been involved in any major acts of terrorism. They, however, have an active participation in armed robberies and kidnappings as they use them to generate funding for their activities in Afghanistan and in other parts of Pakistan. Taliban are here to stay in Karachi as long as the intelligence agencies of Pakistan are happy with them and they are ready to do Pakistan's bidding in Afghanistan.

close article | permalink

Lehman Bankruptcy Report: Top Officials Manipulated Balance Sheets

The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com Mar 11, 2010 | 1:47 pm PST

Scroll down to read the first part of the report The examiner in charge of investigating the bankruptcy of venerable Wall Street investment house Lehman Brothers, the most expensive bankruptcy...

What's That Smell? Marijuana Vented Into Colorado Census Bureau

The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com Mar 11, 2010 | 1:42 pm PST

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. -- Authorities say the strange odor seeping into a western Colorado Census Bureau office came from more than 1,000 marijuana plants growing next door. Grand Junction censu...

Sarah Jessica Parker Parties With The Real Housewives (PHOTOS)

The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com Mar 11, 2010 | 1:41 pm PST

Sarah Jessica Parker joined the 'Real Housewives' at Bravo's 2010 Upfront Party at NYC's Skylight Studio Wednesday night. Sadly she did not pose with them on the red carpet. Also in attendance were Ma...

Mississippi School SUED For Canceling Prom After Lesbian Date Request

The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com Mar 11, 2010 | 1:38 pm PST

CNN) -- A Mississippi high school faces a lawsuit over its decision to cancel its prom rather than allow a lesbian high school student to attend with her girlfriend. More on Gay Ri...

Jake Schmidt: Where Do Things Stand on International Efforts to Address Global Warming?

The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com Mar 11, 2010 | 1:38 pm PST

It is almost 3 months after the Copenhagen Accord was hammered out by 28 of the world’s key countries that represent over 80% of the world’s global warming pollution and some of the most v...

It is almost 3 months after the Copenhagen Accord was hammered out by 28 of the world’s key countries that represent over 80% of the world’s global warming pollution and some of the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (as I discussed here). Given the state of the Accord just after Copenhagen with some calling it a failure, some outlining the foundations in the Accord for international efforts (and as my colleague discussed here), and others…well not quite sure what to make of it, where do things stand on international efforts to address global warming?

If you just picked up the paper, watched TV, listened to the radio, or read blogs you might think that things aren’t really moving as there is very little coverage of international global warming discussions (especially compared to last year when every 5 seconds some news story or analysis emerged). But that doesn’t mean that nothing is happening on the international front. In fact, despite the lack of regular coverage, things are moving forward – albeit tentatively, behind the scenes, and without a big splash. Here are four things that are occurring that are worth following.

Over 108 countries have “associated with” the Copenhagen Accord (as summarized here).* These countries account for over 80% of the emissions and 77% of the population of the world. The last two major pieces fell into place when China and India formally “associated with the Accord” in the last 2 days (as my colleagues discussed here and as covered by the New York Times). Basically these countries are saying: “we agree to international action on global warming and on the basis of the outlines agreed in the Accord”. Of course many of these countries have urged for deeper action than outlined in the Accord, but by Associating with the Accord they are signaling that they want to proceed internationally to address global warming.

60 countries representing over 80% of the world’s emissions have formally recorded actions to reduce their global warming pollution (as I discussed here). Many of these countries aren’t simply waiting for some future international meeting or for the final international agreement to implement specific policies and programs to reduce their pollution. For example, as my colleagues have discussed, China and India have adopted new domestic policies since Copenhagen that will reduce their global warming pollution. Brazil signed a bilateral agreement with the US (available here) and there are expectations that the US will sign another one with Indonesia when President Obama goes there March 20-22 (hopefully with concrete near term actions).

Key countries will begin to coordinate efforts to address deforestation emissions. Over 15% of the world’s global warming pollution comes from deforestation and forest degradation, so the Copenhagen Accord agreed: “on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions [that reduce deforestation and forest degradation]”. Key countries including the US, Australia, Germany, and France agreed to contribute $3.5 billion over 3 years to “prompt start” efforts to reduce deforestation emissions. It is critical to ensure that the flow of this early money goes to effective actions that reduce deforestation as every second a football field size of rainforest is lost (and it won’t return). So instead of waiting for the next international negotiating session or greater clarity on how things proceed (and more loss of the tropical forests), a group of key developed countries and deforesting countries are meeting as we speak to begin efforts to better coordinate global efforts to combat deforestation.

High-level and influential set of policymakers will be discussing ways to generate sizeable funding to assist developing countries in deploying clean energy, reducing deforestation emissions, and adapting to the impacts of climate change. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has created a High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing to be chaired by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, with representatives including George Soros, Nick Stern, and Lawrence Summers. The group is tentatively scheduled to meet March 29th and will provide an initial report to the May/June climate negotiating session and a final report to the climate meeting in Cancun, Mexico in December. Let’s hope some politically possible and specific proposals emerge that can be adopted by key countries.

That is the positive momentum that has occurred post-Copenhagen. But of course not everything is all good news. The World Bank is still funding things that are taking us in the wrong direction by proposing to finance a coal plant in South Africa that isn’t capturing its carbon (and doesn’t put in place a real plan to capture it’s carbon in the future), and is barely investing in renewables and doesn’t have a real energy efficiency investment as a part of this proposal. Indonesia is proposing to classify its palm forests as “forests” in order to access money that is supposed to be set aside for deforestation reduction efforts – not exactly the aim of that funding as it is supposed to support things that are slowing deforestation, not actions that deforested rainforests in the first place. Critical actions by the US gained a little momentum when President Obama met with key Senators and made clear his support for a comprehensive climate and energy bill this year, but uncertainty about US action still clouds international prospects (let alone holding back the needed investments in job creation, energy independence, and clean energy technology leadership).

------------

So there is some uncertainty about how things proceed. In many respects that is only natural as the Summit in Copenhagen wasn’t your normal climate negotiations and the process after the Summit was left unclear. So the world spent a couple of months sorting out what was achieved, how the Copenhagen Accord was to proceed, and what are the next steps for the UN climate negotiations. But while that “sorting” was occurring, things proceeded and countries moved forward with actions to reduce their emissions (with some hiccups along the way).

The expectations for the climate meeting in Cancun, Mexico this December appear to be focused not on agreeing to the final treaty (as the European Commission just outlined is likely), but rather to making concrete progress to implement the actions that countries committed to reduce their emissions, the finance that is to be deployed in the near- and medium-term, the rules for the “transparency” provisions agreed in the Accord, and the guidelines for efforts to solve the loss of tropical rainforests. Those actions are critical and countries have made it clear that they want those things to proceed, even while they sort out exactly how things will progress this year.

Now is not the time to sit in a holding pattern and wait for exact clarity on how things proceed. We must plug ahead and implement key actions that will put the world closer to solving this critical challenge.

-----------

* This includes countries that have formally sent letters to the UNFCCC signaling their desire to be “associated with the Accord” and those that have submitted emissions reduction actions but may not have not clarified in their submission that they want to be “associated”. All values based upon data from the World Resources Institute Climate Analysis Indicator Tool. Emissions from 2005 and include deforestation; population data from 2006.