The Voice of America reports that supporters of Mugabe's opposition in the spring elections now fear they will be betrayed in the negotiation process.
Of course, they will be betrayed. These are "negotiations" with Robert Mugabe, who only sits at the table because he waged war on his people in order to steal the election results. The people behind him need to keep control in order to continue to steal the small amount of hard currency that the economy generates. It's a small amount compared with the 12 million or so citizens (hard to say who lives there since so many have fled), but it's enough to keep a handful of powerful and ruthless men living in great personal wealth. Negotiations with them mean sharing this crime. It certainly doesn't mean bringing to Zimbabwe a government that will be sensitive to their needs and will try to restore the economy.
There is no government bureaucracy to speak of in Zimbabwe, just a kleptocracy. This will not change as a result of negotiations that include ZANU-PF.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Friday, August 08, 2008
The Edwards Affair
It appears that Senator John Edwards had an affair a couple years ago. I see three lessons from this.
One is that powerful men attract good looking women and, when temptation presents itself, are generally unable to resist. Our political system would be much better if we simply acknowledged this fact and left it between husband and wife to sort out in whatever manner they prefer. The Edwardses seems to have done so, and it's not clear why it's anyone else's business.
Two is that men will always lie (or at a minimum, prevaricate) when first confronted, hoping that the evidence will turn out to be insufficient. This means that when a man denies having had an affair, it is not newsworthy and should not be reported. If he confesses, that's unusual enough to merit attention, but denial definitely falls in the "dog bites man" category.
Third is that those who most strongly denounce the moral turpitude of philanderers are fully as likely as the rest of the crowd to be doing so already, or to do so in the future. John Edwards is just one more example. There should be a similar rule to that above. When a politician decries the immorality of another, it is meaningless and should be ignored by the press.
Of course, none of this is going to happen. Men will be caught in sex "scandals," which in mature societies would simply be ignored, and the press will hound them. They will deny everything. Eventually they will be unable to wriggle free and they will issue some mea culpa. Other prominent men will pontificate, although they are probably banging their secretaries. It's boring, really.
One is that powerful men attract good looking women and, when temptation presents itself, are generally unable to resist. Our political system would be much better if we simply acknowledged this fact and left it between husband and wife to sort out in whatever manner they prefer. The Edwardses seems to have done so, and it's not clear why it's anyone else's business.
Two is that men will always lie (or at a minimum, prevaricate) when first confronted, hoping that the evidence will turn out to be insufficient. This means that when a man denies having had an affair, it is not newsworthy and should not be reported. If he confesses, that's unusual enough to merit attention, but denial definitely falls in the "dog bites man" category.
Third is that those who most strongly denounce the moral turpitude of philanderers are fully as likely as the rest of the crowd to be doing so already, or to do so in the future. John Edwards is just one more example. There should be a similar rule to that above. When a politician decries the immorality of another, it is meaningless and should be ignored by the press.
Of course, none of this is going to happen. Men will be caught in sex "scandals," which in mature societies would simply be ignored, and the press will hound them. They will deny everything. Eventually they will be unable to wriggle free and they will issue some mea culpa. Other prominent men will pontificate, although they are probably banging their secretaries. It's boring, really.
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Ivins, Anthrax, and Guarding Tess
Everybody remembers the resourceful Secret Service agent Doug Chesnic shooting the weasly chauffeur in Guarding Tess, thereby forcing him to reveal the location where Tess was being held? It all worked out fine, but remember what the chauffeur had said a few minutes earlier? I don't remember the exact words, but the gist was, "I know how this works. You people have to pin this on somebody and that person doesn't have to be guilty."
In the movie, of course, it worked out marvelously because he was guilty. But if he hadn't been? Then agent Chesnic of the federal government would have left him unable to walk without a limp for the rest of his life. He was already in a hospital, so I'm assuming he wouldn't have died.
The real FBI is much more cautious. I doubt that any agent would risk his career to go outside policy in the defense of a third party. But it's reason to wonder, as you think about the suicide of Dr. Bruce Ivins in connection with the anthrax letters case. Not having found the guilty party in such a high profile crime was obviously a stain on the agency's reputation. Six years on and they didn't have an indictment. This guy looked like their best hope.
So they searched his place twice, his computer once, and kept him constantly under surveillance by obvious agents for a year. Let's suppose for a minute that he was everything he said he was. A faithful government employee, a church-going Christian, active in his community, devoted to science. And the FBI spends half a decade putting his existence under an unrelenting microscope. Some of us might crack.
Years ago, I had a much higher opinion of government and this line of reasoning would have seemed outrageous, but after six years, if you haven't got an indictment you have a weak case. Nevertheless, the FBI has its desired outcome. They can reveal that they were close to an indictment, which is a couple of steps from a conviction but sufficient for the popular imagination. They wanted him dead. He's dead. They didn't actually have to shoot him. Pretty neat.
In the movie, of course, it worked out marvelously because he was guilty. But if he hadn't been? Then agent Chesnic of the federal government would have left him unable to walk without a limp for the rest of his life. He was already in a hospital, so I'm assuming he wouldn't have died.
The real FBI is much more cautious. I doubt that any agent would risk his career to go outside policy in the defense of a third party. But it's reason to wonder, as you think about the suicide of Dr. Bruce Ivins in connection with the anthrax letters case. Not having found the guilty party in such a high profile crime was obviously a stain on the agency's reputation. Six years on and they didn't have an indictment. This guy looked like their best hope.
So they searched his place twice, his computer once, and kept him constantly under surveillance by obvious agents for a year. Let's suppose for a minute that he was everything he said he was. A faithful government employee, a church-going Christian, active in his community, devoted to science. And the FBI spends half a decade putting his existence under an unrelenting microscope. Some of us might crack.
Years ago, I had a much higher opinion of government and this line of reasoning would have seemed outrageous, but after six years, if you haven't got an indictment you have a weak case. Nevertheless, the FBI has its desired outcome. They can reveal that they were close to an indictment, which is a couple of steps from a conviction but sufficient for the popular imagination. They wanted him dead. He's dead. They didn't actually have to shoot him. Pretty neat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)