Shameless plug: Go read Practical Peaceniks

Yesterday some friends and I launched Practical Peaceniks, a new blog aimed at "promoting peace with a bent towards reality." I definitely encourage you to check it out and subscribe via whatever medium you prefer.

I'll still be blogging here too, and as you might have noticed, I'm trying to get back into the swing of posting regularly. So look forward to more of my rants, now with two homes.

A too familiar storyline

Yesterday's IRIN article, "Homophobia fuelling the spread of HIV," outlines an eerily familiar course of events surrounding HIV transmission rates among African men who have sex with men (MSM).

To be blunt, the situation sounds remarkably like that in the United States in the 1980s, right down to the criminalization of gay sex part. You have governments that don't act (though admittedly most African states lack the public health resources the U.S. had even 20 years ago), politicians who don't care, and a small but fierce group of activists trying hard to make a dent in the problem.

In short, the story was tragic in this country then (and still is), and the same is true in Africa and elsewhere. It's times like these when the international development community could probably make some significant impacts, but seems disinterested. Somebody prove me wrong. Please.

Minor crow eating

So remember last week how I got all uppity about the ridiculousness of planning the presidential transition while the campaign was still ongoing?

Apparently I underestimated the Obama monolith.

[Hat Tip: Passport]

Welcome to Practical Peaceniks!

You have stumbled upon the Web's newest voice discussing promoting peace, justice and understanding in the world. But we're not your ordinary peaceniks, we're the Practical Peaceniks. We realize that building peace is like building a house, and you have to start with the foundation. In a world where there are usually at least 60 armed conflicts going on at any one time, we realize that the road to peace is challenging, and frought with difficult -- even unpleasant -- decisions. Yes, we may sing a little Kum-bah-ya every now and again, but we also recognize that singing with warlords probably won't get many negotiators very far. We are pragmatists with a purpose, and that's why we're the Practical Peaceniks.

This blog was conceived by five graduates of the International Peace and Conflict Resolution program at American University's School of International Service. We each come from different backgrounds and bring different perspectives on what a peaceful world looks like, and how we get there. In time, we might add some other voices, but for now, your contributors are:

• Andrea
  
• Charmagne
• Diana
• Jaime
• Jason

Over the coming weeks, months, and years, we will be sharing our views on peace and conflict issues and events throughout the world. Each week we'll also provide an in-depth look at a particular issue that we think is worthwhile and perhaps doesn't garner much attention in other spheres. Diana got us off to a great start yesterday, and we hope you'll join us in our conversation as we move forward. We hope you'll enjoy the ride as much as we will.

I leave town for 36 hours

... And all this happens.

On the first thing, good. About time. Curious to see if he makes it to The Hague though.

On the second thing, I'm not holding my breath.

And on the third thing, I'm wondering what happens next, as this is a thing I don't know much about but has piqued my interest.

The media and torture

This morning I was glumly reading the NYT's article about the Hamdan case moving forward (an issue which I won't weigh in on as I lack sufficient knowledge of the relevant laws) when I stumbled upon this lovely gem of a quote in the bit covering former attorney general John Ashcroft's testimony on Capitol Hill yesterday:

“I don’t know of any acts of torture that have been committed,” [Ashcroft] said, adding that all the techniques fell within legally approved guidelines, including waterboarding, in which water is poured into the mouth and nose to produce a feeling of drowning.

My beef isn't with Ashcroft's denial of authorizing or know about acts of torture taking place -- that's to be expected from current and former members of the Sleaze Administration. What bothers me is the part that goes "to produce a feeling of drowning."

Let's be clear, waterboarding doesn't cause "a feeling of drowning." It actually entails drowning someone, hopefully stopping before someone has actually fully drowned, and is thus deceased. How many more journalists have to volunteer to get waterboarded (Christopher Hitchens being the most recent example) and how many more videos of 16-year-old kids held at Guantanamo do we have to release before the media actually stops believing whatever horse swill Bush and company throw at them?

Maybe this person will be a helpful critic of this kind of crap. Time will tell.

Is the world really that scary?

The NYT ran a curious op-ed this morning by Jamie Gorelick and Slade Gorton, formerly of the 9/11 Commission, calling for a complete rethink/reallignment of the current presidential transition process (to the extent that any real process exists). While the idea of having presidential nominees line up people for key national security posts before they've won the election, and having those people be given access to lots of sensitive information well before November sounds nice at first blush, I wonder if the proposal is worthwhile or even plausible.

Candidates at this juncture are rightly concerned with campaigning. To be able to name their future cabinets in the summer before the election, they would have to expend incredible resources and take time off the trail, when they should be meeting with the American people writ-large, and not a few bright national security and foreign policy luminaries. Both McCain and Obama had difficult primary campaigns to endure, and it just doesn't strike me as realistic that they could name a whole slate of people for cabinet posts when it takes a few months just to identify a running mate. This is not to say that presidential candidates shouldn't think about who their final teams should be -- indeed, their campaigns likely reflect the inner circle that will follow into an administration -- but the timing may not be right. Further, is it a good idea to name the cabinet early on, and thus create bad blood among those who might be useful for the campaign?

The other major question I have about the proposal is whether or not it's smart to be doling out sensitive information to two potential National Security Councils before the election takes place. While I'm no fan of the Bush administration's secretive policies, at the same time there is some intelligence information out there that is rightly distributed to a limited audience. It seems to me that the dangers of leaks and all the rest grows higher if you put highly politicized people (campaigning campaign advisors/cabinet members to be) into that fray.

I do agree, though, that key posts need to be filled early on, and that the Senate should confirm as many nominees as possible on January 20. Yet doesn't this usually happen? Have we ever really gone weeks without a Secretary of State or Defense in recent memory?

The proposal has good ideas, I guess, but is maybe a little too far removed from reality to be useful.

Who knew clean water could be so easy?

This little tidbit yesterday caught my eye. Apparently scientists in Switzerland have discovered that you can get clean, drinkable water by simply sticking it in a bottle outside.

Ok, there's more to it than that. The bottle has to be clean, clear plastic, no larger than three liters. It needs lots of sunlight and heat, which can be enhanced by setting the bottle on a sheet of corrugated iron, steel or aluminum. The variable then is the amount of sun the bottle catches. The process can take anywhere from six to 48 hours.

Nonetheless, a fascinating development for development.