So, I bring you a look at how a strong personality creates political change: Longing for Ataturk.

By the way, the picture at the top of my blog there is of a Turkish taxi in Istanbul. Loved that place.

“Radar data recorded in space has found the remains of a giant lake under Darfur’s arid sands, launching plans to sink 1,000 wells that could help stop the region’s war.

A team led by a veteran of Nasa’s Apollo lunar exploration programme used satellites’ remote sensing equipment to build a picture of the 12,000 sq mile lake.

Although its waters drained away as the region turned to semi-desert, researchers are confident large amounts of moisture have been preserved as groundwater.

The conflict in the western Sudanese province of Darfur, which has killed 200,000 people and forced 250,000 from their homes, has its roots in clashes over scarce water resources.”

Read the rest at the website.

Would this work? I’m skeptical. Still, I thought it was a really cool story.

He raises some good points such as that due to the prevalence of small arms, suicide bombers and other means of waging guerilla combat (most people call it “guerilla warfare”), it has become extremely difficult if not impossible to win a war through conventional military means.

I think he’s arguing that conventional warfare is dead, not warfare in general. He also focuses on strongly asymmetrical forms of warfare, where both sides have such different capabilities that they cannot even relate to each other, and each fights in the way to which he is most accustomed and suited for. This is not always the case today, but it is definitely becoming more usual.

There is a good discussion going on at The Tyee though. Take a look. It touches on one of the most interesting questions in military affairs today.

This quote comes from an article in today’s Toronto Star that profiles Wendy Shalit, author of a new and somewhat controversial book, Girls Gone Mild. This book seems to be getting a lot of attention (and marketing!) with several articles, a website, and even a blogged debate featuring Shalit and sex columnist Dan Savage, among others.

In her books, Shalit encourages young women to embrace modesty and expresses doubts with what she thinks is the feminist belief that being overtly sexual empowers women.

Okay, I haven’t read the book. I have taken a look at the various websites. I don’t think I agree with her overall message, but she probably makes a few good points. I do think girls are over-sexualized these days and, as she says, it is very likely that a few of them aren’t comfortable with it. I’m sure too though that there are those who are quite comfortable, and also that there are those who find their own happy medium and don’t buy in to either extreme: extreme modesty or extreme sexuality.

Anyway, in the interest of exposing people to various viewpoints, I’m writing this blog entry and providing all the links above. Take a look if you’re so inclined. I promise, if I find a really good sex-positive story in the news I’ll feature it in the blog too. Help is always appreciated, as I don’t see many in the mainstream media. I am an avid reader of Dan Savage’s weekly column though, so that blog linked above (and here too, why not) was pretty interesting to me.

The top 5 of 2007:

1. Sudan
2. Iraq
3. Somalia
4. Zimbabwe
5. Chad

You may or may not agree with the methodology behind these rankings, for example, some countries are left out because of a lack of data, and a variety of factors seem to be given equal weight (I think, statistics aren’t always my strong point, so correct me if I’m wrong). These might also not be the countries that you would expect to be in the top 5.

It’s interesting how varied media coverage can be. For example, I have heard almost nothing about Chad. I think I have some reading to do.

Sudan has stayed in the #1 spot this year, and Iraq has moved up. Cote d’Ivoire and the DRC have dropped a bit. Afghanistan has moved up higher (meaning become worse). Take a look. There are some interesting things in this study.

By the way, you used to be able to read the whole Foreign Policy magazine article online. Now, it seems you have to be a subscriber. I hate that. Consider yourself warned.

In it, the author describes how “a fundamental disrespect for women (is) creeping into our everyday Internet experiences.” She mentions a “malicious sexist streak” that has crept into blog posts, forums and other social networking sites.

I have to say, she’s right.

I’m going to start this by telling the world: I am a huge geek. I’m a female geek too, which might strike some people as odd. I know there are others out there too who use the Internet in all its wonderful ways, even up to and including gaming. Now, I will definitely not claim that only women are abused as gamers. In the heat of the moment, all manner of insults are hurled against all manner of players. These range from the standard “fag” and “your mother!” types to unheard-of racial insults. I refer you to the following important theory.

None of these insults are acceptable, of course, but you learn to tolerate a certain amount of them and even laugh at a few. Still, I do my best to never mention that I am female while I play a certain online game I enjoy. It just invites general harassment and abuse. As an example, I was recently called “vigina-face”. Funny, yes, and I felt obliged to correct his spelling, but still annoying. I can hold my own in a gaming flame-war, but I prefer to not have to.

Of course, certain avatars also invite comment. I have two night elves:

Night elf A is ok. Note the manly beard.

Night elf B got someone following me around all night typing the most graphic and disgusting things I have ever heard. Yes, I blocked him.

Of course best of all are options C or D. C gets you the occasional pat on the head, and well, if someone gives you lewd comments on D….

Option C (my main, sadly I don’t have time to play much, as those in the know will be able to tell)

And the lovable Option D:

Kind of sad that so much is affected by the toon, eh?

Mass Zimbabwe arrests over prices 

President Robert Mugabe is imposing price controls in Zimbabwe, and arresting anyone who violates them, in an effort to curb the crippling inflation the country currently faces. Too bad that this violates every basic rule of economics. Somehow, I don’t think it would work. Unfortunately, my economic knowledge only extends far enough to tell me that this won’t work… not to tell me what will.

Cluster bombs

What is a cluster bomb?

Cluster bombs are a type of munition usually dropped from a plane onto a target. They consist of one large shell that breaks open in the air, releasing thousands of tiny “bomblets” that blanket an area with small explosives.

There are however flaws in their design. The “bomblets”, once released, are effective, but can be inaccurate, with some bomblets blowing off course and away from the intended target. Also, while the bomblets are supposed to explode immediately, they very often do not, leaving the target area littered with tiny landmines.

Who uses cluster bombs?

According to www.stopclustermunitions.org notable users of cluster bombs include the United States, France, the U.K., Russia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Poland, among others. These users are greatly outnumbered by countries who produce these bombs, and the producers are outnumbered again by the number of countries that maintain stockpiles.

Who is affected by cluster bombs?

Affected countries are mostly concentrated in Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans, but they are also found in Russia, Poland, Vietnam and the Falkland Islands. The effects of cluster munitions are highly indiscriminate: they cannot be concentrated on military targets alone, as they have a wide area of effect and are inaccurate, often penetrating into civilian areas. They also remain after the battle, to harm unsuspecting people who wander into a bombed area. Children are often attracted by bomblets’ bright colours.

How does international humanitarian law deal with this problem?

This is my own question, being the IHL buff that I am. The short answer is that it doesn’t. While the use of cluster munitions clearly violates one of the two most basic provisions of the laws of war: discrimination (meaning that the means or method of warfare can be reliably directed at military targets alone), large-scale treaties that specifically mention cluster munitions do not exist. It can easily be argued that cluster munitions are regulated in principle by a number of more general treaties, but without specific provisions, the opposite can usually also be argued.

This is typical of weapons treaties under international law: the law generally evolves too slowly to deal with specific weapons or weapon types. Creating new laws regulating warfare involve a complex push-and-pull between those who believe in the military necessity of a given weapon or tactic, and those who would seek to preserve the greatest number of lives. This is a very unfortunate fact, but most countries are unwilling to give up a very effective weapon when they suspect that their neighbour is not doing the same.

Talks are currently underway for a treaty regulating cluster munitions, known as the Oslo Process. There is evidence of international support and progress.
To learn more about cluster bombs, visit some of the following links:
A summary article from The Economist

An amazing interactive map and country fact sheet from StopClusterMunitions.org

Pictures and diagrams explaining how cluster munitions work

Myths and realities from Human Rights Watch

I believe the problem is that they just didn’t think this far ahead. They expected an election to come hard on the heels of the last one, and for a variety of reasons, it didn’t happen. They planned for the short term and have somehow managed to stick around for the long haul. “Now what?” they ask themselves, like a middle-aged man contemplating his possessions. I personally expect to see a shiny new convertible when Parliament reconvenes in the fall.

An article from this week’s Economist that, I admit, partly inspired this post. 

Need some encouragement to click that link? Consider the following points the author makes:

“…humanitarians should note that the dead from Jewish-Palestinian fighting since 1921 amount to fewer than 100,000 – about as many as are killed in a season of conflict in Darfur.”

“…geopolitical engagement in the region does nothing to safeguard the supply of oil.”

“Arab-Israeli catastrophism is wrong twice over, first because the conflict is contained within rather narrow boundaries, and second because the Levant is just not that important any more.”