Female genital mutilation is on the rise in the U.S., and a number of doctors here are ramping up their efforts to reverse the damage the practice causes with a relatively new restorative surgery.
Friday marks the U.N.'s International Day of Zero Toleration to Female Genital Mutilation, and a new report found that the risks for girls and women in the U.S. has more than doubled since 2000. But there is renewed hope for females who have been cut as more physicians are offering clitoroplasty, which restores clitoral function. While reconstructive surgery has long been available, about 10 years ago, French physician Dr. Pierre Foldes pioneered a procedure, which rebuilds the damaged area and rejuvenates the nerve networks so that patients can regain sensitivity and in some cases, attain orgasm, according to the U.N. "It can certainly improve women's pleasure and lessen their pain," Foldes said in a statement in 2012 after studying the results of 3,000 such surgeries. "It also allows mutilated women to recover their identity." During the one-year follow-up, most patients reported experiencing less pain or at least no worsening pain, and 81 percent said their sex lives had improved, according to a study published in The Lancet. While the surgery proved effective, Foldes also noted at the time that it was cost prohibitive and needed to become more readily available for the girls and women who are eager to get it. More than 130 girls and women worldwide have undergone FGM, which involves partial or total removal of the external female genitalia and has no medical benefit. The number of women and girls who are at risk in the U.S. has more than doubled to half a million over the past 15 years, according to a study released on Friday by the Population Reference Bureau. The nonprofit attributes the concerning increase to a rise in immigration from African countries. FGM poses a slew of health risks, including causing damage to adjacent organs, recurring urinary tract infections, birth complications, the formation of dermoid cysts and, in some cases, can lead to death. Girls are typically cut before the onset of puberty, with the goal of making them remain virgins before marriage and faithful to their husbands once they wed, according to UNICEF. In 2012, the United Nations General Assembly called on all countries to eliminate the practice. But in countries where it's widely practiced, FGM shows no sign of slowing down. In Egypt and Somalia, for example, more than 90 percent of the female population is affected by the tradition. Realizing the overwhelming need of women who have undergone FGM, Dr. Marci Bowers, a renowned expert in transgender surgery, according to the BBC, now devotes a portion of her practice in California to performing clitoroplasty. She trained with Foldes in France and did her first clitoral repair surgery in the U.S. in 2009. Since then, she's done about 100 such procedures, according to The Washington Post. Bowers was the subject of a Vice documentary, "The Cut That Heals," which was released on Friday. Ayan, a 32-year-old nurse who was cut in Somalia when she was 6, is a patient of Bowers and was featured in the film. She fled for the United States in the '90s and had been too "ashamed" to see an OB-GYN before she met Bowers. Before the surgery, she told Vice she felt "OK" about her body, barring the "particular issue she wants reversed." Ayan said she is a virgin and plans on remaining so until she gets married. But she doesn't need the pain and the scars from the FGM procedure to be "reminded to be pure." Bowers performs the procedure, which takes less than an hour, for free. Patients just have to pay the operating room and anesthesia fees, according to her website. But she says the surgery is about much more than just enabling women to feel sexual pleasure. "The number one reason is restoration of identity," she told The Washington Post. "They want their body back and to feel more normal. It's about not being different any more." Six weeks after the surgery, Ayan wrote in an essay for Vice that her menstrual cramps had already eased up and that she's "healing beautifully." "I was immediately overcome by a feeling of completeness," she wrote. "It was an unfamiliar feeling." |
Home » All post
Little-Known Surgery Restores Sexual Pleasure To Female Genital Mutilation Victims
Posted by Unknown
at 22.44,
Add Comment
Read more
Arturo O'Farrill: Afro-Latino Heritage Is 'One Big Culture That We All Share'
Arturo O'Farrill wants Africa to get the credit it deserves.
The New York-based pianist, composer and educator traveled Friday to Los Angeles to attend the Grammys, where his Afro Latin Jazz Orchestra's "The Offense of the Drum" is nominated for best Latin jazz album. "We talk a lot about Afro-Cuban jazz, but we don't really talk about Africa and its impact on the Dominican Republic, on Venezuela, Colombia -- bro, in Peru!" O'Farrill told The Huffington Post. "There's whole parts of Colombia where they play a music called pacĂfico, and the instruments that they use are direct descendants of marĂmbulas and instruments that you can find throughout the west coast of Africa. How do you think it got there? Cuba's a small -- maybe a very vibrant and important part of that picture -- but Cuba's just one aspect." Born in Mexico to Cuban and Mexican parents and raised in New York City, O'Farrill says his musical inspiration remains rooted in his African cultural heritage -- a heritage he says people from across the Caribbean and other parts of Latin America share, regardless of skin color. "This music wouldn't exist without Africa, without African voices," O'Farrill said. "It permeates everything we do. People don't realize that Latin America is more than a landmass, it's one big culture that we all share ... Whether you're an African descendant or not, culturally a lot of us are Afro-descendants. And who wouldn't want to be?" Like the United States, most Latin American societies are a multiracial mix of largely indigenous, European and African peoples -- though people of virtually all backgrounds and parts of the globe have settled in the region. In places like Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic or Brazil, where many if not most people are either black or mixed-race, African influences can be found in virtually every aspect of the culture, whether it's the language, food or religion. But O'Farrill says too many musicians shortchange their African heritage. "A lot of groups spend their whole cultural and aesthetic identity trying to move away from Africa, which I think is a mistake," O'Farrill said. "One of the reasons I love Cuba and cultures like that is because they're not trying to move away from their African roots, they're trying to embrace them. That's part of the culture. That's why, in those cultures, the Yoruban religion is so important -- because it brings us right back to Africa." "To me it's freedom," O'Farrill added. "That music is all freedom." |
Posted by Unknown
at 22.41,
Add Comment
Read more
Obama Cautions Against 'Overreach' In National Security
Posted by Unknown
at 22.40,
Add Comment
Read more
White House Won't Say Whether Obama Has Opinion On Jordan's Retaliation Against Islamic State
If President Barack Obama has any thoughts on Jordan's execution of two prisoners, he's keeping them to himself.
During a press conference this week, Fox News' Ed Henry, following up on a previous questions, asked White House press secretary Josh Earnest how it was possible not to have a reaction to Jordan's decision to retaliate against the Islamic State after the militant group's brutal killing of Jordanian fight pilot Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh. Another reporter had previously pointed out the European Union has come out against Jordan's decision to execute the prisoners. "The United States stands with our friends in Jordan as they confront this awful, barbaric act. But as it relates to the decisions that are carried by the Jordanian justice system, I'd refer you to them," Earnest said in response to Henry. "I just don't have the working knowledge of the Jordanian justice system to render an opinion on this." "All I know is that the individuals that we're discussing here were individuals who were convicted of terrorism-related crimes, they were individuals who were sentenced to death, and these were individuals who'd been serving time on death row," he continued. The Islamic State group released a graphic video of al-Kaseasbeh being burned alive that started circulating online Tuesday. Jordan officials announced their decision to execute the two Iraqi al Qaeda prisoners Wednesday and called for action against the Islamic State, saying "this evil can and should be defeated." |
Posted by Unknown
at 21.00,
Add Comment
Read more
Mr. Putin Will Not Change Course in Ukraine or Syria
When Russia first expropriated Crimea last year, I wrote that neither the EU nor the U.S. were likely to take military action to reverse the tide, and that in the end, Russia didn't care much about whether it is a member of the G8 or not. Some economic sanctions would ensue, I predicted, but to Mr. Putin and many Russians, righting an historical wrong was far more important than what may come as a result. They also knew that Europe and the U.S. need Russia every bit as much as Russia needs them -- perhaps more so considering Europe's dependency on Russia for natural gas, and the desire for much needed collaboration between the U.S. and Russia on Iran and Syria.
At issue then, as now, was the perceived legitimacy (on the part of Russia) of the government in Kiev, ethnicity in Ukraine, Russian history, Russian pride, and Russia's ability and willingness to project its power. Depending on one's frame of reference, Russia's actions have either evoked outrage or relief, as Ukraine has become the epicenter of the battle between pro and anti-European and Russian influence in the region. In the absence of any meaningful military response by either Europe or the United States -- which remains to be seen, but, a year after the fact, is more likely be more oriented toward preventing any further expansion of Russian-backed military forces, rather than an effort to repel them altogether -- Mr. Putin has achieved what many Russians have sought since jurisdiction over Crimea was transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954. In spite of all the economic pain Russia (and Russians) have thus far endured as a result of sanctions, and the plummeting price of oil, support for Mr. Putin remains at more than 70 percent, according to a January poll taken by the Public Opinion Foundation. That is astounding, and should give Western policy makers some guidance as to what to expect from him going forward: in short (as if there were any doubt), more of the same. Indeed -- what else do they need to know? As long as he has the support of the Russian people, he will continue on the course he has set. Apparently, the average Russian would rather eat rubber than give in on Crimea and Ukraine. Similarly, in spite of the tremendous economic and political pressure that is being applied to Mr. Putin as a result of the plunge in oil price to modify his position on support for Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, he is unlikely to do so. While many around the world may chide him for his overt display of testosterone, having done so resonates with people who identify with his unabashed bravado, and Russia's willingness to challenge the status quo. In the body of global public opinion, Mr. Putin has plenty of admirers, which gives Russia an added incentive to continue thumbing its nose at the West. In the eyes of many, the choice in Ukraine and Syria appears to be between a) Russia as a former global power, ruled by a strong man (wearing a cape of 'democracy'), which seeks to restore part of its former glory by resurrecting old alliances, flexing its muscles, rejecting the existing world order, and challenging 'the way things are' on a broad scale, and b) the U.S. as a fading superpower (with China nipping at its heels), trying to 'do the right thing' in the world (but really just looking after itself and its interests, like any other country), paralyzed by its own hubris and political infighting, and having difficulty getting much of anything done -- domestically or internationally. There is plenty to like and dislike about both options. But, given the fractured and evolving global political landscape, both sides, and neither side, will achieve all of its objectives. Swimming against the tide has its own appeal at a time when virtually everything about the world order seems to be up for grabs. By the same token, trying to maintain stability has obvious appeal. The battle lines are clearly drawn, and the stakes are high, which is yet another reason neither side has much interest in backing down. More to the point, having such battle lines drawn seems to suit the powers that be - on both sides of the divide -- rather well, as a convenient rallying point for nationalists to wave the flag, for extremists to promote their causes, and for the people who hold the levers of power to maintain their hold. Russia is a well-ingrained enemy of the U.S., and vice versa. For that reason, not too much effort is required to dust off and re-oil the propaganda machines on both sides of the Atlantic. Both sides appear to have an interest in prolonging the status quo between them for the foreseeable future. As for Mr. Putin, there would appear to be little incentive to change course -- in Russia, Ukraine, Syria, or anywhere else where Russia is in the process of flexing its muscles. Ukraine demonstrates very well that while NATO is unified as a political force, it is anything but as a military force, and Europe is as disjointed in terms of international policy making as it has ever been. Any future military response to Russia in Ukraine will undoubtedly prove to be -- and be seen as - too little and too late. Mr. Putin knows this as well as anyone. |
Posted by Unknown
at 20.59,
Add Comment
Read more
Hollywood's Furriner Problem
I was waiting to buy a ticket to see the new film American Sniper when the guy next to me provided a capsule review. It was a fantastic movie, he told me. The main character, Chris Kyle, was a great guy, and the film really showed what the war over there was like.
"And the Taliban are evil," he added. "They were just doing terrible things, using kids to throw bombs and stuff." The fellow told me that the movie had inspired him to look up more information about Chris Kyle on the Internet and learn about his tragic death. But despite this additional research, he still believed that Kyle was fighting against the Taliban. In fact, American Sniper is about Kyle's four tours in Iraq. My fellow moviegoer can't really be blamed for the confusion. American Sniper doesn't dwell much on the targets of the American army. Of course it mentions several times that Kyle was deployed to Iraq. But the locale of the movie doesn't really matter. We are supposed to be spending most of our time in Chris Kyle's head, and Kyle was focused on killing the bad guys wherever they might be. In both American Sniper and that other controversial recent release The Interview, Americans are the heroes and foreigners are the targets. And not just foreigners but furriners: an undifferentiated group of people so alien in their ways that they are practically subhuman. Although the first movie is a drama and the second is a comedy, they espouse a similar philosophy. The Americans in these films don't negotiate with evil, as Dick Cheney once famously said, they defeat it: one on one in a test of wills. In a bizarre coincidence, both movies even climax in identical ways. In scenes that show the slow-motion trajectory of a deadly projectile and the graphic death of the chief villain, the American cowboys get their men. In another parallel, the films haven't gone over well in the countries of these villains, neither in North Korea nor in Iraq. In war and regime change, furriners are an inscrutable bunch. They are obviously bad guys, or we wouldn't be trying to kill them or oust them from power. They lie. Some of them even pretend to be our friends. But ultimately, as these two buddy movies demonstrate, furriners can't be our buddies. They don't just envy us, as George W. Bush would have it. They want us dead. So, who can blame us for standing our ground and hitting them before they hit America? Inside North Korea First I have a confession to make. I found parts of The Interview very funny. Critics have generally been lukewarm about the film, calling it inane and sophomoric. And the North Korean government didn't like it very much either, largely because it features the assassination of its leader. James Franco plays TV host Dave Skylark and Seth Rogen plays his handler Aaron Rapaport. As in previous movies like Pineapple Express, Franco and Rogen use The Interview as a vehicle to explore male bonding. The funniest parts come at the beginning, when Skylark tries to establish a rapport with a straight-faced Eminem, and then later compares his friendship with Rapaport to various pairings in the Lord of the Rings -- which occasions the most unsettling impression of Gollum that I've ever seen. Also priceless is a hilariously awkward meeting where a former journalism school classmate who works at 60 Minutes ridicules Rapaport for the trashy "news" he produces. The meeting inspires Rapaport to aim higher. If The Interview had remained in the United States, it could have been a very funny send-up of what passes for TV news these days -- and saved Sony millions of dollars in damages connected to the hacking that took place in December prior to the film's premier. But no, just like their characters in the film, Franco and Rogen wanted to raise their game. Making fun of America's tabloid journalism -- and relying on body part humor -- was too easy. They wanted to take on a dictator, and a real one at that. And that's when things got complicated. The creators of The Interview certainly know something about North Korea. The Pyongyang airport is appropriately empty of traffic. The children performers at the dinner banquet could have come directly from the Children's Palace. And Kim Jong Eun, played by Randall Park, worries about his father's approval (though Kim Jong Il's accusations of effeminacy were actually directed at his other son, Kim Jong Chol). Finally, given the leader's friendship with Dennis Rodman, it's not so far-fetched that he might develop an interest in someone as gonzo as Dave Skylark. But a little knowledge proves here to be a dangerous thing. North Koreans are portrayed as entirely credulous people who, once they learn that their leader goes to the bathroom like everyone else, will shed their illusions and rise up against him. In fact, judging from defector testimony, even members of the North Korean elite no longer subscribe to the personality cult. Pyongyang, meanwhile, is in many ways a showcase city, but not quite the Potemkin village portrayed in the film. Skylark becomes enraged when he comes upon a food-stuffed grocery store, which he'd earlier glimpsed from the backseat of a car, and discovers that the fruits and vegetables are made of plaster. But how would he have reacted to the private Tongil Market in Pyongyang, which is genuinely well provisioned, but only for those who can afford it? Would he rail against it as a sign of totalitarian inequality or celebrate the emergence of capitalism in North Korea? But The Interview doesn't live or die on the faithfulness of its representations of North Korea. It's not, after all, a documentary. Rather, as the action shifts to Pyongyang, it's becomes progressively less funny. There are a couple of amusing scenes in which Randall Park's Kim is at his most human -- singing along with Katy Perry and partying with Skylark. The rest of the humor relies on one joke: North Koreans are wooden. And since when exactly was assassination funny? In 1991, Colin Powell declared at the end of the first Gulf War that he was running out of enemies and only had Kim Il Sung and Fidel Castro left. The same holds true for Hollywood, not only in terms of who are the villains (always Nazis, sometimes Russians, occasionally Muslims), but who can be the butt of humor. The only people that can be safely made fun of in a collective way are obscure (the Kazakhs of Borat) or the roundly vilified (North Koreans). They don't have strong lobbies in the United States devoted to image control. But at least The Interview features one decent North Korean, who has been transformed by the love of an American. That's more than can be said for American Sniper and its approach to furriners. Sniper vs. Sniper The director of American Sniper, Clint Eastwood, is no stranger to westerns. He starred in them and directed one of the best (Unforgiven). He sets up his latest film according to the basic principles of a western, transplanted to Iraq. Chris Kyle is a modern-day cowboy, quite literally, for he starts out as a bronco rider with a keen sense of right and wrong imparted to him by his father. There are sheep and wolves, his father tells him over dinner, and then there are the sheepdogs that protect the innocent weak from the evil strong. Kyle becomes a Navy Seal and, based on his marksmanship, does four tours in Iraq as a sharpshooter. There he builds up a reputation as "the Legend," with more than 160 kills to his name. He saves his buddies, he goes after the unmistakably evil Butcher, and he suffers no qualms. As he explains to a psychiatrist at the VA, he only wishes he could have saved more American soldiers. Eastwood is no fool. He wants to celebrate the sacrifices made by American soldiers. But he also wants to inject some ambiguity into the film, if only to appeal to a larger, more liberal audience. Although he doesn't speak of it, Kyle is worried about the nature of his job. After all, he is not exactly protecting the weak. He is keeping watch over highly trained and well-armed Marines who are going door to door scaring the bejesus out of mostly Iraqi women and children. Of course, the movie suggests that some of these women and children are also legitimate targets, but Kyle is clearly struggling with the burden of determining which of the people in his sniper scope are friendly and which are not. When one of his fellow Seals gets shot and killed, Kyle attends the funeral stateside. The victim's mother reads her son's last letter, which speaks of the war turning into a "wrongful crusade." Kyle dismisses this sentiment and tells his wife that it was the letter that killed his buddy. In some sense, he's right. The war required absolute faith on the part of the soldiers, and agnostics like his fallen buddy could not last long out there. The moral quandary Kyle faces is expressed most unexpectedly when, at a birthday party back in Texas, he assaults a real sheepdog that he believes is attacking a child. The war has made him lose his moral compass. All of this may well be too subtle for most American moviegoers. The film, after all, is structured like a video game with four levels. If he kills enough "savages," Kyle can return to the States and prepare himself for the next level. The last stage of this "game" features the ultimate competition, the High Noon standoff that caps all westerns. The Legend must kill or be killed by Mustafa, an insurgent sniper who'd once won a medal at the Olympics for his skills. It is a fitting match-up. But even though Mustafa is doing his job, just like Kyle, and even though the rival sniper also acts as a sheepdog in his efforts to protect his flock from murderous outsiders, he receives no sympathy in the film. He is just another "savage." Here was Eastwood's opportunity to humanize the adversary. He failed to do so. They all remain, in the end, furriners. The ambiguities of war are inserted only to make the American hero more complex. The furriners are just sniper fodder. Too Soon to Humanize? I don't expect the creators of The Interview to go out of their way to humanize North Koreans. They've produced a comedy that, like the characters in the film, hews closely to the politics of the U.S. government. Clint Eastwood is a different story, his conservative politics notwithstanding. As a director, he created a two-part epic about the battle of Iwo Jima: Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. He filmed the two movies back to back, the first looking at the battle from the American perspective and the second from the Japanese viewpoint. Indeed, Letters from Iwo Jimafeatures an all-Japanese cast, is in Japanese for the most part, and features not furriners but real people. In a supreme irony, Letters from Iwo Jima did better at the box office than its American counterpart. But of course neither film was a blockbuster -- in stark contrast to American Sniper, the highest grossing war film of all time. Japan today is a stable, more-or-less democratic country that the United States counts as a major ally. The passage of time and the tides of geopolitics, in other words, have done much to transform the image of the Japanese in American culture to make a work like Letters from Iwo Jima possible. The Iraq War, however, is too fresh a wound in the American memory. And in some sense we are still fighting that war today, on the ground with advisors and in the air against the Islamic State -- just as we continue to fight against North Korea with full-spectrum surveillance and economic sanctions. It's not surprising, then, that in their depiction of furriners, Hollywood movies continue to wage their version of war as well. |
Posted by Unknown
at 20.58,
Add Comment
Read more
The World's Email Encryption Software Relies On One Guy, Who Is Going Broke
The man who built the free email encryption software used by whistleblower Edward Snowden, as well as hundreds of thousands of journalists, dissidents and security-minded people around the world, is running out of money to keep his project alive.
Werner Koch wrote the software, known as Gnu Privacy Guard, in 1997, and since then has been almost single-handedly keeping it alive with patches and updates from his home in Erkrath, Germany. Now 53, he is running out of money and patience with being underfunded.
"I'm too idealistic," he told me in an interview at a hacker convention in Germany in December. "In early 2013 I was really about to give it all up and take a straight job." But then the Snowden news broke, and "I realized this was not the time to cancel."
Like many people who build security software, Koch believes that offering the underlying software code for free is the best way to demonstrate that there are no hidden backdoors in it giving access to spy agencies or others. However, this means that many important computer security tools are built and maintained by volunteers.
Now, more than a year after Snowden's revelations, Koch is still struggling to raise enough money to pay himself and to fulfill his dream of hiring a full-time programmer. He says he's made about $25,000 per year since 2001 — a fraction of what he could earn in private industry. In December, he launched a fundraising campaign that has garnered about $43,000 to date — far short of his goal of $137,000 — which would allow him to pay himself a decent salary and hire a full-time developer.
The fact that so much of the Internet's security software is underfunded is becoming increasingly problematic. Last year, in the wake of the Heartbleed bug, I wrote that while the U.S. spends more than $50 billion per year on spying and intelligence, pennies go to Internet security. The bug revealed that an encryption program used by everybody from Amazon to Twitter was maintained by just four programmers, only one of whom called it his full-time job. A group of tech companies stepped in to fund it.
Koch's code powers most of the popular email encryption programs GPGTools, Enigmail, and GPG4Win. "If there is one nightmare that we fear, then it's the fact that Werner Koch is no longer available," said Enigmail developer Nicolai Josuttis. "It's a shame that he is alone and that he has such a bad financial situation."
The programs are also underfunded. Enigmail is maintained by two developers in their spare time. Both have other full-time jobs. Enigmail's lead developer, Patrick Brunschwig, told me that Enigmail receives about $1,000 a year in donations — just enough to keep the website online.
GPGTools, which allows users to encrypt email from Apple Mail, announced in October that it would start charging users a small fee. The other popular program, GPG4Win, is run by Koch himself.
Email encryption first became available to the public in 1991, when Phil Zimmermann released a free program called Pretty Good Privacy, or PGP, on the Internet. Prior to that, powerful computer-enabled encryption was only available to the government and large companies that could pay licensing fees. The U.S. government subsequently investigated Zimmermann for violating arms trafficking laws because high-powered encryption was subject to export restrictions.
In 1997, Koch attended a talk by free software evangelist Richard Stallman, who was visiting Germany. Stallman urged the crowd to write their own version of PGP. "We can't export it, but if you write it, we can import it," he said.
Inspired, Koch decided to try. "I figured I can do it," he recalled. He had some time between consulting projects. Within a few months, he released an initial version of the software he called Gnu Privacy Guard, a play on PGP and an homage to Stallman's free Gnu operating system.
Koch's software was a hit even though it only ran on the Unix operating system. It was free, the underlying software code was open for developers to inspect and improve, and it wasn't subject to U.S. export restrictions.
Koch continued to work on GPG in between consulting projects until 1999, when the German government gave him a grant to make GPG compatible with the Microsoft Windows operating system. The money allowed him to hire a programmer to maintain the software while also building the Windows version, which became GPG4Win. This remains the primary free encryption program for Windows machines.
In 2005, Koch won another contract from the German government to support the development of another email encryption method. But in 2010, the funding ran out.
For almost two years, Koch continued to pay his programmer in the hope that he could find more funding. "But nothing came," Koch recalled. So, in August 2012, he had to let the programmer go. By summer 2013, Koch was himself ready to quit.
But after the Snowden news broke, Koch decided to launch a fundraising campaign. He set up an appeal at a crowdsourcing website, made t-shirts and stickers to give to donors, and advertised it on his website. In the end, he earned just $21,000.
The campaign gave Koch, who has an 8-year-old daughter and a wife who isn't working, some breathing room. But when I asked him what he will do when the current batch of money runs out, he shrugged and said he prefers not to think about it. "I'm very glad that there is money for the next three months," Koch said. "Really I am better at programming than this business stuff."
Werner Koch wrote the software, known as Gnu Privacy Guard, in 1997, and since then has been almost single-handedly keeping it alive with patches and updates from his home in Erkrath, Germany. Now 53, he is running out of money and patience with being underfunded.
"I'm too idealistic," he told me in an interview at a hacker convention in Germany in December. "In early 2013 I was really about to give it all up and take a straight job." But then the Snowden news broke, and "I realized this was not the time to cancel."
Like many people who build security software, Koch believes that offering the underlying software code for free is the best way to demonstrate that there are no hidden backdoors in it giving access to spy agencies or others. However, this means that many important computer security tools are built and maintained by volunteers.
Now, more than a year after Snowden's revelations, Koch is still struggling to raise enough money to pay himself and to fulfill his dream of hiring a full-time programmer. He says he's made about $25,000 per year since 2001 — a fraction of what he could earn in private industry. In December, he launched a fundraising campaign that has garnered about $43,000 to date — far short of his goal of $137,000 — which would allow him to pay himself a decent salary and hire a full-time developer.
The fact that so much of the Internet's security software is underfunded is becoming increasingly problematic. Last year, in the wake of the Heartbleed bug, I wrote that while the U.S. spends more than $50 billion per year on spying and intelligence, pennies go to Internet security. The bug revealed that an encryption program used by everybody from Amazon to Twitter was maintained by just four programmers, only one of whom called it his full-time job. A group of tech companies stepped in to fund it.
Koch's code powers most of the popular email encryption programs GPGTools, Enigmail, and GPG4Win. "If there is one nightmare that we fear, then it's the fact that Werner Koch is no longer available," said Enigmail developer Nicolai Josuttis. "It's a shame that he is alone and that he has such a bad financial situation."
The programs are also underfunded. Enigmail is maintained by two developers in their spare time. Both have other full-time jobs. Enigmail's lead developer, Patrick Brunschwig, told me that Enigmail receives about $1,000 a year in donations — just enough to keep the website online.
GPGTools, which allows users to encrypt email from Apple Mail, announced in October that it would start charging users a small fee. The other popular program, GPG4Win, is run by Koch himself.
Email encryption first became available to the public in 1991, when Phil Zimmermann released a free program called Pretty Good Privacy, or PGP, on the Internet. Prior to that, powerful computer-enabled encryption was only available to the government and large companies that could pay licensing fees. The U.S. government subsequently investigated Zimmermann for violating arms trafficking laws because high-powered encryption was subject to export restrictions.
In 1997, Koch attended a talk by free software evangelist Richard Stallman, who was visiting Germany. Stallman urged the crowd to write their own version of PGP. "We can't export it, but if you write it, we can import it," he said.
Inspired, Koch decided to try. "I figured I can do it," he recalled. He had some time between consulting projects. Within a few months, he released an initial version of the software he called Gnu Privacy Guard, a play on PGP and an homage to Stallman's free Gnu operating system.
Koch's software was a hit even though it only ran on the Unix operating system. It was free, the underlying software code was open for developers to inspect and improve, and it wasn't subject to U.S. export restrictions.
Koch continued to work on GPG in between consulting projects until 1999, when the German government gave him a grant to make GPG compatible with the Microsoft Windows operating system. The money allowed him to hire a programmer to maintain the software while also building the Windows version, which became GPG4Win. This remains the primary free encryption program for Windows machines.
In 2005, Koch won another contract from the German government to support the development of another email encryption method. But in 2010, the funding ran out.
For almost two years, Koch continued to pay his programmer in the hope that he could find more funding. "But nothing came," Koch recalled. So, in August 2012, he had to let the programmer go. By summer 2013, Koch was himself ready to quit.
But after the Snowden news broke, Koch decided to launch a fundraising campaign. He set up an appeal at a crowdsourcing website, made t-shirts and stickers to give to donors, and advertised it on his website. In the end, he earned just $21,000.
The campaign gave Koch, who has an 8-year-old daughter and a wife who isn't working, some breathing room. But when I asked him what he will do when the current batch of money runs out, he shrugged and said he prefers not to think about it. "I'm very glad that there is money for the next three months," Koch said. "Really I am better at programming than this business stuff."
Posted by Unknown
at 20.57,
Add Comment
Read more
Norway Drops Plan To Jail People For Helping Homeless
OSLO, Feb 5 (Reuters) - Norway's government dropped a plan to ban begging on Thursday after opposition parties and rights campaigners said it would criminalize anyone offering help to the poorest people in one of the world's richest nations.
The opposition Center Party dropped its previous support of the proposed law, leaving the minority right-wing government -- which has linked begging to rising crime rates -- without a majority to get it through parliament.
The legislation would have banned both begging and "cooperation" with beggars, with fines or up to a year in jail, in an attempt to outlaw gangs suspected of organizing trips for homeless people from nations including Romania.
But the Center Party said the clause outlawing cooperation could threaten simple acts of charity.
"It cannot be a crime to give clothes, food and shelter," Marit Arnstad, head of the party's parliamentary group, told the NTB news agency. She said the party would now not support any national ban on begging, no matter how it was phrased.
Rights campaigners have also described the law as draconian and against Nordic traditions of tolerance.
Deputy Justice Minister Vidar Brein-Karlsen told Reuters the proposed law had now been dropped. "Everyone knows begging creates debate, and we can only note that the Center Party has changed their standpoint," he said in a statement.
The Center Party has often cooperated with the two-party coalition in cracking down on crime.
Last year the three linked begging to an increase in crime, saying in a joint statement that there had been an "explosion" in pickpocketing in Oslo to match the number of cases in Berlin, which has seven times the population.
Norway, rich from oil and gas, has a sovereign wealth fund worth $860 billion, or $170,000 for each of Norway's 5 million population. Last year, the government passed a law allowing local municipalities to outlaw begging in public places. (Reporting By Alister Doyle; Editing by Andrew Heavens)
Posted by Unknown
at 20.52,
Add Comment
Read more
Senators Push To Arm Ukrainians
WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan group of U.S. senators pushed Thursday to send arms to Ukraine, saying in a Capitol Hill news conference that the United States needs to send "defensive, lethal" weapons to the country to help stem fresh offensives by Russian-backed separatists.
Sending arms would be a step beyond what many European allies support, and the senators offered no estimates of how far Americans should be willing to go in a new proxy war against Russia or how much the nation should be willing to pay. The White House has already sent $118 million in non-lethal assistance to Ukraine.
"The United States and our allies must deter further Russian aggression by providing defensive, lethal assistance," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said that legislation would be offered soon to allow for the nation to send arms.
McCain also said the move would be carefully calibrated to pose no real threat to Russia, but to raise the stakes for Russian President Vladimir Putin to meddle further in Ukraine.
"Defensive, lethal assistance will not allow the Ukrainian military to defeat the Russian military in a full-fledged war. But it will raise the risks and costs Russia must incur to continue its offensive," McCain said. "It will pierce the veneer of the Kremlin's cynical and false narrative that there are no Russians in Ukraine."
The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), echoed McCain, saying the goal would be to force all the parties back to considering a political solution to the conflict.
"We should be prepared to help Ukraine to defend itself against this aggression," said Reed, who noted that Congress already has approved sending defensive weapons, including anti-tank weapons and radar systems.
"The hope of all of us is that this step will reenergize the political process, and that there will be a respect for the cease-fire, and also help to the president of the Ukraine to deal with the political issue," Reed said.
Germany and France have so far resisted arming the Ukrainian government, and senators were harshly critical on Thursday.
"I'm hopeful that Germans, that under German leadership, that the Europeans will come around, and be much more active in support of Ukraine. Frankly I'm not overly optimistic," McCain said. "They've been a huge disappointment to me. Their actions recently have been reminiscent of the 1930s," he added, referring to infamous appeasement policies towards Nazi Germany before World War II.
McCain said that refusing to give Ukraine weapons was contributing to massacres. "Right now, they have no ability to defend against Russian tanks. That really makes for wholesale slaughter," he said.
Asked about potentially escalating conflicts between the United States and Russia, McCain suggested that the situation was growing more dire because sanctions and diplomacy were not enough to deter Putin.
"There was the belief that if we did not provide defensive weapons to Ukraine, then things would eventually be OK. We didn't want to 'provoke' Vladimir Putin. Well obviously Vladimir Putin has not gotten that message," McCain said.
"We're frankly at the end of the line here. You just can't stand by and watch people being slaughtered with superior equipment. You know, blankets don't do very well against tanks," he said.
Asked about how much cost the United States should bear to supply the weapons, McCain answered, "I have no idea."
His colleagues did not either, but suggested the cost did not matter. They also ruled out sending U.S. forces to fight on the ground in Ukraine.
"The key here is to give the Ukrainians the ability to defend their territory and also to move back to a political solution," said Reed.
Several pointed to an agreement signed 20 years ago called the Budapest Memorandum, in which the United States, Russia and Britain offered assurances to respect the sovereignty and borders of Ukraine. They also noted that the United States has promised to shield other allies along Russia's borders.
"We gave our word. And what is the cost if we don't keep our word that we will be there to protect our friend?" said Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) "Everybody in the region is scared to death, is afraid of what Vladimir Putin is going to do, and if at some point we don't stand up for our friends, it will only get worse."
The White House is reportedly considering taking stronger steps as the situation worsens.
Spokesman Josh Earnest said earlier this week that the aid already sent includes "body armor, helmets, vehicles, night and thermal vision devices, heavy engineering equipment, advanced radios, de-mining equipment, portable explosive ordinance disposal robots, patrol boats, counter-mortar radars, and other items that are required to sustain Ukraine's defense and internal security operations."
Earnest did not say if boosting that effort was in the cards, but he did not rule it out.
"We're continually evaluating our strategy and our response with essentially two goals: One is to isolate Russia's political leadership for the decisions they're making to destabilize the situation in Ukraine, and also to take steps to support our friends in Ukraine that are going through a very difficult time," Earnest said.
"Ultimately, it is the view of the United States that this situation will be resolved diplomatically, that the idea that somehow the United States can offer enough assistance to the Ukrainians to put their military on par with the large Russian military is unrealistic," he added.
McCain did not say exactly when he would advance legislation, but suggested it would be soon.
"We'll be marking up legislation," McCain said.
A group of more than 30 members of the House of Representatives also made a similar appeal Thursday in a letter to the White House, pleading for more war aid.
"Tighter sanctions and greater humanitarian assistance should be part of that support, but now, more than ever, the U.S. must supply Ukraine with the means to defend itself," said the lawmakers, including the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and the Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas).
Sending arms would be a step beyond what many European allies support, and the senators offered no estimates of how far Americans should be willing to go in a new proxy war against Russia or how much the nation should be willing to pay. The White House has already sent $118 million in non-lethal assistance to Ukraine.
"The United States and our allies must deter further Russian aggression by providing defensive, lethal assistance," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said that legislation would be offered soon to allow for the nation to send arms.
McCain also said the move would be carefully calibrated to pose no real threat to Russia, but to raise the stakes for Russian President Vladimir Putin to meddle further in Ukraine.
"Defensive, lethal assistance will not allow the Ukrainian military to defeat the Russian military in a full-fledged war. But it will raise the risks and costs Russia must incur to continue its offensive," McCain said. "It will pierce the veneer of the Kremlin's cynical and false narrative that there are no Russians in Ukraine."
The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), echoed McCain, saying the goal would be to force all the parties back to considering a political solution to the conflict.
"We should be prepared to help Ukraine to defend itself against this aggression," said Reed, who noted that Congress already has approved sending defensive weapons, including anti-tank weapons and radar systems.
"The hope of all of us is that this step will reenergize the political process, and that there will be a respect for the cease-fire, and also help to the president of the Ukraine to deal with the political issue," Reed said.
Germany and France have so far resisted arming the Ukrainian government, and senators were harshly critical on Thursday.
"I'm hopeful that Germans, that under German leadership, that the Europeans will come around, and be much more active in support of Ukraine. Frankly I'm not overly optimistic," McCain said. "They've been a huge disappointment to me. Their actions recently have been reminiscent of the 1930s," he added, referring to infamous appeasement policies towards Nazi Germany before World War II.
McCain said that refusing to give Ukraine weapons was contributing to massacres. "Right now, they have no ability to defend against Russian tanks. That really makes for wholesale slaughter," he said.
Asked about potentially escalating conflicts between the United States and Russia, McCain suggested that the situation was growing more dire because sanctions and diplomacy were not enough to deter Putin.
"There was the belief that if we did not provide defensive weapons to Ukraine, then things would eventually be OK. We didn't want to 'provoke' Vladimir Putin. Well obviously Vladimir Putin has not gotten that message," McCain said.
"We're frankly at the end of the line here. You just can't stand by and watch people being slaughtered with superior equipment. You know, blankets don't do very well against tanks," he said.
Asked about how much cost the United States should bear to supply the weapons, McCain answered, "I have no idea."
His colleagues did not either, but suggested the cost did not matter. They also ruled out sending U.S. forces to fight on the ground in Ukraine.
"The key here is to give the Ukrainians the ability to defend their territory and also to move back to a political solution," said Reed.
Several pointed to an agreement signed 20 years ago called the Budapest Memorandum, in which the United States, Russia and Britain offered assurances to respect the sovereignty and borders of Ukraine. They also noted that the United States has promised to shield other allies along Russia's borders.
"We gave our word. And what is the cost if we don't keep our word that we will be there to protect our friend?" said Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) "Everybody in the region is scared to death, is afraid of what Vladimir Putin is going to do, and if at some point we don't stand up for our friends, it will only get worse."
The White House is reportedly considering taking stronger steps as the situation worsens.
Spokesman Josh Earnest said earlier this week that the aid already sent includes "body armor, helmets, vehicles, night and thermal vision devices, heavy engineering equipment, advanced radios, de-mining equipment, portable explosive ordinance disposal robots, patrol boats, counter-mortar radars, and other items that are required to sustain Ukraine's defense and internal security operations."
Earnest did not say if boosting that effort was in the cards, but he did not rule it out.
"We're continually evaluating our strategy and our response with essentially two goals: One is to isolate Russia's political leadership for the decisions they're making to destabilize the situation in Ukraine, and also to take steps to support our friends in Ukraine that are going through a very difficult time," Earnest said.
"Ultimately, it is the view of the United States that this situation will be resolved diplomatically, that the idea that somehow the United States can offer enough assistance to the Ukrainians to put their military on par with the large Russian military is unrealistic," he added.
McCain did not say exactly when he would advance legislation, but suggested it would be soon.
"We'll be marking up legislation," McCain said.
A group of more than 30 members of the House of Representatives also made a similar appeal Thursday in a letter to the White House, pleading for more war aid.
"Tighter sanctions and greater humanitarian assistance should be part of that support, but now, more than ever, the U.S. must supply Ukraine with the means to defend itself," said the lawmakers, including the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and the Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas).
Posted by Unknown
at 20.50,
Add Comment
Read more
Don't Blame Religion for Violence
Violence often breaks out between religious groups. Yet, it is a mistake to blame religion for violence. Unfortunately, warfare is a universal human potential that would still exist if we were all atheists.
Not all societies are warlike, however. Anthropologists contrast the peaceful Shoshone with the more belligerent Paiute in North America for instance. The Shoshone wandered widely in small groups in search of food. They did not fight because they had no territory worth defending, as the Paiute did (1).
Land (or territory) remains an important bone of contention around the globe, in places as diverse as Israel and the Ukraine but there are many other resources that stimulate aggression, from oil and minerals, to spices, and opium. Many seemingly religious conflicts have nothing to do with theology even if religion serves as a convenient label for opposing groups.
Ireland's War between Catholics and Protestants Was not a Religious War
Wars fought across lines of religious membership are easily mistaken for wars about religion. Yet, most involve conflict over over vital resources. The problem in Northern Ireland was that Catholics were a discriminated-against minority who were cut out of well-paid jobs and scraped by in substandard housing with minimal political power and plenty of intimidation by police. Of course, Northern Ireland tensions were also fueled by a territorial dispute between England and the Republic of Ireland where Catholics were considered disloyal to the colonial Stormont regime.
So the violence in Northern Ireland had little or nothing to do with theology as such. If both sides had belonged to the same religion, or no religion at all, they would have had just as much reason for conflict.
In Northern Ireland, religion served as a convenient line of demarcation within the population across which the conflict was fought. Religion functioned as a group identifier that evoked an us-versus-them mentality. Social psychologists recognized many decades ago that any arbitrary identifier can be used to foment hostilities between groups that are otherwise equivalent.
Established Religions Mostly Favor Peace
Mainstream religions mostly discourage warfare. There are some historical exceptions, including the days of Papal armies and empires, and the medieval Crusades where the Catholic Church wanted to capture Jerusalem and claim it as a Christian city.
In general though, religious leaders are content to exercise their power indirectly by influencing secular leaders and the public). They promote peace of mind through their rituals rather than stirring up hostility.
Unfortunately, there are some firebrand clerics who ignore that playbook and use their pulpits to inspire aggression against other religious groups. The fact that they cloak their message of hate in religious rhetoric tells us nothing about the mainstream churches that they choose to pervert. Such messages find receptive soil in communities that feel marginalized, despised, or deprived of job opportunities and social mobility.
Radicalization of a small number of individuals can have devastating consequences as recent events in Europe demonstrated. That is particularly true in the context of a global Jihadi movement organized over the Internet. It is disturbing in a world where violent extremists are permitted to hold territory, and even to form governments.
Pirate Societies
Phenomena like the Lord's Resistance Army, ISIS, and Boca Haram, are more dangerous than Al Qaeda because they aim to hold territory by terrorizing civilians and are willing to take on large armies such as those of Iraq and Nigeria, sometimes with stunning success.
That success is partly due to having superior equipment purchased with the proceeds of various crimes from stealing oil, to kidnapping, and human trafficking.
Apart from their religious rhetoric, these terrorist groups have many similarities to pirate societies of the past, complete with a large treasure chest, brutal system of punishment, and distinctive clothing and flags.
With their safe havens in the Caribbean and elsewhere, a relatively small number of pirates defied the great navies of the world for centuries. Some, like Blackbeard, used carnival tricks - such as placing a lighted fuse under his hat - to intimidate his victims.
ISIS and their ilk are little more than the pirate communities of old. They may use religious rhetoric to rationalize their grisly crimes, to justify their punishments, or to attract new recruits from abroad. Yet, their agenda is not religious and it is not new. Their ambition is the same as that of Blackbeard. They enjoy scaring people but they also want the loot.
Not all societies are warlike, however. Anthropologists contrast the peaceful Shoshone with the more belligerent Paiute in North America for instance. The Shoshone wandered widely in small groups in search of food. They did not fight because they had no territory worth defending, as the Paiute did (1).
Land (or territory) remains an important bone of contention around the globe, in places as diverse as Israel and the Ukraine but there are many other resources that stimulate aggression, from oil and minerals, to spices, and opium. Many seemingly religious conflicts have nothing to do with theology even if religion serves as a convenient label for opposing groups.
Ireland's War between Catholics and Protestants Was not a Religious War
Wars fought across lines of religious membership are easily mistaken for wars about religion. Yet, most involve conflict over over vital resources. The problem in Northern Ireland was that Catholics were a discriminated-against minority who were cut out of well-paid jobs and scraped by in substandard housing with minimal political power and plenty of intimidation by police. Of course, Northern Ireland tensions were also fueled by a territorial dispute between England and the Republic of Ireland where Catholics were considered disloyal to the colonial Stormont regime.
So the violence in Northern Ireland had little or nothing to do with theology as such. If both sides had belonged to the same religion, or no religion at all, they would have had just as much reason for conflict.
In Northern Ireland, religion served as a convenient line of demarcation within the population across which the conflict was fought. Religion functioned as a group identifier that evoked an us-versus-them mentality. Social psychologists recognized many decades ago that any arbitrary identifier can be used to foment hostilities between groups that are otherwise equivalent.
Established Religions Mostly Favor Peace
Mainstream religions mostly discourage warfare. There are some historical exceptions, including the days of Papal armies and empires, and the medieval Crusades where the Catholic Church wanted to capture Jerusalem and claim it as a Christian city.
In general though, religious leaders are content to exercise their power indirectly by influencing secular leaders and the public). They promote peace of mind through their rituals rather than stirring up hostility.
Unfortunately, there are some firebrand clerics who ignore that playbook and use their pulpits to inspire aggression against other religious groups. The fact that they cloak their message of hate in religious rhetoric tells us nothing about the mainstream churches that they choose to pervert. Such messages find receptive soil in communities that feel marginalized, despised, or deprived of job opportunities and social mobility.
Radicalization of a small number of individuals can have devastating consequences as recent events in Europe demonstrated. That is particularly true in the context of a global Jihadi movement organized over the Internet. It is disturbing in a world where violent extremists are permitted to hold territory, and even to form governments.
Pirate Societies
Phenomena like the Lord's Resistance Army, ISIS, and Boca Haram, are more dangerous than Al Qaeda because they aim to hold territory by terrorizing civilians and are willing to take on large armies such as those of Iraq and Nigeria, sometimes with stunning success.
That success is partly due to having superior equipment purchased with the proceeds of various crimes from stealing oil, to kidnapping, and human trafficking.
Apart from their religious rhetoric, these terrorist groups have many similarities to pirate societies of the past, complete with a large treasure chest, brutal system of punishment, and distinctive clothing and flags.
With their safe havens in the Caribbean and elsewhere, a relatively small number of pirates defied the great navies of the world for centuries. Some, like Blackbeard, used carnival tricks - such as placing a lighted fuse under his hat - to intimidate his victims.
ISIS and their ilk are little more than the pirate communities of old. They may use religious rhetoric to rationalize their grisly crimes, to justify their punishments, or to attract new recruits from abroad. Yet, their agenda is not religious and it is not new. Their ambition is the same as that of Blackbeard. They enjoy scaring people but they also want the loot.
Posted by Unknown
at 20.48,
Add Comment
Read more
Nigerian Elections: At the Crossroads
Nigeria is a promised land; Africa is a great continent; we are marching on; to take our place; among all the nations of the world. This was our marching song at every morning assembly before classes began as elementary school students in the 1980s in Eastern Nigeria. This hymn captured the hope of the founding fathers and mothers of Nigeria about Nigeria's place in both African and world history. More than fifty-four years after independence from Great Britain and after three decades of experimenting with the American presidential system many Nigerians are still waiting for the dividends of democracy. In the words of the late Nigerian singer, Sony Okosun, many Nigerians are asking: "Which way Nigeria?"
As Nigeria prepares for national elections this February, memories of the June 12, 1992 annulled elections in Nigeria loom large. That election was considered the most free and fair elections ever conducted in the country since Independence. However, the violence and breakdown of law and order which followed the annulment of those elections took Nigeria to the brink of a second Civil War. This is why John Kerry's insistence in his recent visit to Nigeria on free and fair elections in Nigeria as basis for continued co-operation between the two nations is well-timed. Violence and anarchy have often characterized elections in Nigeria. Indeed, party politics and national elections in addition to religious fundamentalism have been the greatest sources of violence and war in Nigeria. They have also been fueled by the exploitation of the deep religious and ethnic differences in the country. This is worsened by the shocking economic and social disparity between politicians who have their hands in the till, their religious acolytes who sanctify the corrupt politicians with blessings and praise, and over 70% of Nigerians who live below the poverty line and over 53% of Nigerian youth who are unemployed.
When in 1979 Nigeria abandoned the Westminster Parliamentary system for American-type presidential and constitutional federalism, the hope of most Nigerians was that the country will become a United States of Nigeria. Nigerians hoped that their nation will be a model of good governance, civil liberties, rule of law, checks and balances and other practices and principles of democracy which define American political culture. Nigerians were optimistic then that like America which emerged from her Civil War a progressive and more united nation, that Nigeria through the American Presidential system can witness a national rebirth from the smoldering embers of the Civil War and bad governance which plagued her as a nation.
The sad reality is that a criminal elite--military and their civilian accomplices--has run Nigeria's economy aground by siphoning and mismanaging Nigeria's oil wealth. For instance Nigeria has lost more than 220 billion pounds of her national wealth to corruption and mismanagement in the first 40 years after independence through the political gatekeepers and their military, civilian and religious networks who control 90% of Nigeria's GDP. Nigeria has also lost more than 30 billion dollars from oil theft within the last ten years according to a report by Chatham House. In addition, Nigeria's political elites have preyed on the fragile ethnic and religious divides in the country to sustain a patron-client relationship which has defined the accession and retention of power in Nigeria. Most elections in Nigeria are simply charades and a mockery of democracy. The best candidates do not get any chance to get on the ballot or to win. This is because they cannot break the stranglehold of the prebendal aristocrats who have turned governance in Nigeria into a cesspool of corruption with a high attrition rate for those who refuse to dance to the tune of the political patrons. Elections in Nigeria simply highlight the disenfranchisement and powerlessness of most Nigerians in shaping their national destiny. In Nigeria, power does not belong to the people. Rather, power belongs to a few thin top layer of the Nigerian elites who are kept afloat on the sea of our national wealth, while the rest are drowning in the perilous waters of economic and social deprivation. Breaking this hold is something which lies beyond the capacity of Nigerians because there is no transcending national consciousness or patriotism which can be a template for building a counter narrative of inclusion and being in Nigeria in order to subvert the status quo. Nigeria needs the help of the international community. The US in particular should not support governments in Nigeria and the rest of Africa which emerge through flawed elections or military coups even if such governments are surrogates of the interest of the US in the continent.
Nigeria stands at the crossroads of history. These forthcoming elections in Nigeria could unravel all that is flawed about the Nigerian nation. The fault-lines of ethnic and religious polarities are emerging; there are random incidents of violence against candidates who campaign in areas outside their ethnic or religious stronghold. More worrying to many discerning Nigerians is the absence of any clear policy options between President Goodluck and his main challenger General Buhari on how they will confront the myriad problems which have held Nigeria down including the threat of Boko Haram and general insecurity in the country. Absent is also a plan from both parties on how to resuscitate the collapsing social and public services in Nigeria and how to provide jobs for millions of Nigerian graduates who are roaming the streets of life without hope. Neither the ruling party, PDP nor the opposition party, APC has enough ethical and ideological bandwidth to transmit a new narrative of national identity, or a platform to address the economic woes of Nigeria and her failed power and agricultural sectors. This election has not afforded Nigerians the opportunity to have a national conversation about the way forward. This is because the campaigns have been filled with 'sound and fury' of character assassination, stoking of ethnic and religious sentiments, finger-pointing, etc all of which signify nothing for the future of Nigeria. This is why I cry for my country of birth and the millions of poor Nigerians who have never known the good life despite the huge oil wealth of Nigeria and who do not see any hope beyond the dance, drama, empty promises and grandstanding of the Nigerian elites who are criss-crossing the country for votes.
As Nigeria prepares for national elections this February, memories of the June 12, 1992 annulled elections in Nigeria loom large. That election was considered the most free and fair elections ever conducted in the country since Independence. However, the violence and breakdown of law and order which followed the annulment of those elections took Nigeria to the brink of a second Civil War. This is why John Kerry's insistence in his recent visit to Nigeria on free and fair elections in Nigeria as basis for continued co-operation between the two nations is well-timed. Violence and anarchy have often characterized elections in Nigeria. Indeed, party politics and national elections in addition to religious fundamentalism have been the greatest sources of violence and war in Nigeria. They have also been fueled by the exploitation of the deep religious and ethnic differences in the country. This is worsened by the shocking economic and social disparity between politicians who have their hands in the till, their religious acolytes who sanctify the corrupt politicians with blessings and praise, and over 70% of Nigerians who live below the poverty line and over 53% of Nigerian youth who are unemployed.
When in 1979 Nigeria abandoned the Westminster Parliamentary system for American-type presidential and constitutional federalism, the hope of most Nigerians was that the country will become a United States of Nigeria. Nigerians hoped that their nation will be a model of good governance, civil liberties, rule of law, checks and balances and other practices and principles of democracy which define American political culture. Nigerians were optimistic then that like America which emerged from her Civil War a progressive and more united nation, that Nigeria through the American Presidential system can witness a national rebirth from the smoldering embers of the Civil War and bad governance which plagued her as a nation.
The sad reality is that a criminal elite--military and their civilian accomplices--has run Nigeria's economy aground by siphoning and mismanaging Nigeria's oil wealth. For instance Nigeria has lost more than 220 billion pounds of her national wealth to corruption and mismanagement in the first 40 years after independence through the political gatekeepers and their military, civilian and religious networks who control 90% of Nigeria's GDP. Nigeria has also lost more than 30 billion dollars from oil theft within the last ten years according to a report by Chatham House. In addition, Nigeria's political elites have preyed on the fragile ethnic and religious divides in the country to sustain a patron-client relationship which has defined the accession and retention of power in Nigeria. Most elections in Nigeria are simply charades and a mockery of democracy. The best candidates do not get any chance to get on the ballot or to win. This is because they cannot break the stranglehold of the prebendal aristocrats who have turned governance in Nigeria into a cesspool of corruption with a high attrition rate for those who refuse to dance to the tune of the political patrons. Elections in Nigeria simply highlight the disenfranchisement and powerlessness of most Nigerians in shaping their national destiny. In Nigeria, power does not belong to the people. Rather, power belongs to a few thin top layer of the Nigerian elites who are kept afloat on the sea of our national wealth, while the rest are drowning in the perilous waters of economic and social deprivation. Breaking this hold is something which lies beyond the capacity of Nigerians because there is no transcending national consciousness or patriotism which can be a template for building a counter narrative of inclusion and being in Nigeria in order to subvert the status quo. Nigeria needs the help of the international community. The US in particular should not support governments in Nigeria and the rest of Africa which emerge through flawed elections or military coups even if such governments are surrogates of the interest of the US in the continent.
Nigeria stands at the crossroads of history. These forthcoming elections in Nigeria could unravel all that is flawed about the Nigerian nation. The fault-lines of ethnic and religious polarities are emerging; there are random incidents of violence against candidates who campaign in areas outside their ethnic or religious stronghold. More worrying to many discerning Nigerians is the absence of any clear policy options between President Goodluck and his main challenger General Buhari on how they will confront the myriad problems which have held Nigeria down including the threat of Boko Haram and general insecurity in the country. Absent is also a plan from both parties on how to resuscitate the collapsing social and public services in Nigeria and how to provide jobs for millions of Nigerian graduates who are roaming the streets of life without hope. Neither the ruling party, PDP nor the opposition party, APC has enough ethical and ideological bandwidth to transmit a new narrative of national identity, or a platform to address the economic woes of Nigeria and her failed power and agricultural sectors. This election has not afforded Nigerians the opportunity to have a national conversation about the way forward. This is because the campaigns have been filled with 'sound and fury' of character assassination, stoking of ethnic and religious sentiments, finger-pointing, etc all of which signify nothing for the future of Nigeria. This is why I cry for my country of birth and the millions of poor Nigerians who have never known the good life despite the huge oil wealth of Nigeria and who do not see any hope beyond the dance, drama, empty promises and grandstanding of the Nigerian elites who are criss-crossing the country for votes.
Posted by Unknown
at 20.47,
Add Comment
Read more
TransAsia Airways Plane Carrying 53 Passengers Crash Lands In Keelung River In Taipei
TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — A Taiwanese commercial flight with 53 passengers aboard clipped a bridge shortly after takeoff and crashed into a river in the island's capital of Taipei on Wednesday morning.
Aviation authority director Lin Chi-ming told a news conference that two people were killed. The country's Central News Agency said three people were killed.
Footage of the rescue efforts in Taipei.
Taiwan's Central News Agency said at least 10 people were being taking to safety after the incident but gave no immediate information about the other passengers and crew aboard the TransAsia Airways flight.
Taiwanese media posted pictures of the plane in the water several dozen meters (yards) from the shore in the Keelung River.
CNA said the flight from Taipei to the outlying island of Kinmen lost contact with flight controllers at 10:55 a.m. and the fuselage landed in the Keelung River near the city's downtown Sungshan airport.
At least 10 people are awaiting help.
The plane was identified as a French-made twin-engine turboprop ATR 72 with a two-pilot air crew.
The plane's fuselage was seen half-submerged in the shallow river, with passengers and rescuers standing on the hull and swimming in the water.
The accident comes just months after a TransAsia ATR-72 crashed while attempting to land on the island of Penghu off Taiwan's coast, killing 48 people and injuring another 10. Stormy weather and low visibility were suspected as factors in that crash last July.
Aviation authority director Lin Chi-ming told a news conference that two people were killed. The country's Central News Agency said three people were killed.
Footage of the rescue efforts in Taipei.
Taiwan's Central News Agency said at least 10 people were being taking to safety after the incident but gave no immediate information about the other passengers and crew aboard the TransAsia Airways flight.
Taiwanese media posted pictures of the plane in the water several dozen meters (yards) from the shore in the Keelung River.
CNA said the flight from Taipei to the outlying island of Kinmen lost contact with flight controllers at 10:55 a.m. and the fuselage landed in the Keelung River near the city's downtown Sungshan airport.
At least 10 people are awaiting help.
The plane was identified as a French-made twin-engine turboprop ATR 72 with a two-pilot air crew.
The plane's fuselage was seen half-submerged in the shallow river, with passengers and rescuers standing on the hull and swimming in the water.
The accident comes just months after a TransAsia ATR-72 crashed while attempting to land on the island of Penghu off Taiwan's coast, killing 48 people and injuring another 10. Stormy weather and low visibility were suspected as factors in that crash last July.
Posted by Unknown
at 21.18,
Add Comment
Read more
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)