the happy mania

ZOMG I am not even kidding. I was just listening to BBC's Hardtalk with Sudan's Ambassador to the UN, Abdalmahmood Mohamed, discussing the upcoming Copenhagen summit. The ambassador is also chairman of the G77 Bloc, which represents several hundred poor and developing countries. Pre-negotiations the G77 threatened to walk out of talks if rich countries (ie US and EU) do not make further cuts in their emissions.

But interviewer Stephen Sackur wasn't satisfied with the 'diplo talk' the ambassador was spewing, and upbraided him several times regarding the facts. In fact after one of those moments Mahmood seemingly lost his temper, but Sackur bulldozered on, pulling quotes from various reports and flinging them at the ambassador. It was a little troubling at first, listening to someone who was at once patronising and scarily knowledgeable verbally attacking the interviewee. What is this, the radio version of The O'Reilly Factor? Then Sackur confirmed my suspicions when he brought up the indictment against Sudan's president. And the human rights abuses. And Darfur.

GO GO GO! Holy crap, I mean, it sounded like he wasn't a fan of Sudan's government from the beginning of the interview but I wasn't expecting Sackur to blindside the ambassador and confront him on Darfur! He even said he had been reading up on the reports and had more quotes for Mahmood. It was at this point that I thought Sackur sounded like Alan Partridge, except you know, less conceited and more politically minded. Something in the way he kept interrupting the ambassador with disdain dripping from his voice. And what's more, the ambassador was made silent many times during the discussion. Seriously, classic stuff. Go and have a listen here.

You guys I am busting my gut out here, it is so freakin' funny. Via the BBC:

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has described himself as the most persecuted person "in the entire history of the world".

Mr Berlusconi also said he was "the best prime minister we can find today".

In an impassioned statement, he then mistakenly told reporters he had spent millions of euros on "judges", before correcting himself to say "lawyers".

the most persecuted person in the entire history of the world.

BRB LOLING FOREVER!

It must be no fun living in the UK as a member of the Labour party and reading the headlines about the party's history defeat at the polls -- its worst since 1918. Here, safely ensconced more than a hop and a skip across the pond, I find it all so very intriguing.

The Telegraph's article makes the PM's speech to his party and its rebels seem worthy of a cinematic flourish -- or at least a television movie. Keeping with that theme, the Guardian's headline reads Gordon Brown's Great Escape.

The question though, is why? From what can be assessed by a quick skim through the papers, no one has the guts to force Brown out. Which seems strange, considering last year's extremely unsubtle attempt to push forward dark horse Foreign Secretary David Miliband for the position. In fact, Miliband publicly declared his support for the PM. Independent commentator Steve Richards notes that Miliband and others who have made this choice did so for fear of what an early election may bring.

One almost feels sorry for Brown, given the highly negative press that's been put out. But even if I didn't have sheer hatred for Tony Blair and thus feel sympathy for his fomer No. 2, I can't say this isn't any of Brown's fault. How else to explain the ruinous result that is the election of 2 BNP as MEPs?

That by its own doesn't mean politics in the country are heading to the right. Rather, it shows voters are leaving Labour in droves. This needs to be fixed/patched/made over if the party wishes to remain relevant, much less in power. The causes may be due to Brown's governing style, or the political calamities left over from Blair, or the lack of confidence shown by deserting MPs. Maybe it's the fact that being in power for more than a decade has exposed the complacency of those in charge. Whatever it is, it is still down to the PM to rally the troops and reassure voters that the party hasn't forgotten them or their ideals.

Will this happen? Can this happen? All I know is that I can easily see the Tories come to power.

And totally unrelated: David Blunkett attacked by cow. Is it wrong that I LOL'd so hard reading that headline?

1. Antonio Villaraigosa is re-elected Mayor of Los Angeles. Not that I had faith someone else would win, and generally, Villaraigosa isn't that bad*. BUT re-election has increased speculation that he intends to run for Governor next year. Oh dear lord.

1a. When I arrived at SFO last week and saw San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's huge grin on a welcome sign, I cracked up. Because it's miles away better than the pictures of Villaraigosa's empty-eyed stare mugging the camera. Anyway, Newsom will be running for Governor next year. I can't wait for the lulz when opponents replay the 'Whether You Like It Or Not!' clip that was an intense soundbite for Yes on 8 adverts.

2. PAD is more than out-of-touch with his audience and other comic book fans, he's stomping around in a fountain of White privilege and splashing the rest of us (via deadbrowalking and brownbetty).

*I bring you the classic LA Weekly article, The All-About-Me Mayor: Antonio Villaraigosa's Frenetic Self-Promotion.

Watching Smallville tonight allowed me to completely miss Bush's farewell speech and the ensuing heartburn. I don't think the man's evil, like some would like to believe. In his speeches and interviews, he seems almost likeable. But it was him and his administration that was behind the many things that has lessened America's standing. Torture, environmental destruction, over reliance on foreign oil, divisive partisan rhetoric, ignoring international diplomacy to launch two wars, and not to mention the way Katrina was handled ...

But finally that era is behind us, and may we all move forward without repeating the mistakes of the past. Four more days.

Frustrated the opposition to California's Prop 8 was losing ground, today's rally at Downtown's Pershing Square aimed to reinvigorate. More than 200 people flocked to hoist signs and chant no on 8 slogans, and listen to speakers like Councilwoman Jan Perry and Chastity Bono.

Only a few blocks away, supporters of Prop 8 were bused in to gather in front of City Hall to insist marriage be only between a man and a woman.



( Pictures and more under the cut )

According the NY Times, the Frontline documentary 'Torturing Democracy' will not be shown by PBS because a time slot wasn't available. However, PBS affiliates are airing the 90 minute piece.

In fact, I'm watching it right now. Torturing Democracy is the first Frontline documentary I haven't been able to make it through in entirety. Though there are few dramatisations and plenty of photos from Abu Ghraib, the acts of torture are described in graphic detail. And in these descriptions there are no ifs or buts -- it was torture.

Unbelievably, the POTUS' legal team tried to assert that the office can make something illegal (torture) legal during the time of war. Should the orders granting authorisation to use controversial techniques be uncovered, the architects of torture would somehow be exempted from prosecution.

The outrageous thing is that Bush, Rumsfeld, and their cronies will never be prosecuted thanks to the House passing a bill that includes a war crimes immunity clause. This is retroactive immunity to those who may have carried out or sanctioned torture. And Guantanamo still exists, with about a hundred being held without charge or a hope for a trial.

I can't help but be disappointed that during the election neither McCain nor Obama focused on the Bush administration's crimes. McCain because he has been outspoken against torture, in particular waterboarding, and Obama because he's supposed to be a symbol of hope for this nation. And shame on PBS if it's true they backed down from showing the documentary because they wanted to wait until Bush was out of office.

The Times Online:  Burma's junta leader has agreed to allow access to all foreign aid workers to help with the relief operation after Cyclone Nargis, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has said.

Mr Ban made the announcement after more than two hours of talks with Senior General Than Shwe, the reclusive leader of the country’s military regime, whose refusal to let them in earlier set off international outrage.

About damn time. Remember, the cyclone was on 2-3 May and this belated response has meant several hundreds of thousands were needlessly suffering from lack of support for close to three weeks. The Burmese government do not have the resources -- both in supplies and manpower -- to assist, particularly in the most rural areas. The junta's first moves should be to grant visas for foreign aid workers and allow the ships ladened with aid to dock.

Unfortunately, I'm still a little cynical as to whether the Burmese authorities will not somehow impede the aid workers in providing services. Think diverting aid to certain areas instead of where it may be needed. In this case, ASEAN should be more visible in telling the junta off.

It's a bit disappointing the UN didn't do a forcible humanitarian relief effort. As I've noted before this is extremely unlikely and would wreak havoc in the squabbling International community, but in a perfect world and all that.

In the end (barring the junta going back on its word), this event has shown how successful Ban Ki Moon's diplomatic talks are. I hope this means we might be seeing a Dag Hammarskjöld in the making :) 

From the BBC: Mehdi Kazemi has said his life is in danger if he is returned to Iran, where he says his boyfriend named him as a partner before being executed. Homosexual acts are illegal in the Islamic republic. A Dutch spokesman said Mr Kazemi would now be sent to the UK, the first European country he entered. A claim for asylum in the UK had already been turned down.

From what I understand of listening to Radio 4's excellent past series on asylum and asylum seekers, a person wishing to apply for asylum must do so on the first friendly soil. Kazemi was correct in seeking asylum in the UK, but unfortunately the level of success is low. There have been cases where perfectly suited asylum cases were denied. Farhat Khan was trapped in a violent marriage to a man who was planning to marry his young daughters to violent relatives. She argued her return to Pakistan would mean her death, as the men in her family believed in 'honour killings'. The UK's response: Khan would not be in danger if she simply moved away to another part of Pakistan. Eventually she won her case, but she was lucky. What about the women who haven't the education, or the skills to convince the Home Office of their predicament? In this case, they may be detained or imprisoned as failed asylum seekers, before being deporting to their country of origin.

When Kazemi's asylum application was denied, he left for the Netherlands where it's better for LGBT asylum seekers. I say better, because that country has accepted seekers from Iran because of the punishment for homosexual acts: execution.  However the Dutch government will not listen to his case because he had landed on the UK first. There was a similar scandal when controversial former Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali admitted she lied on her application from which country she arrived from in order to speed up the process. She came to the Netherlands through Kenya and Germany, two countries where she might have applied for asylum. What's frustrating is that no one is denying homosexuals in Iran are executed, and that two Western countries with all their liberal talk are not willing to protect one man from certain death.

Applying for asylum based on sexuality is tricky. Even in the US there's a strong possibility the application will fail and the seeker will be deported. The UK Home Office haven't given any details of why it turned down Kazemi's application, but a commenter mentioned the stance of the government is that gays and lesbians in Iran may not fear danger if they were 'discreet'. There's no chance of that now for Kazemi, who feared for his life in the first place because his ex-lover outed him before execution. The resulting publicity from Kazemi's fight to stay is only making it worse, basically targeting him for death. Once Kazemi is sent to the UK, that country will begin deportation proceedings.

It's sickening that the current climate is so virulently against asylum seekers. This is not just happening in Europe, but in Asia as well. Australia regularly detains or turn away asylum-seekers, Malaysia imprisons. Why is this? After World War II, millions of refugees left their homes to resettle in the Western world. Has this experience forced some sort of backlash? See this article where an immigrant to the UK says problems in the neighbourhood was caused by asylum seekers who 'waste' tax money on beer. He'd like nothing better than to deport them all. His opinions however are shared by many who believe asylum seekers are really economic migrants who lie on applications in order to gain benefits.

I can't believe anyone who could be so cold-hearted as to refuse help to an asylum seeker who may be subject to abuse, or torture, or death even if you don't agree with their positions.  Could these asylum decisions ever be justified?

Bloody hell, Clinton's got some fight left in her. The bloody cheek of the woman, saying she'd agree to have Obama as her VP candidate. Still you have to admit, it's pretty gutsy :D

An e-mail from my boss came in today. It's pretty much over. HR won't rehire me and I'm left out to dry. Although, and Boss couldn't guarantee, I may be transferred to Hong Kong or Tokyo. *sigh* Whatever, I've pretty much given up hope of returning to the company. It's looking more and more likely I'm going to have to leave the US this summer.

Anyway, I'm working on writing something right now. It's pretty much messed up my schedule on Google Calendar, but damn if it isn't fun. Here's hoping I can actually do it, because writing fanfic is nerve wracking.

That is all. Hi romanyg!