Shouldn't be a surprise

To update a previous story,

BBC: Rwanda cuts relations with France

Rwanda has accused Paris of trying to destabilise its government. France said it regretted Rwanda's move to cut ties.

Paris has insisted the French judge, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, acted on his own authority and in total independence.

Issuing the warrants, Judge Bruguiere accused President Paul Kagame - who under French law has immunity as head of state - of ordering the former president's death. Mr Kagame has denied involvement.

Good move, Harper!

If you pay any attention to the winds that blow from up north, you know that there has been a debate among the politicos for a few weeks now: is Quebec (the province) a nation? This debate was sparked by the Liberal Party's Quebec branch, which, in advance of the upcoming leadership convention, passed a resolution declaring that the LPC should recognize Quebec as a nation, and sending it on to the convention. This has, thereby, stirred up a great deal of controversy in Liberal (and non-Liberal) ranks, with Michael Ignatieff generally blamed for having brought the issue up and played with the constitution for his own political ends, and other candidates paying lip service to "Quebec-as-nation" but saying further steps are not currently necessary.

Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe finally seized on this entire issue to introduce, in the House of Commons, a resolution that "Quebeckers form a nation." And then Prime Minister Stephen Harper (a Conservative, for those not familiar), who wisely had avoided commenting on the entire situation and had been allowing the Liberals to self-destruct arguing about it, was forced into action. He pulled a very astute move: he introduced a resolution declaring that "the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." In English-speaking Canada, "Quebeckers" generally refers to everyone from Quebec, and "Québécois" to French-speaking Quebeckers. (In French, of course, the entire thing is much more complicated, and much of this matter is the semantics: exactly what you define a "nation" to be and who or what is being referred to in the statement).

Essentially, Harper proposes to recognize French-speaking Quebeckers as a (sociological) nation. This is not a particularly controversial statement, not nearly as controversial as according the status to a legal entity, the province, which might indicate more rights. It is generally accepted, at least as far as I am aware, that the Québécois are a nation. Harper used words carefully and, as far as I can tell, he definitely wants this resolution to be interpreted as applying to francophone residents of Quebec only. [I tried to discern everything I could from the various blog entries, news articles, and the Hansard record of debate]. He has outflanked nationalists while reaffirming the unity of Canada, and all he is really conceding is that the francophones in Quebec are their own nation, which everybody knows anyway.

Now, I know there are a lot of details about this that I might not understand, not being Canadian or a lifelong student of Canadian politics, so I could be entirely wrong on my interpretation. Indeed, there are plenty of Canadians who are mad about it, there have been newspaper editorials against Harper for this. But much of the reason has been a lack of clarity about the two points I note above: who or what is being defined as a nation? and what is a nation?

Again, my take in the end--Harper did what he had to do, and well. The only people who really should be angry (besides the separatists, who got outdone) are the francophones everywhere else, who really are kind of cheated by this.

I'm posting only one link, to a blog post, but rest assured everyone is writing about it, so just search for "people from Canada" and you'll probably get about 30 million human comments and 9 million from polar bears (who, by the way, are the next in line to get nation status).*

*I love Canada. All in good humor.

Movies: Stranger than Fiction

How much of our lives is predestined? How much do we owe to the small details? How many of those details are coincidence, how many of them are fate, and how many do not concern us? Such questions have long concerned theologians and are addressed, with somewhat more humor, in Stranger than Fiction.

The essential premise of Stranger than Fiction, revealed within the first couple minutes (or in the previews, assuming you have seen them) is that lead character Harold Crick (played by Will Ferrell) is, apparently, a character in the story of some anonymous narrator, whose voice he can hear going through his head. Harold is assigned to audit a bakery owned by Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal). He needs to deal with the information he learns from his narrator and try to figure out what is happening to him, at the same time that he starts falling for Ana.

The lead actors are all satisfactory in their roles. Ferrell acquits himself well in a film with serious value (the film is semi-serious, treating what is really weighty subject matter with a very light and comical touch). The only character truly developed in the story is Ferrell's, although we do peripherally learn about Gyllenhaal's Ana. Her character is somewhat clumsily developed, and her relationship with Ferrell never entirely makes sense, one of the few flaws in the film.

Should we take the main premise of the story at face value, there are two logical problems with Harold's predicament that I discerned as I watched (and possibly others, of course, that I did not catch). One, to my satisfaction, played a substantial part in the movie's denouement. The second was not addressed, and apparently is something that one has to "swallow" in order to believe the larger story of the narrator's control of Harold's life.

For Stranger than Fiction, a viewer can leave satisfied about the conclusion, or about the questions the movie brings to mind. The movie is not complex because its plot is multifaceted, but rather because it brings to mind questions about life which we can never truly answer, except to ourselves. In the end, the message I gathered was: (1) you create your own life, and it is authored by others (whoever they are) only to the extent that you allow it to be; (2) the details are the story; and, more heavy-handedly and explicitly, (3) there are many ways to change the world. Whether or not you derive the same messages depends on your incoming bias, and there are many other takes on the same material. However, whatever your thoughts on the topic, Stranger than Fiction can offer a convenient jumping-off point for such a discussion.

*** 1/2 (3.5 of 4 stars) - Stranger than Fiction (2006): Will Ferrell, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffman, Queen Latifah. Directed by Marc Forster, screenplay by Zach Helm. Running time 1:53. Viewed in theater (Edwards 23, Houston).

The Dutch say "no" to a grand coalition

The Netherlands held a general election today and the results are coming in. It appears that Dutch voters decided they definitely didn't want a "grand coalition"-style government, as both major parties, the Christian democrats (CDA) and Labor (PvdA) lost votes, netting under 50 percent combined (compared to over 56 percent at the last election).

The big winners of the day appear to have been Geert Wilders, whose new conservative party (founded in a break with the main liberal-conservative party over Turkey) took around 6 percent, and the Socialists, the leftist alternative to Labor. The Socialists appear to have won over 16 percent of the vote, an increase of over 10 percent. About half of this is Labor voters who appear to have shifted left to avoid a centrist coalition.

Another interesting note is the emergence of the Party of Animals, the first explicitly animal-rights party to gain representation in a parliament, anywhere. Meanwhile the classical-liberal D66 was demolished and took under 2 percent of the vote.

The Netherlands has a proportional-representation system that effectively works on the national level (the closest referent is Israel) and has no real threshold. This means that tiny parties can make parliament (there will be 10 in the Tweede Kamer this time around, looks like). In such a context it is really surprising that major parties are able to hold as much of the vote share as they do, and a shift to a more multipolar context (as is happening in Israel as well) seems inevitable. This is especially true today, where the number of issues confronting the electorate is larger and fits less well into a traditional left-right spectrum.

As for a government, chances look good that the current PM, heading the still-largest party CDA, will be returned to form Balkenende IV. CDA with the VVD (conservative liberals) and Wilders' new party appear to come close to a majority. The alternatives seem to have been rejected by the electorate.

The Dutch electoral authority does not seem to post results online. I am seeing the best results from a Dutch newspaper, here. Also, the BBC gives a summary. Wikipedia has an extensive article, with the usual caveats.

New: Israel is taking land from Palestinians!

So many Israeli settlements, in particular Ma'ale Adumim, are built largely on private Palestinian land. So that accounts for about 40 percent of their land area. So?

This information was leaked from inside the Civil Administration (the Israeli government body responsible for the occupied territories). The Yesha Council, as usual, responded by lying (see the Ha'aretz article cited below) and the government responded in its usual way--by essentially admitting that this was true and saying nothing. For example: "Miri Eisin, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said that Israeli officials would have to see the data and the maps and added that ownership is complicated and delicate." Of course they need to see the data and the maps, it's not as though they've had access to them before! Inevitably they will have to conclude (after seeing the data and the maps for the first time) that the expropriated land is necessary to protect Israeli citizens from terrorism.

I find it interesting that the organizers (Peace Now) apparently placed as much emphasis on getting the information to The New York Times--where it was reported prominently, and who actually spoke to the informant--as to the Israeli public, though they did, according to Ha'aretz, hold a press conference in Jerusalem. The American public doesn't already know these facts. The Israeli public is well aware already, and by and large, doesn't care.

Yes, this should cause an outrage, but it's just another one of those things that should cause an outrage that is all too common in this conflict and won't really change anything.

Rwanda's reaction

Predictably, the BBC notes,

Rwanda has angrily rejected calls by a French judge for President Paul Kagame to stand trial over the killing of his predecessor, which sparked genocide.

Rwanda's foreign minister said France was trying to cover up its own complicity in the 1994 killings of some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus.

Maybe Kagame and RPF were involved. The downing of Habyarimana's plane still hasn't been solved, though Hutu extremists in the Rwandan armed forces and presidential guard have been blamed (see my previous post) and it makes more sense that they were responsible given the apparently non-spontaneous nature of the events that followed. As the Wikipedia article notes, though, there is substantial dispute.

Either way, of course, there is no chance of getting Kagame to stand trial.

Everyone's day on a dollar

Caveat: This blog headline is not at all original, as it basically copies The New York Times. And they weren't original either.

So, apparently the plan is to put every president on a dollar coin, much as every state was on a quarter. I think we can all agree that every state deserves its own quarter... well, maybe the Dakotas should have shared one, but for the most part, every state.

But every president? Do Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore and William Henry Harrison deserve their time on a dollar? Franklin Pierce? James Buchanan? Those presidents truly deserving of recognition are already on currency (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, JFK). Jackson and Grant are also on currency; admittedly, the former was a formative figure, if someone I can't stand, and the latter was a good general, so perhaps can be justified under the same criteria of "important person," as we (justifiably) have Hamilton and Franklin on currency as well.

But really, there are better characters than Taylor, Fillmore and Harrison (either of them, for that matter) to populate our money. Are we really avoiding recognizing them because deciding which ones to recognize might cause a controversy? That's the kind of discussion that should be in the public discourse!

Okay, of presidents, I could countenance the following--John Adams, Madison, TR, Wilson, Truman, LBJ, and Reagan. Take off LBJ if you think I am being too partisan. The rest of the deserving are already on money. Madison gets on not for his presidency but for the Constitution.

Other notable figures abound in American history. This is a chance to honor women and minority figures of note, as well as other contributors who happen to have been white and male. Yes, this digs up a lot of questions about anti-Semitism or other racism (Henry Ford et al); the economic system (well, Ford again, and the "robber barons"); and the rightness of war (generals, especially Western generals). But can we agree that Tecumseh and Chief Joseph deserve the honor? How about Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and for that matter, Thurgood Marshall? Martin Luther King Jr. or Susan B. Anthony (well, okay, she already got it--how about Elizabeth Cady Stanton)?

I think that someone with more time on his/her hands could develop a great list of American innovators, thinkers, and leaders that deserve recognition more than an undistinguished, unelected president who, after leaving office, ran again as a candidate for a group of xenophobic nationalists.* Or the 30-day president who is otherwise best known for crushing Indian tribes.** Or the guy who was only even elected as part of a corrupt bargain that ended Reconstruction in the South and handed it back to the white elite.***

I don't know... what do you think?

*Millard Fillmore
**William Henry Harrison
***Rutherford Hayes

Let's go bowling

Quick, if you played college football, which one would you rather play in...

San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl
PapaJohns.com Bowl\
New Mexico Bowl
Gaylord Hotels Music City Bowl Presented by Bridgestone
Chick-fil-A Bowl
MPC Computers Bowl
GMAC Bowl

If you're wishing for the days of the (now-defunct) Silicon Valley Classic or galleryfurniture.com bowl, you're not alone. Of course, as a Huskies fan, I am just hoping for a shot at New Mexico...

France annoys people, again

A French judge says that Rwandan President Kagame should be tried for the murder of ex-president Habyarimana in 1994, the event that started the Rwandan genocide.

Now, Kagame has done plenty of things that I (and, more importantly, other people who matter) don't like, such as throwing ex-president Bizimungu (his own hand-picked transitional president) into jail for opposing him, and silencing dissent on the grounds that it "provokes genocide."

However, it is generally agreed that Kagame and the RPF didn't kill Habyarimana, but that it was planned and executed by Hutu-extremist elements within the former Rwandan armed forces which then used it as a pretext to carry out the genocide. France, meanwhile, provided cover and support (military and diplomatic) to the genocidaires, with whom it had close ties. Which makes the issuing of a warrant for Kagame, in addition to unenforceable, just another ridiculous example of the French superiority/inferiority complex.

If you want to know more about Rwanda, I have read this book about four times, and highly recommend it. Note that the author is sympathetic to Kagame and the RPF (but who should he have sympathized with? the genocidaires?).

Juice

Fox and its subsidiaries have canceled everything they had to do with O.J. Simpson's new book.

I would say "good for them" and "they reversed a mistake"... but it's Fox, so they knew exactly what they were doing. Even if they weren't, this was a book about how O.J. Simpson hypothetically would have killed people that he actually killed.* I rarely want to throw up (except after going on those spinny things at the carnival) but that brings me pretty close.

*probably.

UPDATE: Watching CNN, they note that 55% characterize it as "offensive," 30% as "inappropriate" and 12% as "nothing wrong." I wasn't sure at first whether they were referring to the Bush presidency but on review, it does appear they were talking about O.J.