Young Voices
Exchanging ideas from the show and blogging about topics in the news from a range of perspectives.
July 7, 2008
Rough Times for Starbucks
by Sean Nixon
I've been hearing about this for some time, and thought I'd take a moment out to talk about it.
For years, I've seen the stores on virtually every other street corner and expansion overseas, I thought that they could never die. Then I read reports of the mighty Goliath of coffee getting a shake up.
If you haven't heard it by now, Starbucks is closing some of its stores. That may not sound like much, but when your used to having a national chain of roughly 7,000 plus stores, and see company stock going down tons of points per hour, it's time to take a sober look at the escalating concerns of coffee kings that addicted so many.
The company known for being in the people business serving coffee is being hit by yet another reminder of how tight single household and family budgets have become in the past few years. When Starbucks initially talked of expanding store locations back in 2006 no one could've imagined economic conditions the U.S. would face. Now with the economy beginning to slow, Starbucks has announced the closing of 600 stores with 12,000 jobs said to be lost.
For some people, Starbucks was the way to start a morning off right. For others, Starbucks was a great place to work, with great benefits.
But in a world of having to figure out whether to buy $4 gasoline or a low fat caramel macchiato, coffee typically takes a back seat.
July 14, 2008
Talking Down to Black People?
by Tamika Thompson
Here's the thing. By now we all know how vicious Rev. Jesse Jackson's whispered comments were. We won't even discuss the fact that his word choice didn't sound like it came from a reverend. Because if we focus on the crudest part of Rev. Jackson's horrible and vulgar remarks about Sen. Barack Obama we might miss Rev. Jackson's actual issue with the Democratic presidential nominee.
So, as hard as it will be, let's momentarily ignore the ugly, nasty, awful part of Rev. Jackson's comments on “Fox & Friends” and take a moment to examine Rev. Jackson's statement that Sen. Obama has been “talking down to Black people.”
Could he have been referring to—among other things—Sen. Obama's Father's Day rebuke of absent African American fathers? Because if that's what Rev. Jackson was talking about, he's not alone in his feelings (although he is alone in the, er, um, way that he handled it, but, again, we won't discuss).
Now I know that June was ages ago in the presidential campaign world, where one month equals three years. But, if you recall, when Sen. Obama spoke at Chicago's Apostolic Church of God, he had harsh words for African American fathers and that just didn't sit well with some people.
Non-resident father does not equal deadbeat dad
Political analyst Earl Ofari Hutchinson and author Dr. Michael Eric Dyson are among the critics who argued against Sen. Obama's assertion that half of African American children not residing with their dads means African American fathers “have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men.”
Not only did Hutchinson and Dyson argue that Sen. Obama had gone too far in his attempt to appeal to white voters, but they said that the Illinois senator was dead wrong.
Hutchinson and Dyson cited a 2007 study conducted by Boston College social psychologist Rebekah Levine Coley, which they said proved “that black fathers not living at home are more likely to keep in contact with their children than fathers of any other ethnic or racial group.”
So, who's right?
I talked to Coley and she said it's more complicated than either side is saying. Then she added that:
1. Her 2007 study looked at low-income adolescents who live primarily in single mother households. She found that when non-resident fathers are involved with their children, the children are less likely to engage in delinquent behavior, like drug and alcohol use, violence and truancy.
2. The significant finding for African American non-resident fathers is that they are more likely to increase involvement with their child if the child is engaged in delinquent behavior.
3. Coley added that there is research that finds that “African American men are less likely to live with their kids. But when they don't live with their kids, some studies show that they're more likely to stay actively involved with them.”
4. But—contrary to what Hutchinson and Dyson wrote—that's not what Coley's study was about.
“Stepping up to the plate”
Maybe we're back where we started. Maybe everyone is wrong. Maybe everyone is right. It's probably all of the above.
Sen. Obama's assertion that African American men are not in the home is backed by data. And when critics argue that non-resident African American fathers are involved in their children's lives, their assertions are backed by research as well.
But Coley left me with this parting interpretation of the data from her study. “It suggests that African American men are really sort of stepping up to the plate and attempting to intervene when their children are beginning to get engaged in delinquent activities.”
Yes. “Stepping up to the plate.” And although it's just one study, it's worth mentioning, because even that bit of information provides a more complete view of non-resident African American fathers.
Sen. Obama says he's not backing down from his tough language, but if he had mentioned active African American fathers in his Father's Day speech, Rev. Jackson might have whispered something else into that Fox News microphone. Or not.
July 23, 2008
An Unlikely Energy Advocate
by Sean Nixon
“He's not just talking to Congress either; he's putting his money where his mouth is on the issue of energy.”
Anyone out there ever hear of a guy by the name of T. Boone Pickens? If not, don't be surprised, because most people probably haven't. He made a fortune in energy being an oil man and has reaped the benefits of it over the years. That description alone doesn't sound like much at first, but as I watched the news the other day, I got a chance to see something pretty interesting. And for a person that most may have never heard of, he's starting to sound like a pretty interesting guy.
Pickens, like many other oil executives within the energy sector, has raked in huge profits over the past few years. Most executives will tell you that they are taking profits from their earnings and reinvesting it into new forms of energy. If you ask most people if they believe that or not however, you might hear a different story.
Pickens is also a supporter of Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Now, that alone is not mind-blowing news, but at least now you know a little bit more about the guy. Now that you're a little bit more acquainted with him, I'd like to pose a question to you: Given the record-making profits the oil industry has seen over the past few years, who would you think the least likely person to go before Congress would be to tell lawmakers to stop putting money into oil as a sustainable energy source would be? No it's not Al Gore, but in fact Mr. T. Boone Pickens.
Mr. Pickens testified before Congress recently to tell members of the House that we must begin to seek new energy, because the oil demands for the U.S. are, effectively, too high.
He's not just talking to Congress either; he's putting his money where his mouth is on the issue of energy.
Pickens says he's investing billions of dollars in wind power and is confident that wind energy is the way to go. He's going one step further by airing spots across the country to take his message directly to Americans. Today alone, I saw his ads on the national evening news and MSNBC.
For Mr. Pickens, this isn't about politics. Although news reports state that, in the past presidential election, he spent at least $1million in the Swift Boat ads against John Kerry, Pickens is not looking to politicize this issue of wind energy.
So now, along with your knowledge of who T. Boone Pickens is, you definitely know this: Apparently Mr. Pickens is serious.
Is Mr. Pickens' move for a cleaner, greener technology in the U.S. a sign of real change, or the story of a man looking to capitalize on a situation?
What are your thoughts?
July 16, 2008
Freddie, Fannie and Indy
by Sean Nixon
People need a place to live. It's as simple as that. These days however, it's hard not to think about the mortgage meltdowns and crises affecting some of our nation's largest lenders, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and IndyMac. All three have been the major centerpieces of discussion around the country in our news, in the business sector, and interestingly enough, at our dinner tables.
The crisis continues to make waves and hit homeowners nationwide, as the financial sector also suffers. With family members and individuals investing in these companies that are publicly traded, the companies continue to hurt everyday investor's pocketbooks with damaging effects. If these companies were to become insolvent, we would see a financial crisis manifest so large, that a generation of children years from now might be hearing about what almost became the second Great Depression of the U.S.
Families at this point are doing everything they can to keep their jobs, keep food on the table, pay the mortgage and, above all else, keep their sanity.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke seems to have been working around the clock lately to ease Americans' economic concerns. Another individual in the middle of reconciling consumer confidence in the American economy is U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The two are on a nonstop mission to reassure Americans that the economy may be experiencing some difficulties, but still remains strong.
Looking back on the days of Enron and WorldCom, I hoped that we would have seen a higher level of performance and scrutiny from those in charge of overseeing the business dealings of major American institutions. I think that there needs to be a return to that level of oversight, else we risk the chance of irrevocably damaging our economy yet again.
It seems to me that after a long day, you want to go to a place that gives you a sense of refuge; a place of peace and quiet. People need a place to invite friends and, at the very least, a place to lay their head at night. Homes provide Americans with that opportunity. Now, with economic conditions being what they are, that certain piece of mind is no longer available to most of them.
Are federal regulators to blame for this lack of oversight, or were malicious and shady mortgage lenders to blame? Are we on the tail end of this economic roller coaster, or are we just beginning to see this early tidal wave strike?
What are your thoughts?
July 27, 2008
Inside Yearning for Zion
by Jeremy Freed
“It seems fairly clear that the Times' photographer was allowed inside to show just how benign and normal things are.”
The cover story of today's New York Times Magazine is an article about the much maligned Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, whose infamous leader, Warren Jeffs, is currently serving 10 years-to-life for his alleged role in arranging the marriage of a 16-year-old girl to her 19-year-old cousin. The story itself is short, a compliment the accompanying photo essays of life inside the F.L.D.S.
According to the Times, two weeks ago, photographer Stephanie Sinclair was granted rare access to the sect, and permission to photograph them engaging in day-to-day tasks on their ranch near San Antonio, Texas. Sinclair is a top-notch photojournalist who has covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and her pictures are striking.
The polygamous Mormon sect has been the subject of a lot of bad press in recent years, and it seems fairly clear that the Times' photographer was allowed inside to show just how benign and normal things are for them. As an exercise in PR, this seems to work. Their homes are spotless and neat; the children all look happy and healthy. Here are the men checking their cell phones, and boys listening to iPods as they operate heavy machinery. Here are the kids jumping on trampolines and taking naps. Nothing to see here, folks, just a bunch of Americans exercising their constitutional rights to practice whatever kooky religion they choose.
But despite the pictures' insistence that no one is being abused inside the F.L.D.S., they left me feeling not much better about the lives of the children born into the sect. Yes, the kids are jumping on a trampoline, but they're also wearing long, heavy prairie dresses and thick stockings. Yes, the boy is listening to an iPod, but he's also dressed like a dustbowl-era Okie. And no matter how superficially normal their activities may be, there's really no getting around that incredible bouffant hairstyle that all the women have. It's really remarkable. Perhaps the only question this essay answers is how they achieve that: lots and lots of hairspray. Apart from that, however, we are left with just as many questions about the rights and freedoms of members that got the F.L.D.S. in trouble in the first place.
Sinclair's photos give a glimpse into the lives of some of the most misunderstood Americans, albeit a brief and manicured one. They leave us with an impression of these people that may be better than the one we had before, but it doesn't, however, mitigate the strangeness.
July 29, 2008
Harlem's Growing Pains
by Sean Nixon
“These new neighbors, who happen to be white, may possibly price these residents out of their homes.”
I've had a question on my mind for a few days now that I'd like to ask. It's based upon an article I recently read. Here it goes: Can you afford to live in a $900,000 apartment when you make less than 25,000 a year? No? I didn't think so either, and apparently neither do the residents of New York living in Harlem.
The city known for its historic Apollo Theatre, rich culture, and legendary soul food has been going through some significant changes over the past years. Whether or not that change is a positive one today is the subject of debate.
I've been in New York for a few weeks now, and I've been taking in all of the sights and sounds the city has to offer. I took in a Broadway show, saw the Brooklyn Bridge, and ate a New York hot dog or two.
Despite the great time I had taking in all of the sights and sounds here in New York, there was one issue that I kept reading or hearing about during my visit—Harlem.
Harlem is seeing a new economic revitalization that some see as spectacular. Businesses are coming into the community and look to be growing. With community growth and expansion, one can typically expect to see more residents move in. The caveat that some of the communities' historically black residents see however isn't the neighbors themselves, but the fact that these new neighbors, who happen to be white, may possibly price these residents out of their homes.
This stirs up a lot of questions and concerns where race and prosperity are concerned, especially at a time when, economically speaking, people's pocketbooks are fragile.
This subject of discussion is not one that's unique to Harlem. Other communities across the nation are left to wrestle with this same issue. City lawmakers, community residents, activists, and land owners all come together with certain perspectives or concerns that makes the issue all the more challenging to solve.
One of the main questions that keep popping up for me is what's going to happen to the residents who've lived in the community for years? Where will they go to live? Should economic prosperity for land be gained at the expense of others, or should rules be incorporated to make sure that residents have safeguards in place to protect them from being priced out of their homes?
No matter which side of the issue you choose to stand on, here's how I look at the current situation facing Harlem and other historical communities of color facing this concern.
Number one: I believe our neighborhoods should have diversity in them if we're truly going to learn how to live with one another.
Two: I think that it's a shame that a situation once existed where poverty was the rule of the day, and that it wasn't self inflicted, but brought upon by the conditions out of the control of the community and its residents.
With that being said I also think that Harlem's ability to maintain a sense of community and identity is also compelling. It's a testament to the will, courage, and strength of the communities who worked together and persevered to ensure their survival despite the setbacks and circumstances of the day.
Lastly: I think these historic neighborhoods must also keep in mind that sustaining neighborhoods in the sense of residents is one thing, but sustaining a neighborhood that's not embracing things like self respect, respect for others' economic conditions , tolerance, patience, and the like, in my opinion, is not one that needs to be kept.
What are your thoughts on Harlem?
July 1, 2008
Bye-Bye, Big Charity
by Tamika Thompson
With all of this presidential election business, you may not have been following the latest New Orleans post-Katrina news.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal recently backed a $1.2 billion teaching hospital in downtown New Orleans that would treat 70 percent of the region's uninsured patients—if all goes well—by 2012.
The 424-bed facility would provide medical care to residents who used to get treatment at Charity Hospital, a.k.a. Big Charity, which has been closed since Hurricane Katrina rocked the area in 2005.
All sounds swell, right? The storm beat up Big Charity. A new hospital will replace it and serve the uninsured patients who used to go to Big Charity. Well, all sounded swell until I heard what Naomi Klein told Tavis the other day (Click here for the full conversation).
The award-winning journalist and author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism said this: “Charity Hospital, the largest public hospital that treated people without health insurance is still closed. It could be open. There's now only 220 beds in the entire city to treat people without health insurance. There were 550 before the storm.”
It could be open? What did she mean, “it could be open?”
Hello, big fight
The answer to that question is not simple.
In this corner we have the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, which operated Charity Hospital and had been pushing for a replacement hospital even before Hurricane Katrina. With backing from the state, the LSU system argues that Big Charity was in big trouble long before Hurricane Katrina came along and whacked it over the head, and a new hospital will better serve the community.
In the other corner we have a group of advocates, including The Foundation for Historical Louisiana, who argue that “after the water receded, the medical community, the military and a number of volunteers pumped out the flooded basement, cleaned up the debris, and restored electrical power to make the building usable again, but the doors to the hospital were permanently locked when the building was deemed unsafe and unusable by the Louisiana State University (LSU) Medical System.” In other words, it could be open.
The Foundation has hired an architectural firm to conduct a first-of-its-kind assessment of Big Charity's structural integrity and the possibility of restoring the medical facility. That study will be complete around August 21st.
But Gov. Jindal's recent support makes rebuilding Big Charity unlikely, so what are the uninsured patients doing until 2012?
Apparently they are crowding into private hospitals, filling up volunteer clinics and suing the LSU Health Sciences Center.
So, what's the big idea?
Enters David Hood, Senior Healthcare Policy Analyst at the non-profit, non-partisan Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, who told me that both arguments could be right, but all parties need to get on with it.
“So whether we reopen the old hospital, build a new hospital,” Hood said, “I think that it only begins to scratch the surface as far as providing the kind of access to care that low-income people need.”
Hood, who is a former cabinet secretary for the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, called medical care issues with Big Charity and the Charity Hospital System an “ongoing saga in Louisiana.”
He threw some long-term solutions at me that challenge the charity model itself: Provide coverage for the uninsured; provide reimbursements for local community hospitals to treat the uninsured; and—my favorite—offer BETTER QUALITY medical care to the uninsured, you know, since Louisiana has been named “least healthy state” in the nation for 15 of the last 17 years.
Whether Big Charity reopens or not, I'm thinking after 17 years of far below-average healthcare performance and quality, the uninsured in New Orleans need a solution before 2012.
July 23, 2008
Fonzy Zuckerkorn
by Jeremy Freed
“For others, however, those who were still but a glimmer in the eye of their parents when Happy Days was at its finest, Winkler will forever be remembered for a different role on a different show. ”
For people of a certain age, tonight's guest, Henry Winkler, will be forever known as Arthur Fonzarelli, a.k.a The Fonz. He inspired a generation of leather-wearing, hair-slicking, motorcycle-riding ne'er-do-wells, while providing a great many laughs along the way.
For others, however, those who were still but a glimmer in the eye of their parents when Happy Days was at its finest, Winkler will forever be remembered for a different role on a different show. That role is Barry Zuckerkorn, and the show is Fox's masterful Arrested Development. As the embattled Bluth family's lawyer, week after week, the bumbling Zuckerkorn botched countless hearings, shamelessly overcharged his clients, and once tried to microwave a Ding-Dong with the foil still on it. For those who haven't seen the show (and really, by now there's no excuse) trying to describe the hilarity of these moments will do no justice to Arrested Development or Winkler's pitch-perfect performance. It is something that simply must be seen.
In Tavis' discussion with Winkler, which aired originally in May, neither has a chance to mention Arrested Development, so busy are they discussing Winkler's newest project, the film A Plumm Summer. Winkler describes it as a traditional family film, “a throwback…There's not one special effect in this movie except for the explosion of the heart.” Watch it with the kids, then throw in a disc of Arrested Development and prepare to laugh like it's 1979.
July 16, 2008
Obama, "The New Yorker" and the Politics of Fear
by Jeremy Freed
Of course there's a chance you haven't seen this week's New Yorker cover, but being the PBS-watching, public radio-listening, blog-reading sort you are, that chance is a slim one. The cover, which hit newsstands Monday, has been the topic of much commentary this week. It shows Barack Obama in the oval office wearing a turban and burning the American flag as Osama bin Laden looks on approvingly from a portrait on the wall. Michelle Obama is there too, decked out in Black Panther regalia, giving him a fist bump for good measure. Yikes.
It's satire, of course (this is the New Yorker, after all) but that does not mean the joke has gone over well. Obama's campaign condemned the cartoon immediately expressing concern that “most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
Tasteless? Maybe. Offensive? Perhaps. Their greatest concern, though, is those who inspired the cartoon by spreading ridiculous rumors of Obama as an Al Qaeda-loving Muslim plant, seeking to subvert all the values we Americans hold so dear. They're the ones after all that won't read the article inside, won't see that the illustration is titled “The Politics of Fear,” won't care that the cartoon is actually making fun of them. For those conservative fear-mongers, it's just more fuel on the fire.
But there's a bright side, too. In this morning's Globe and Mail, Irshad Manji, author of The Trouble with Islam Today: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty and Change, explained why this might not be a bad thing after all. Obama, she says, can and should use this cartoon to further unite his country against those most unpatriotic of Americans who utilize the politics of fear.
July 12, 2008
Who's So Vain?
by Jeremy Freed
If there's one question Carly Simon's probably tired of answering, it's the one about exactly who she's singing to in “You're So Vain.” Tavis tactfully skated around this one when he interviewed Ms. Simon back in May, and with good reason. She's done plenty since then that's worth talking about: operas, Disney songs, and most notably her new album, "This Kind of Love."
But I was a little curious, and I know you were, too.
Here's the skinny:
The song came out in 1972 and quickly rose to the top of the pop charts, hitting the #1 spot for several weeks. Naturally, since it's such a catchy song, and since Simon was such a hot artist at the time (it was just a year since she'd won the Grammy for Best New Artist) there was much curiosity about who exactly could possibly be that vain. Add to that the fact that she'd recently married James Taylor, and had previously been friendly with both Mick Jagger and Warren Beatty (heady days those must have been, indeed), it was a perfect storm of tabloid-ready semi-scandal.
Simon's been tight-lipped about it ever since, but every few years she's dropped a clue as to who the famous subject might be. The history of this conversation can be found both on Simon's Wikipedia entry and on her Web site. Here are some highlights:
Rolling Stone, 1973 RS: Some people think "You're So Vain" is about James [Taylor]. Carly: No, it's definitely not about James
Washington Post, 1973 WP: Who was ‘You're So Vain about? Mick Jagger? Carly: No. WP: Warren Beatty? Carly: It certainly sounds like it was about Warren Beatty. He certainly thought it was about him - he called me and said thanks for the song…. WP: You had gone with him? Carly: Hasn't everybody?
Phil Donahue show, 1990 Audience member: Was You're So Vain about Warren Beatty? Carly: I've never, ever told who You're So Vain is about. But I will tell you since you're so very pretty in that pink sweater....it's about the young Oprah Winfrey.
Charlie Rose, 2000 CR: Warren Beatty? Carly: Well.....not at all. CR: Not at all? Carly: Well, maybe a little bit. CR: Was it one man? Was it Warren or was it a composite for you? Carly: Most songs are a composite....most songs are. CR: Was this one? Carly: I don't know.
Then, in 2003, an NBC executive named Dick Ebersol bid $50,000 in a charity auction to learn the secret. After a private performance in his home, during which Ebersol and friends dined on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and sipped vodka on the rocks, Simon is said to have whispered the coveted name into his ear. Was it Jagger? Was it Beatty? Someone else, perhaps? Bound by a confidentiality agreement, Ebersol never said a word.
Earlier this year, Ellen Degeneres tried her best to get the answer, again, to no avail.
Thirty years on, people are still as frenzied as ever when it comes to the apricot-scarved, horse race-winning man who walked into the party like he was walking on a yacht. Simon may someday reveal the man's identity, but I'm thinking probably not. Not anytime soon, anyway.
July 5, 2008
The Regrettable Second Coming of James Frey
by Jeremy Freed
Remember James Frey? Of course you do. The author of A Million Little Pieces, the famously fictional addiction memoir, whose credibility was destroyed, who was shamed in front of millions by Oprah. "Emotional truth," it turned out, was not enough.
People demanded their money back. Some even sued. As Frey admits, it was a very bad year.
The upside of the whole thing, though, was that he made a lot of money. A whole lot. His book stayed on bestseller lists through the scandal and beyond, making him a household name, albeit one associated with duplicity and shame.
Frey's a survivor, though (that part of the memoir, it turns out, was not made up), and he's managed to parlay his fame/notoriety into another book deal. His new novel, Bright Shiny Morning, is not about him, but rather, about several fictional denizens of Los Angeles. From the noble bum who lives in a bathroom on Venice Beach, to the two teenagers in love from the Tom Petty song (or was it a Steve Miller song?) attracted to the bright lights of the big city, to the Hollywood power couple with terrible (but fairly predictable) secrets, Frey intersperses their stories with anecdotes about the City of Angels, as he attempts to lay the metropolis bare before our eyes.
Bright Shiny Morning has echoes of the first two books in both its style and content. Its long, austere sentences are short on punctuation. Its characters are familiar and not terribly complicated, their actions predictable to anyone who's ever watched a Hollywood movie or read a drugstore paperback (as one reviewer pointed out its only Mexican American character is a maid.) It doesn't, however, break any new ground, or do much to justify its 500-plus pages.
In her glowing review of the book in The New York Times, erstwhile Frey-decrier Janet Maslin notes of the book's tired characters and situations, "Not so original, so what? So what if the book always made poor people humble, decent, better than rich spoiled profligate ones?" So what? So this: the reason we read books is to learn things we didn't know, see things we've never seen before, or things we have seen before in a way we've never seen them.
The Times ran another review, written by novelist Walter Kirn, who, with more than a trace of jealous bitchiness, does Frey no such favors. He compares Frey's factoids to Wikipedia entries, his descriptions of people and settings to pages from Zagat's. "[Frey's] point is not new, nor is this manner of making it, but the least one can ask of a writer who can't resist is that he maintain some sense of timing and showmanship — that he keep his act snappy since it can't be fresh."
There were more reviews, some good, most bad (David Ulin's in the LA Times starts out, "Bright Shiny Morning is a terrible book. One of the worst I've ever read.") and lots of press. The book is selling, not as well as the last ones, but it's doing alright.
Way back when, Frey tried to sell his memoirs as fiction, and when he was rebuffed, rewrote them as fact. This explains the all-too-perfect harlequin quality of some of the scenes and the story. There were times reading it when I thought to myself, this is just a bit much, isn't it? But I went along with it, carried by the run-on sentences, enjoying the narrative, wanting to believe. I think that was pretty common. As fiction, though, it sucked. And I think that was as much the problem as anything.
July 1, 2008
Business as Usual for Zimbabwe
by Jeremy Freed
“Politics are politics, and sometimes they don't have much to do with the realities of what is going on, but this week's events are almost too much to bear.”
Almost a year ago today, I blogged about Zimbabwe, the African Union, and the monumental failure of African leaders to publicly recognize the enormous catastrophe that the aging oligarch has wrought on his country. How sad to see that, if anything, things have only gotten worse.
The focus of last year's post was a prediction by the departing U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe that total economic collapse was but a few months away. Zimbabweans needed only to hold on, Christopher W. Dell said, help was on the way. Unfortunately, but maybe not surprisingly (because how many predictions of total catastrophic collapse actually prove accurate?), he was wrong. Zimbabwe may have continued to decline on all fronts, but as far as Mugabe's corrupt regime goes, it's business as usual.
As my fellow Young Voices bloggers Rose and Sean have both pointed out recently, things in Zimbabwe are not good. The results of the recent runoff election see Mugabe still in power, dissenters and opponents beaten, imprisoned and murdered. Meanwhile, at the recent African Union summit in Sharm El Sheik, he was given a hero's welcome by other African leaders, most notably by regional powerhouses South Africa and Egypt.
Politics are politics, and sometimes they don't have much to do with the realities of what is going on, but this week's events are almost too much to bear. As condemnation from Western nations continues to be heaped on African leaders for their tacit approval of Mugabe's regime, very little seems likely to change. And this year, no one's calling for economic collapse, either. Maybe next July things will be better. Or maybe they'll be worse. More likely than not, though, they'll be pretty much the same.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
E-mail a friend
