Completely Unnecessary

The conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo has killed well over 5 million people.

Sporadic, ad hoc reporting that emphasizes an ‘ancient ethnic conflict’ meme is just one of the problems with the media’s reaction to crises in African countries, this one in particular.

Such reporting, however, looks downright charming compared with this anonymously authored gem from the BBC today about imprisoned Congolese goats:

The beasts were due to appear in court, charged with being sold illegally by the roadside.

The minister said many police had serious gaps in their knowledge and they would be sent for retraining.

This would be a good story to file under the ‘inescapable African incompetence’ category of reporting, were it not for this line at the end:

BBC Africa analyst Mary Harper says that given the grim state of prisons in Congo, the goats will doubtless be relieved about being spared a trial.

Zing! It’s… hilarious?… how awful the conditions are for thousands of imprisoned Congolese.

This isn’t quite up there with British reporting in the early days of the Rwandan genocide that detailed the escape of a ‘war hero’ poodle, but it’s close.

[By the way, I'm aware that the link above is also from the BBC; it's a bit better (and authored) though it still contains this awesome line: "And because DR Congo's population is large...it's a worse humanitarian crisis even than that caused by other African wars." Even worse than other crazy African wars? Whoa.]

Vaguely Related

• Surprise! Abortion and Breast Cancer - No Link! Again.
• NYT’s Clinton Must-Read

Sometimes I didn’t spend so much time reading the news. It’d be easier to be annoyed by rising food costs at the Vic Market, if I hadn’t read this story in the Guardian today:

Haiti: Mud cakes become staple diet as cost of food soars beyond a family’s reach

Even the cost of mud cakes is rising beyond what people can afford.

This is a good article that actually goes into some depth on a crisis, something often lacking in such reporting. Haiti’s land is stripped of nutrients from slash and burn farming (numerous people have documented the stark visual contrasts between Haiti and the DR, which share an island).

Haiti’s gotten from all sides for years:

The woes were compounded by a decision in the 1980s to lift tariffs, when international prices were lower, and flood the country with cheap imported rice and vegetables. Consumers gained and the IMF applauded but domestic farmers went bankrupt and the Artibonite valley, the country’s breadbasket, atrophied.

And now food prices are higher, so…

I haven’t read Aids and Accusation - Paul Farmer’s ethnography about AIDS in Haiti - in years, but I remember a particularly disturbing story that I’m almost certain came from it. The United States, concerned about ‘Africanized’ pig flu in Haiti, which never really came to fruition, talked Haiti into killing all of its pigs, which would be replaced with US pig stock.

Except that the pigs we sent down there were Iowa hogs, which didn’t have a chance of surviving in the hot, sunny Haitian climate (North American pigs get sunburned easily). So they all died, and when Haiti complained we were like, “Well, you should have taken better care of them.” So, they just had no more pigs. (These two sites have some background, but I can’t vouch for them - or my retelling of the story for that matter.)

Anyway, the Guardian article is definitely worth a read, but it is a sobering one.

Vaguely Related

• Why I’m going to be an orca
• Zimbabwe: Mugabe Retaliates in Plain Sight

Let’s never have this happen again, k?

Via Wonkette (and others).

Vaguely Related

• NYT’s Clinton Must-Read
• Modifying Women Politicians

I’m funny, because I’ve cheered on Obama for the last couple months, and breathlessly refreshed as he pulled ever-closer in the IN primary last night.

Yet, as the pundits started to declare Clinton’s demise, I thought, “Don’t you tell her what she can and cannot do!”

Anyway, Wonkette’s Jim Newell has proved (using CNN delegate counter) that she can still clinch the nomination. She only needs 45% of the superdels and 100% of the remaining pledged delegates. Totally doable.

But perhaps I was just picking up on the subtle messages relayed by NYT reporter Jim Rutenberg, who seemed to be channeling Clinton in his story last night:

Very early this morning, after many voters had already gone to sleep, the conventional wisdom of the elite political pundit class that resides on television shifted hard, and possibly irretrievably, against Senator Hillary Clinton’s continued viability as a presidential candidate.

The term ‘elite’ also came up in reference to superdelegates, who, it was presumed, would listen to the advice of ‘Washington’s class of political insiders.’ Terms like ‘world of instant political analysis’, commentariat and punditocracy appeared, as well. Those elites are counting her out again!

Aside from the slap at the superdels (which Clinton would never pull), it sounds a lot like Clinton’s stump speech from the last three weeks. Though we can’t argue with Rutenberg for taking the pundits and other news media to task:

Of course, the political news media have not exactly showered themselves in glory this year. They have frequently made predictions that have been upended by actual votes from actual people.

Too true.

Wonkette’s stellar math notwithstanding, Clinton’s going to have a rough go saying that she’s the more electable nominee. Indiana should have been hers, and the fact that she barely pulled it out with Obama at his weakest (arguably) makes it hard to keep going.

Either way, if she could just drop out or be the nominee by 30 May, that’d be awesome. That’s when my thesis is due, and it’d be nice to have kind of a bookend for it.

Finally, this is the most disturbing thing I’ve read this election cycle:

But the impact was apparent almost immediately, starting with The Drudge Report, the online news billboard that is the home page to many political reporters in Washington and news producers in New York.

My question - how can you be elite and read Drudge?

Links:
Pundits Declare Race Over [NYT]
Elite Math: How Hillary Clinton Will Win the Nomination Now [Wonkette]

Vaguely Related

• NYT’s Clinton Must-Read
• Clinton v Obama: Mississippi Divided (Redux)

Fascinating article on Clinton in today’s NYT. Some highlights below in terms of gendered language.

I know a hell of a lot about Hillary Clinton, but there were some really interesting things I’d never heard before. For instance, she’s the one who came up with the term ‘war room’ for the 1992 Clinton campaign strategy team. Incidentally, War Room is an interesting documentary about that time, featuring Carville and Stephanopoulos, who looks all of about 15-years-old in 1992.

“She makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy,” North Carolina’s governor, Michael F. Easley, said in endorsing her, and a union leader in Portage, Ind., praised her “testicular fortitude.”

This kind of language and pugilistic imagery, however, also evokes the baggage that makes Mrs. Clinton such a provocative political figure. For as much as a willingness to “do what it takes” and “die hard” are marketable commodities in politics, they can also yield to less flattering qualities, plenty of which have been ascribed to her over the years. Just as supporters praise her “toughness” and “tenacity,” critics also describe her as “divisive,” “a dirty fighter” or “willing to do anything to win.”

I’m amazed that they totally leave aside the ‘bitch’ memes that float around her (or expressed on national television by Newt Gingrich’s mom). There are only vague references to troubles with her public persona. ‘Uppity’ is about the closest they get to describing the usual ‘aggressive’, ‘too…’, ‘not enough…’ language that usually turns up.

That’s not true actually - the NYT just has someone else say it:

“To me it showed her brittleness, her coldness, her spoiling for a fight,” said Mr. Cooper, an Obama backer.

Anyway, I think it’s a really interesting article, both in the construction and the content. Especially, as it’s currently running with a flattering picture of Obama and his daughter as a sidebar.

ps - couldn’t hate the gas tax ‘holiday’ more if they were offering to fuel cars with puppies.

Link:
Ruthlessness and Grit Seen in Clinton’s Style [NYT]

Vaguely Related

• Life Without Hillary Clinton
• Clinton, the Pundits and the Math

I read a headline about billionaire Warren Buffett, ‘What Makes Buffett Great’, as ‘What Makes Buffet Great.’

My reaction?

Oooh! Because you get to pick what you want to eat and can go back for more!

There was also a picture of an old man (Buffett) lying on a bed. I just wondered why the buffet wasn’t in the picture.

Vaguely Related

• Continuing Food Crisis in Haiti
• To Be Young

Yet another study has shown that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. Anti-choicers love to scare women with the big-C, so don’t really expect much to change. In fact, here’s what the woman who runs the fantastically-named Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer had to say (seriously, go for something a little more subtle):

“Clearly [the cancer institute] must suspect a link, or else they know that a link really exists,” Malec said. “Why else would they continue to pay for these studies?

Um, okay. I think the answer might be - because scientists get pissed off when you continue to create/cite ’studies’ that use bad science to achieve bad ‘data’.

[Seriously, I can't believe they couldn't think of any better name for their org! Just something with a little more euphemism. Like Coalition for Women's Breast and Reproductive Health. You know, something that hides what you're about a little bit better. Take a cue from those supposed women's health clinics that show women fake ultrasounds and try to convince them not to have abortions. They're always named something like, 'Comforting Place for Abortion Women's Home'.]

Anyway, I naturally thought of Minnesota’s Women’s Right to Know law. The LA Times article mentions that Minnesota, Texas, and Mississippi all have laws on the books requiring doctors to ‘inform’ women of the risks of breast cancer, fetal pain, puppy drowning, nuclear war, and depression that are associated with abortion.

Lots of people in Minnesota were pretty shocked when the 24-hour waiting period and state-scripted info were put into place (and not just because they were hilariously attached to a law about circus regulation and linked Minnesota inextricably with Texas and Mississippi). As anyone who has ever spoken with me knows, the laws are an undue burden on women who work hourly-wage jobs (i.e., working-class and poor women) and those who live far from the 90% of MN abortion clinics located in the Twin Cities. The City Pages wrote a good article at the time about the stupidity of the pamphlet that doctors were forced to ’share’ with their patients.

In addition to pictures of developing fetuses and graphic descriptions of abortion procedures, the pamphlet includes a passage suggesting a link between abortion and breast cancer. “Findings from some studies suggest there is an increased risk of breast cancer among women who had an abortion,” it reads, “while findings from other studies suggest there is no increased risk. This issue may need further study.”

Today the pamphlet reads a little differently:

Cancer of the Breast: Findings from earlier studies suggested there was an increased risk of breast cancer among women who had an abortion.

In March 2003 the National Cancer Institute (NCI) released a consensus report finding no link between abortion and breast cancer. An additional report issued in March 2004 by a cancer research group at Oxford University also indicated there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. Read summaries of these reports

Women who have a strong family history of cancer or who have clinical findings of breast disease should seek medical advice from a physician regardless of their decision to become pregnant or have an abortion.

It’s a little bit better, but it’s still in there. Alerting women to something and then saying, “But I wouldn’t worry about it” is pretty much the same as telling them to worry about it. Plus it comes under the heading “Long Term Medical Risks.” You can look for it just after the bit telling you “But I wouldn’t worry about it” for your future childbearing. And it’s just before the section on fetal pain.

Presumably, Minnesota Commissioner of Health Dianne Mandernach will want to update her pamphlet to include these new findings. Also, maybe hire a professional writer. The 19 pictures of fetuses are important, but if the writing isn’t there you can’t effectively scare women out of an abortion:

Counseling or support before and after your abortion is very important. If family help and support is not available to the woman, the feelings that appear after an abortion may be harder to adjust to. Talking with a professional and objective counselor before having an abortion can help a woman better understand her decision and the feelings she may experience after the procedure. If counseling is available to the woman, these feelings may be easier to handle.

Remember, it is your right and the doctor’s responsibility to fully inform you prior to the procedures. Be encouraged to ask all of your questions.

Good god that’s awful. The method of describing the subject (Chris do we have an editorial phrase for that?) changes in every sentence. Seems like they were just copying and pasting from somewhere else (Texas? Mississippi?). And “Be encouraged”? Is that a command or an expression of a medical ideal?

Speaking of ideal, Minnesotans could also stop electing Tim Pawlenty.

Vaguely Related

• NYT’s Clinton Must-Read
• In other editoral pages with strong opinions…

Snap.

Vaguely Related

• NYT’s Clinton Must-Read
• How Print Media Quotes and Reports on Sarah Palin