My Beauty Best Teacher

In 2003 the ITDG conducted a study on traditional conflict resolution mechanisms in rural Kenya, they found that these "...structures are closely bound with socio- political and economic realities of the lifestyles of the African communities. These conflict resolution structures are rooted in the culture and history of African people, and are in one way or another unique to each community. The overriding legitimacy of indigenous conflict resolution structures amongst these communities is striking..." also"...this study has given due consideration to the unique pastoralists’ cultures that emphasise the resolution of conflicts amicably through a council of elders, dialogue, traditional rituals and common utilization of resources..."

Continuing on the subject of conflict resolution we take a look at a comparative study(PDF) authored by Luc Huyse on various traditional approaches:

What role does traditional justice play in dealing with legacies of human rights abuses? How can interpersonal and community-based practices interrelate with state-organised and internationally sponsored forms of retributive justice and truth telling? This International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) report provides a comparative analysis of traditional justice mechanisms in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Mozambique, Uganda and Burundi. Most of the countries studied combine traditional justice and reconciliation instruments with other transitional justice strategies.-GSRDC

via Pambazuka

Image via WikipediaIndigenous methods of conflict resolution make a strong international debut. Scott Baldauf at CS Monitor examines the role of elders in the recent Kenya crisis:

At a time when Kenya's angry "young turks" were whipping up the emotions that fed violence, these African elders had the calming influence of a stern grandparent, in front of whom one doesn't misbehave.
"I came in at a time when there was so much mistrust," recalls Koffi Annan in an interview later. "The two blocks had dug in. One felt they had won the elections fair and square, the other maintained 'you stole it.' "
"With that sort of attitude, getting them to come together, and getting them to begin to think of coming together, and ... thinking in terms that we are all Kenyans and we are one Kenya, and we need to work together to put it back together, was not an easy task," he says with a large dose of understatement.Today, five months later, an uneasy alliance is holding...[continue reading]

via Kenyan Pundit

Founded by Peter Kehinde Aina "...The Negotiation & Conflict Management Group (NCMG) is an independent, non-profit and non-governmental, membership based, organisation in Nigeria, with Centres for dispute resolution, promoting awareness and providing services in negotiation, mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution techniques..."Its aims include:

• To explore the theory, practice and understanding of negotiation, mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures.
  

• To supplement traditional litigation by designing, introducing and providing alternative approaches to dispute resolution.
  

• To increase public awareness and encourage the widespread use of prompt, effective and economical, means of dispute resolution both in business and public sectors.

The Economist reports on the work of the Centre for Human Dialogue a professional conflict mediator. They were key to Kofi Annan's ability to help resolve the recent Kenyan Crisis:

They provided him with tactical advice on the mediation process, such as when to take the negotiators on “retreat” and how to involve the media. And they also drafted agreements as the two sides spoke during the negotiations, so that at the end of a day an agreed statement could be issued immediately to the press. This gave the mediation the vital momentum that Mr Annan wanted...[continue reading]

Related articles by Zemanta

• Explainer: The Kenyan example

Robert Pringle writes about the burgeoning civil society and strengthening democracy in Mali:

Malians have redefined the term “consensus” to comport with the decentralization model. Whereas under the dictatorship “consensus” meant African-style democratic centralism, often smacking of communist practice, today it is understood to suggest reaching compromise on tough issues—more in the mode of Daniel Webster than Vladimir Lenin...Malians say that their history and culture have nourished interethnic tolerance. They cite a whole tool kit of conflict resolution and avoidance mechanisms...Mali’s new decentralization has created a three-tiered system: regions (think states), circles (think counties), and communes, which usually comprise several villages. Commune inhabitants elect local councils, which choose their own mayors and send representatives to the two higher tiers of the system. The 702 rural communes are widely regarded as the backbone of Malian democratization...The most striking thing about Malian democracy is its success in drawing intellectual and spiritual sustenance from an epic past, and actively incorporating homegrown elements, such as decentralization. If there is occasional fiddling with historical truth, the past provides plenty of room for differing viewpoints and for shaping tradition to meet modern needs. It is this aspect of the Malian experience that is least appreciated, and it deserves more attention from policymakers, both African and foreign, who have a tendency to assume that “tradition” equates with “bad.”

via 3quarksdaily

photo courtesy cr.nps.gov

Via the Belmont Club, where the post was on Obama's proposed Brownshirts force, I came upon this little tidbit about the new proposed Department of Peace and Nonviolence:

GovTrack has this entry for H.R. 808, “A bill to establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence,” sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]. The bill was introduced February, 2007. It aims to establish a new Department of Peace and Nonviolence with the following offices:

Office of Peace Education and Training, Office of Domestic Peace Activities, Office of International Peace Activities, Office of Technology for Peace, Office of Arms Control and Disarmament, Office of Peaceful Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution, Office of Human Rights and Economic Rights, and the Intergovernmental Advisory Council on Peace and Nonviolence. According to the bill’s text, a representative of the Department of Peace and Nonviolence will sit on the National Security Council, recommend policy to the Attorney General and advise the Secretary of Defense and State on all matters concerning national security.

The Department of Peace appears to be the main object of a lobbying group called The Peace Alliance. I bummed around their website- nothing too upsetting there, just a bunch of misguided fools. The problem is that utopian fools have a history of doing really bad things to society- the other references that came up when I searched Department of Peace referred to attempts leading up to WWII to put in place a similar department. I hope that's not what we are heading towards, but for some reason I do think fascism is again on the rise, elsewhere, and here.

Tostan News reports on the evolution of local democracy, "...Respondents very much wanted to expand on the issue of human rights and to examine the conditions, even the kind of society, in which these could be more durably ensured. The term “democracy” surfaced on a number of occasions, overheard from national political discourse, but no one was too sure exactly what it meant. Staff resolved therefore to try out a training sequence that would use “democracy” as a cover term for the kind of social arrangements under which human rights could be effectively guaranteed and people of all groups and ages could play an active role in determining their own destiny. The module that resulted from these months of effort included information, discussion, role-playing and applied activities all focusing on what human rights society must protect, how individual and group values are balanced, by what means those who have been deprived of rights can assert them, how conflict is healed, and the sort of governance strategies such goals require. Organizers found it worthwhile to go back to the root meaning of “democracy” (in Greek: government by the people) and to facilitate widespread discussion of just what this implied and how it related to the assertion of human rights and the resolution of conflict..."

It has been a struggle for me to write about the financial reform bill, and I haven't commented before on it yet. But yesterday I came across an excellent article in the Washington Independent called A Guide to the Tangled Financial Reform Bill which breaks down each important provision of the proposed financial reform bill and attempts to give a balanced analysis of it. I urge you all to read this article before making any further thoughts or opinions on the bill- whether you are Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, it is important to look at the world around you with good information and analysis, which this article provides.

Here are the best pieces (edited and shortened by me) of the article A Guide to the Tangled Financial Reform Bill:

Audit the Fed. The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet is more than double its size before the financial crisis — swollen with $1.1 trillion in mortgage-backed securities purchased from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plus toxic assets from failed companies like Bear Sterns — and a bipartisan group of senators want to force a thorough independent audit of the Fed’s books. A strong provision did not make it into the final Senate legislation.

End too big to fail by capping bank size. Dodd’s bill as currently written gives the Federal Reserve and other regulators the ability to seize and break up financial firms it deems systemically important and systemically dangerous. But that is meant only as a “last resort,” and members of both parties consider the language too wan. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) last week introduced the Safe Banking Act, which they plan to offer as an amendment to the Dodd bill. It mandates hard leverage and size caps on banks and other financial firms; limits commercial banks’ assets to 2 percent of GDP and non-banks’ assets to 3 percent; and imposes a 16-to-1 leverage cap, among other provisions.

Reinstitute Glass-Steagall provisions. Another popular way to effectively limit bank size is to return to the Depression-era Glass-Steagall rules. The Glass-Steagall Act, mostly repealed in 1999, prevented banks from having both commercial and investment banking arms — as, for instance, J.P. Morgan Chase does today. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) plan to introduce an amendment reintroducing the rule and thus requiring big, diversified banks to split themselves up. Shelby, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and Sen. John Cornyn (Texas) also support the measure.

An effectively similar, if functionally different, way of breaking up banks or limiting their size is by instituting the Volcker Rule — which bars banks from speculating with their own money by “prop trading” or investing in hedge funds. The current Dodd bill promises to institute something like the Volcker Rule, creating a commission to look at how to institute it down the road. But Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) have ready a measure introducing a more-stringent version immediately.

Fix the ratings agencies. The Dodd bill does little to fix the credit ratings agencies, whose profligate stamping of AAA ratings on collapsing subprime mortgage-backed securities helped to stoke the crisis. (The companies have a conflict of interest at the core of their business, in that they are paid by the companies whose securities they rate.) The Dodd bill creates a new office at the Securities and Exchange Commission to look closely at credit ratings agencies — but does little more to further reform them. Numerous Democratic senators have cited the issue as a major weakness in the bill, and Senate staffers say it is unlikely to go unchanged. Sanders has said he will introduce new language to strengthen oversight over and regulation of the agencies.

Guarantee no taxpayer money will go to bank bailouts. Republicans have derided the Dodd bill’s resolution authority fund — wherein the government will tax $50 billion from the banks, creating a pool of cash to be used by the Federal Reserve to shut down failing firms — as creating “permanent bailouts.” GOP politicians including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have cited it as a major point of contention. But Senate staffers say that rather than killing the resolution-authority fund, Republicans want language explicitly guaranteeing taxpayers will not be on the hook for future bailouts.

Keep the Fed the regulator of little banks. Under the Dodd bill, the Federal Reserve would have oversight only of banks with more than $50 billion in assets. But Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) oppose this measure and want the Fed to have oversight of small banks as well — ensuring that the Fed does not become overly concerned with the business of big banks and ensuring that it keeps an eye on the small financial companies that can be the bellwether of bad economic times. Hutchison has said she plans to “certainly have an amendment that assures that state banks and community banks will be able to have access to be members of the Federal Reserve.”

Make the Consumer Financial Protection Agency truly independent. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) has promised to introduce amendment moving the Consumer Financial Protection Agency outside of the Fed.

Improve hedge fund reporting. Reed also plans to introduce an amendment closing a loophole in the Dodd bill that might let some private equity firms, venture capital firms, and hedge funds avoid registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This is a reminder that whatever the original bill that the Democrats brought to the floor, what matters is the bill that is passed at the end (and I don't mean by 'the end' when it passes the House and Senate and is signed by the President- now that Democrats run things in DC, that outdated model of passing legislation isn't followed and instead they deem things passed and then our dear leader runs things, and that is what I men by 'the end').

After a month of watching a revolution to overthrow an evil dictator stall and reverse and almost lose, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in disgust finally convinced US President Barack Obama (Democrat) to do something, even if it interrupted his busy vacation/goodwill trip in Brazil, where he is sunning on beaches and giving speeches to roaring crowds and still struggling to watch his NCAA bracket that he put so much time and thought into.

Although I'm no expert in this stuff (I've only got a tiny BA in International Relations from a major university), I have no problem blaming Obama for the ensuing humanitarian crisis that is going to unfold in Libya. It was okay to wait a bit, because the US shouldn't just jump willy-nilly into every conflict, but the minute the rebels stalled, the math was pretty simple- either jump in now in support and knock Muammar Qaddafi out while building goodwill with the rebels who would then march to power and restore order, or stay out of it and watch Qaddafi retake his nation and punish the rebels and build goodwill with him and his son. Either option would lead to a quick change in the power in Libya and either option would build goodwill between the US and Libya.

But President Paintywaist instead anguished about the decision and tried to hide and ran around yelling 'present' on the issue while issuing empty rhetoric and throwing pixie dust at the situation. I don't care how hard he tries to re-write history on this one- he sat around, watched the rebels get pushed back, watched them lose their best fighters and leaders and most dedicated freedom fighters, watched Qaddafi take back cities and kill and rape everyone who was against him in those areas, watched both Qaddafi and the rebels get weaker, and then when the French and British said 'screw you, we're doing something' he fled to Brazil and let Hillary make the call. Roger L Simon sums it up with his article Jets over Libya as H. Clinton Assumes Presidency.

Now the US is shooting expensive missiles into Libya, killing people and destroying things, but it still isn't clear that this will check the momentum that Qaddafi has built up or whether it will inspire a depleted and on the run rebellion. Oh, perhaps after greater effort and loss of life, the US will destroy extensive oil reserves and industry and kill enough people that Qaddafi leaves, but the end game now is less certain, as the surviving rebels will be weak and annoyed at the long delay in response by the US.

That's assuming the Commander-in-Chief has an endgame- his address is a lot of summary of news events that he was always behind combined with statements about how we're clearly not the leader of this humanitarian and leadership effort with several 'I'm aware of' statements thrown in to make it appear like he is actually meaningful in any way about world events. Don't swallow my analysis though- read it yourself by clicking here.

A clearly better and more thought out analysis comes from the Belmont Club- here are the best parts:

Yes, if it can impose a blockade lasting several months, is willing to risk to risk the destruction of Libyan oil, and can eventually deploy UAVs over Libya. But the the worst thing they can do is let the fighting drag on, because it will almost inevitably lead to a humanitarian crisis in Libya. The major problem facing NATO is that the rebels have been driven too far east to secure the facilities and the pipelines which take the product to the coast (see map below). To avoid permanently splitting the country along some kind of No-Man’s Land, it is not enough for the rebels to stop Khadaffi at the gates of Benghazi; they must drive west far enough to take the infrastructure from the Duck of Death. Only then can Libya be reconstituted as a single political entity....

Read the rest of that post to read what real analysis and leadership and decision and thought looks like. Watch Obama chant "da da da da" by following this link (at 55 seconds in).

Oh, one more point- remember how for the last decade liberals and Democrats have been so convinced that Bush had no authority to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the Congress gave him that authority- out of curiosity, what resolution or bill authorized Obama to do anything at all in Libya, and how come I don't hear all those hypocritical dishonest liberals and Democrats saying boo now?

As a teacher in a public school in Michigan, I naturally belong to the Michigan Education Association (MEA) and National Education Association (NEA). I have a radical idea that since I pay my dues to these groups, I am part of them, and since I vote in all the elections, I am a constituent of these groups, and thus these groups should be responsive and open to my views. You're probably thinking that's a rather naive view, but I choose to look at the world in a more positive and less cynical way, and work my hardest to make the world the way it supposed to be. Because of this, I have become more and more active in the MEA and NEA.

So it was with great interest that I read this secret report that was written by a conservative Republican teacher who was at the National NEA Conference in 2005. Here are some excerpts from this report:

“Intrigue, New-Age philosophy, adventure, conflict, deception, cunning craftiness, courage, heroism, and victory in the face of defeat” Never did I dream that I would be using such words to describe my weeks experience attending the 2005 national NEA conference held in Los Angeles, July 1-6. Such words fit the description of an action-packed movie like Star Wars not spending six days in a convention center surrounded by 9,000 liberal delegates. However, I soon discovered that the wheeling and dealings that go on behind the scenes at the NEA are very much like a Star-Wars episode with the plot centered around a small group of Conservative teacher- “rebel warriors” trying to penetrate and influence for good the gigantic, powerful, out-of-control, spinning in space, ultra-liberal battle-star NEA.

The NEA conference began with an ecumenical, Pluralistic, New-Age sounding prayer. I was quite shocked to even see a prayer listed on the program. I thought the NEA was opposed to schools having prayers because of “separation of Church and State.” But then I listened to the prayer. It was definitely different than any prayer I had ever heard before. It was given by David Sanchez, the Vice President of the California Teacher’s Association. Sanchez invoked the blessings over the conference of just about every god in the universe. He mentioned “Buddha, Allah, the Great Spirit, Gaia,” and, in all fairness, he even included the God of the Christians and Jews.

In the song that the 9,000 delegates were asked to join in singing to show patriotism on the 4th of July, “I’m Proud to be an American,” the last stanza was changed. Instead of singing, “God Bless the USA,” the delegates saw that the words had been changed on the big screens overhead and now read, “We love the USA!” Christian teachers who were part of the Conservative Educators Caucus were very upset that God was removed from one of their favorite songs. No one else seemed to make any mention of it.

The Academic and Professional Freedom Amendment. This amendment was asking for the academic freedom of students, that teachers would “welcome intellectual pluralism and the free exchange of ideas by providing an unprejudiced learning environment. The Association does not condone the indoctrination of students through intimidation, unfair grading practices, withholding of information, or by any other means.” One would think that most teachers and the NEA would agree with these words. But, that was not the case. Before any speeches could be given in support of it, a lady from the Higher Education group called for it to be referred to committee. The vote was quickly taken and passed, and the amendment was gone, never to be heard from again.

The other CEC (Conservative Education Caucus) (sponsored) amendments were all lumped together to be heard late in the afternoon of the last day. Those presenting their resolutions were at the mikes ready to go. Suddenly we heard NEA President Reg Weaver’s voice come on the mike instead, stating that he had a huge stack of slips asking for the next three amendments to be referred to committee. He then called for the vote. It passed, and all the conservative amendments were sent off to committee. And that was that! No other proposals presented by any caucus at the convention were treated like that.

Last year at the 2004 NEA convention, a new member of the Republican Caucus, Shawna Adams, got her self nominated to run for president against the conservative incumbent President, Diane Lenning. (Adams) has never been seen at any Republican meeting, nor can her name be found on any Republican rolls. On the day of the voting, Adams showed up with many friends who signed up to be new members, paid their dues, and then voted, all for Adams. She won, of course. She has now brought into the Republican caucus many liberal ideas that they would never have gone along with before.

As long as it did not smack of conservatism then every strange resolution, amendment, and proposals were allowed to be heard and over 80 were passed. Here are just a few of the amazing liberal topics that were allowed to go before the delegation and are now on record as having been approved by the majority of those present: Boycott Wal-Mart, Re-educate and re-program poor misinformed Republican members, Support Affirmative Action, and Anti-war efforts to get our troops out of Iraq.

This report, if true, and to be fair I have not yet had a chance to personally be silenced and hated by the NEA, is troubling. There are 2.7 million members of the NEA- all teachers, all in the classroom every day educating your children. They belong to, and most support, an organization that is shockingly and radically liberal.

That might not surprise you, but just saying "all teachers are liberal" glosses over the fact that when teachers stand up to speak about the right to life, they are shouted at and screamed at by spittle-spewing liberals at NEA conferences. It glosses over the fact that when a conservative teacher stands up to ask that students not be brainwashed and intimidated, they are the bad guys, they are the ones shunned and marginalized, and they are the ones to be silenced. It is bizzaro world in the NEA- good is bad, bad is good, and the goal of teachers and their teacher organization is not to educate your child in math, English, and science, but to re-educate them in liberal values and beliefs.

Just saying "yeah, I know teachers are liberal" is not enough. You need to know each one of these examples above, you need to really see the liberalness of the NEA for each individual crime against the morality and decency of our society. And you need to pass on this information to others. Anyone who has a child in education, anyone who pays their taxes for education, should know- must know- what they are supporting. Please pass this post along to others or link to it on your pages- as I become more active in the NEA, I'd like to think that someone will be there beside me, that more will gather behind me, and we can re-make the NEA so that it is no longer a radical promoter of all the worst liberal views.