Darfur redux? & TIA on responsible reporting

Early today I retweeted a link  to Kristof's (@NickKristof)   piece in the New York Times:

In Sudan, Echoes of Darfur

After just completing a midterm on Rwanda's '94 genocide, I think its important that the violence in Sudan is front and center in the news cycle.

Then I read Texas in Africa's take on Kristof's reporting:
Kristof in Sudan

and it gave me pause.

TIA makes very valid points that are worth considering before we automatically applaud certain reporters for their very public (ized) forays into dangerous regions.

TIA also emphasizes that this story DOES need to be reported.  I will continue to investigate and aggregate and developments on FUUO--I may even have an interview to repost on later this week.  If you don't already, you should follow TIA on twitter:

@texasinafrica

And if you're not on twitter already, you're behind the power curve.  

http://fuuo.blogspot.com/2011/02/well-written-articles-on-libya-egypt.html

Zinni defends USIP in the New York Times

I read two great articles today.  The first one was an OPED in the New York Times by GEN Zinni entitled Peace-Building That Pays Off.   Hats off to Essential Reading for Marines for highlighting the article.  Some key quotes:


"The Institute of Peace is like the Marine Corps or special forces for foreign affairs and peace-building.  When others are fleeing conflict around the world, you’ll usually find institute staff members going in. "  
This is quite an endorsement from a teufelhunden.  


"Congress would be hard-pressed to find an agency that does more with less. The institute’s entire budget would not pay for the Afghan war for three hours, is less than the cost of a fighter plane, and wouldn’t sustain even 40 American troops in Afghanistan for a year. Within the budget, peace-building is financed as part of national security programs, and is recognized as an important adjunct to conventional defense spending and diplomacy. The institute’s share of the proposed international affairs budget, $43 million, is minuscule: less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the State Department’s budget, and one-hundredth of 1 percent of the Pentagon’s."
Now obviously you can make numbers say whatever you want them to.  However, $43 million is really nothing in the grand scheme of things.  You could probably turn off the escalators in the PGON for a month and save that much money.  My point is that their are myriad other funding cuts that could be made.  My personal experience with USIP has only been positive.  If you are here in DC they host great events that challenge and spark rigorous debate.  Just recently they hosted the Navy's NGO conference.  


My final question would be, if USIP goes away, who gets their gorgeous building?