Ablogistan

Addressing Iran

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:53:16 -0500

There are some who are criticizing Obama for not doing enough to directly support the protesters in Iran. John McCain, for one, thinks we should be more vocal in unequivocally supporting the Iranian people, and in a bizarre Twitter interview compared the situation to supporting Russian dissidents in the Cold War.

It's difficult to tell whether this is just a way to score points in domestic politics or whether McCain and others believe this is really prudent foreign policy, but it simply doesn't make sense to me. The one thing that Ahmadinejad wants right now is to be able to portray the protests as a Mossadeq-style coup being orchestrated by the U.S. government. We may have short memories when it comes to our history in the Middle East, but the Iranians certainly don't. There may be a time for more aggressive language from the Obama administration—when Ahmadinejad is further back on his heels and can't use it to his advantage—but that isn't now.

A new beginning

Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:57:09 -0500

Here is Obama's speech. I haven't watched it all yet, but the reactions and snippets I have read so far suggest it is what I had expected, and hoped, it would be—not a magic cureall, but a bold and perhaps pivotal gesture that only Obama could deliver. More thoughts later...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Paying attention

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:08:55 -0500

Here's yet another article about the growing use of cognitive enhancers. It raises questions that have been raised before about the costs/benefits of drugs like Adderall, etc.

I found this response to the article even more interesting. Cognitive enhancing drugs don't enhance cognitive ability so much as focus:

Adderall is a drug for our Information Age not because it actually works as a "cognitive enhancer," it strikes me, but because it merely makes it possible to do what we once used to take for granted, before instant-messaging technology and mobile email started to make our brains go haywire. That is, they make it possible to ignore that blinking light on the "CrackBerry"and finish a task. Studies have actually shown that multitasking and using email at the office all day leads to fall in IQ larger than if you smoked a joint at work. From that perspective, Adderall isn't an enhancer. It's just a corrective that gets you back to normal.

On torture

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:41:40 -0500

I don't have a whole lot to add to the discussion of the torture memos that doesn't echo what has already been said. Of the two debates currently taking place about the implications of the memos—one about whether preventing another terrorist attack justifies torture and another about whether or not to bring those responsible to justice—I am only really interested in the latter.

To borrow a quote from On Torture, a compilation of essays about torture that I'm currently reading: Ariel Dorfman writes that the moral and practical arguments against torture are myriad, but "I cannot bring myself to use them, for fear of honoring the debate by participating in it." I'm not one to view the world in terms of black and white or refuse to hear opposing viewpoints, but I'm frankly not interested in debating "ticking time bomb" rationales for institutionalized cruelty. I'm with Shep Smith.

As for the second issue, whether to "move forward" or pursue potentially divisive prosecutions, I again borrow from On Torture, this time from an essay by Rebecca Wittmann:

There is a lesson to be learned here about the tendency, in democratic societies, to condemn only the most extreme perpetrators of violence and torture and to turn a blind eye to the system that created them. Why do we accept the message that the US government is horrified by these actions, when we have proof that they were deeply involved? Perhaps the problem lies with our inability to accept our own responsibility for bringing into office people capable of ordering such barbarities...
We desperately want to believe that the laws of our country are being defined, applied, and upheld in a humane and moral way—after all, the laws of a democratic society are supposed to and generally do reflect the will of the people—and we show this through our tacit acceptance of the decisions and pronouncements of our lawmakers.

Ta-Nehisi Coates raises the point that, if Obama isn't willing to press forward with prosecutions, it is at least in part because the people aren't pressing him to press forward. Why not? Is it that we (the people) and they (the potential prosecutors) don't want to accept our own share of the responsibility? Culpability stretches across party lines, after all. Or is it just that we're desensitized to the brutality of what was done? Or that we can dismiss it as an anomaly rather than a systemic failure?

The picture here is bigger than just torture. Again, I return to Wittmann's essay:

The decision to support war will always, ultimately, be a decision to support war crimes. It makes no sense to imagine that torture is only the provenance of a few "bad apples"—it is a fundamental elemnt of war in which "we" attempt to understand, undermine, and eradicate "them." To relegate torture to the margins, to the exceptional, and to the crime of a few sadists is to willfully ignore the nature of war.

Torture is being debated in a vacuum, strangely detached from war itself. As much as I appreciate efforts by the likes of Andrew Sullivan or Christopher Hitchens to expose the brutality of torture now, I have to wonder what they were thinking would happen when they enthusiastically supported the initial invasion of Iraq. Centuries of human history have taught us that whenever a major war is fought, women are raped, children are maimed and killed, civilians are driven from their homes, and people are tortured. Did they really think it would be different this time?

So, to answer the question, yes I think high-level decision makers responsible for torture should be prosecuted. Part of it is a desire for accountability—powerful people all too often have the luxury of "looking forward" while the rest of us have to account for our past actions. But the main reason I want to see justice is to plant a seed of doubt in the head of the next administration that considers "enhanced interrogation" or starting an unnecessary war. We need a vivid reminder that war is not just night-vision explosions and falling statues and good versus evil. Once the first bomb is dropped, war becomes a self-perpetuating maelstrom that stirs up the worst of humanity. Those that unleash it had better have a damn good reason for doing so.

Cross-posted at TMV.

Tea bagging

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:01:18 -0500

Here's why I can't take these "tea party" protests seriously: In an op-ed in the WSJ, Glen Reynolds' first sentence declares that thousands of taxpayers are taking to the streets "to protest higher taxes and out-of-control government spending." If government spending is your pet peeve, then fine, protest the Obama administration's spending projects, but please try to offer an alternative, reasonable way to stimulate the economy.

But to protest taxes after one of the biggest tax cuts in American history? Come on. Most of the protesters at these tea bagging parties are paying lower taxes thanks to the Obama administration's stimulus package. Obama's tax cut was larger than cuts passed under Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. This would be like anti-war protesters protesting troop withdrawals, or PETA protesting against endangered species protections. It doesn't make sense.

And to top it all off, participants like Glen Reynolds are trying to portray it as a mass uprising against the socialists of the Obama administration. But public polling paints a very different picture. Public polling shows that most Americans—71%—approve of the way Obama is handling the economy. Public polling shows more Americans are okay with the amount of taxes they are paying than any point since 1956.

The problem is, many of the people protesting today don't have any idea what they're really mad about, or if they do, they aren't conveying the message with clarity. It's like Glen Beck pouring gasoline over an "average American" to express his disgust with Obama's immigration plans—it's over-the-top and the intended symbolism only gets through to the handful of individuals who already agree with him.

It's just undirected anger, that was conspicuously absent when the Bush administration was running up deficits, bailing out Wall Street, and pouring billions into an unnecessary war.

Octopus blogging

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:12:09 -0500

I'm not entirely sure what's going on in this video. It starts out with an octopus messing around with a wrench and another unidentifiable tool, presumably to build some sort of weapon or vehicle that would allow it to live outside of the ocean and enslave the human race. It's clear that we have a proliferation problem to address if octopi are now working with man-made tools. In this case, a cuttlefish interrupts the octopus' work before it can finish.

A rose by any other name...

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:34:52 -0500

A Republican legislator in Texas, Betty Brown, is refusing to back down after suggesting Asian-descent voters should adopt names that are "easier for Americans to deal with" during House testimony on voter identification legislation. Specifically, she said:

"Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese -- I understand it's a rather difficult language -- do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?"
"Can't you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that's easier for Americans to deal with?"

Sure, having a hard-to-pronounce, polysyllabic name can be a little difficult sometimes. You'll hear hundreds of variations, many of them not even remotely close to the real pronunciation, as people try to sound it out. I've been called Elvis, Eylas, Elias, Elsa, Eljar, and so on—and that's not even counting the butchering of my last name. I probably lose 10% of my productivity at work just because of the amount of time I spend spelling my name to people over the phone in a given week.

But how boring would the world be if we were all Betty Browns and Joe Smiths? Betty Brown sounds like an alter-ego Stan Lee dreamed up in some second-rate comic book. But that's not fair, really. I shouldn't disrespect Betty Brown's name anymore than she should be disrespecting other people's names. A name is a symbol of a person, it represents a personality and shapes it at the same time. Your name isn't the sum of who you are, but it represents who you are to the outside world and affects how others interact with you, which changes who you are over time.

One of the subtle qualities I've always admired about Barack Obama is that he didn't try to earn respect by placating people who were uncomfortable with his name. Through his actions he gave them no choice but to learn to pronounce it. I'm sure he was advised, when he began considering a career in politics, to go by Barry as he had in his younger days. But President Barry Obama wouldn't be the same man as President Barack Obama. I honestly don't even think Barry Obama would have made it this far. That man would just seem less bold, less decisive, and quite frankly, less inspiring, than the current occupant of the White House.

This isn't about Betty Brown, really. There will always be Betty Browns—not just in Texas, but pretty much anywhere you go in the world. And there are valid reasons for people to change their names. Immigrants do it all the time to better assimilate into a new country. But that's a deeply personal choice and shouldn't be made because a Texas legislator is having trouble pronouncing it.

Change

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:53:20 -0500

Is it just me, or are those lines starting to come together?

Stewart v Cramer

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:24:20 -0500

The videos are available here. It was, and I don't think I'm being too hyperbolic here, an historic moment of television. Stewart channeled the frustration a lot of Americans are feeling toward the financial system these days and absolutely tore into Jim Cramer. But it wasn't really about Jim Cramer. It was about the dishonesty of our two-tiered financial system and CNBC's abysmal excuse for financial journalism.

James Fallows calls Stewart an Edward R. Murrow. This is how journalists are supposed to hold interviewees' feet to the fire, especially authority figures—and it's depressing that our best example comes from someone who considers himself first and foremost a comedian.

Cramer might actually get a second wind if he takes Stewart's advice and remodels himself as a speak-truth-to-power type of financial journalist. CNBC may be too big to take down or change—they've got the weight of GE behind them—but the interview is generating a whole lot of buzz, so who knows?

Polling Obama's speech

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:12:00 -0500

So far, the reactions to Obama's speech last night have been very, very positive. Unlike the post-debate snap polls, where pundits saw a weak performance but the public rated Obama highly, everyone seems to agree that Obama was at the top of his game.

Some numbers:

63% approved of President Obama's plans for dealing with the economic crisis before the speech; 80% approved after, according to a CBS poll.

A CNN poll found that 68% of speech-watchers had a "very positive" reaction, 24% had a "somewhat positive" reaction, and only 8% said they had a negative reaction.

In a Democracy Corps focus group, 68% of independent and mildly-partisan voters came into the speech approving of Obama's job performance. After the speech, these already high marks moved to 82%.

Marc Blumenthal has some additional data and focus group results. In almost each case, support went up with both Democrats and Republicans. There's been a lot of speculation that the honeymoon is ending with Republicans, but it seems Obama's speeches are the key to his bipartisan support.

The Jindal hype

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:31:04 -0500

I don't buy it. Stylistically, he sounds like he's reading a book to a room full of kindergartners. As for substance, he's battling strawmen. Complaining about higher taxes after one of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history? That's it? And he's supposed to be the great hope for the GOP?

Pomegranates for poppies

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:12:00 -0500

Wil Robinson has an interesting report on a new effort to convince Afghan farmers to switch from growing opium poppies to pomegranates to export to world markets. The man spearheading the effort thinks that, not only does Afghanistan produce "best pomegranates in the world," but sales of pomegranates on the global market could outstrip the value to Afghanistan of the opium industry.

Robinson sees problems, however:

First we must put aside the obvious economics behind supply and demand, principles of free trade, and international competition that would drive pomegranate prices down should a massive influx on world markets take place. There is also the fact that the trees only produce one crop a year (poppies produce two). But more importantly, pomegranate trees take 4-5 years to mature before you can harvest anything. That's a long-term investment in the future.

If pomegranate farming could provide Afghanistan with a sustainable, long-term prospect for economic growth, then it may not be a bad plan. But a vast drug network doesn't go down without a fight. The model will never fully develop unless there is some economic assistance in the short term to provide the basic infrastructure the country needs, as well as a developed security apparatus to protect farmers against the inevitable backlash.

Rebuilding Afghanistan. For real this time.

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:58:43 -0500

I hope Pelosi is serious about the commitment to rebuild Afghanistan. So far we've heard a lot about the supposed "surge" of troops Obama is planning, but very little about plans to actually rebuild the country. But improving security is next to impossible if the infrastructure is in shambles and the Afghan people don't have the basic necessities to put their country back together. On the flip side, pouring aid dollars into Afghanistan does little good if the Taliban sticks around to blow up schools and other civilian necessities.

I'm not opposed to sending more troops as long as it is accompanied by political and economic solutions. Will that happen? Count me as skeptical but optimistic. It has been promised many times before.

Quote of the Day

Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:21:01 -0500

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

- Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), talking about the Republican party's insurgent-like opposition to the Obama administration's stimulus proposal.

This will not end well

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:06:56 -0500

How many times do sentient killer robots have to turn against and enslave the human race in science fiction books and films before we realize that building killer sentient robots is generally not a good idea? The guy quoted in this article thinks half the U.S. military will be "half machine, half human" by 2015. Haven't the people working on this technology watched The Matrix? Terminator? I, Robot?

"We are at a point of revolution in war, like the invention of the atomic bomb," Singer said. "What does it mean to go to war with US soldiers whose hardware is made in China and whose software is made in India?"
Robotics designer David Hanson offered hope when it comes to making robots a little more human. Hanson builds robots that have synthetic flesh faces and read people's expressions in order to copy expressions.

"The goal here is not just to achieve sentience, but empathy," Hanson said. "As machines are more capable of killing, implanting empathy could be the seeds of hope for our future."

On a more serious note, there's something disturbing about going to war with robots. Yes, it can reduce casualties, but the technology is going to very one-sided for a very long time. Rich nations will spare their sons and daughters the horrors of war while the poor fight against each other and killer machines. Except when it's done remotely it seems more like slaughtering than fighting.