"Support", as in the support that the administration is concerned about when it slips, is the support of people in other countries, and not the American people.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
Fog
What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? We are the strongest nation in the world today. I do not believe we should ever apply that economic, political, or military power unilaterally. If we had followed that rule in Vietnam, we wouldn't have been there! None of our allies supported us; not Japan, not Germany, not Britain or France. If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning.
It looks like it's time to reexamine our reasoning.
Indict him
I'm a bit surprised that I haven't seen anyone talking about referring Bashar Assad (or whoever else people might think is responsible for the recent chemical weapons attack) to the International Criminal Court.
Because of its dysfunctional domestic politics, the U.S. has never ratified the Rome Statute that created the ICC, but America has cooperated with the court in the past (e.g. the Darfur case). Obama only pledged to "change [his] calculus" if Syria used chemical weapons. He didn't promise to bomb Syria (even though that seems to be what everyone assumed he meant). Sure, the GOP would flip its lid because they hate the ICC for their usual paranoid anti-world government reasons. But let's face it, the GOP has been continuously flipping its lid for a while now. One more flip wouldn't make that much of a difference.They're already screaming that the president is an anti-American socialist incompetent criminal who should be impeached. Frankly, there's not much more they can scream if Obama does something else they find offensive. If anything, another lid flipping will just further demonstrate how ineffective a strategy taking every issue to 11 is.
Meanwhile, I'm really surprised that the ICC wasn't floated as an option in yesterday's parliamentary debate in Britain. The UK has ratified the Rome Statute and thus is a full participating member state in the court.
I am still a little skeptical that there is real proof that Assad ordered the attack, although admittedly less so now that the U.S. claims it has intercepted communications proving it came from his regime. But if they have the goods on him, present the evidence in court. Isn't this just what the Court was created to do? The ICC would have jurisdiction if the UN Security Council referred the case to the ICC. There's no reason that the "something" in "we must do something" has to be a military strike.
Because of its dysfunctional domestic politics, the U.S. has never ratified the Rome Statute that created the ICC, but America has cooperated with the court in the past (e.g. the Darfur case). Obama only pledged to "change [his] calculus" if Syria used chemical weapons. He didn't promise to bomb Syria (even though that seems to be what everyone assumed he meant). Sure, the GOP would flip its lid because they hate the ICC for their usual paranoid anti-world government reasons. But let's face it, the GOP has been continuously flipping its lid for a while now. One more flip wouldn't make that much of a difference.They're already screaming that the president is an anti-American socialist incompetent criminal who should be impeached. Frankly, there's not much more they can scream if Obama does something else they find offensive. If anything, another lid flipping will just further demonstrate how ineffective a strategy taking every issue to 11 is.
Meanwhile, I'm really surprised that the ICC wasn't floated as an option in yesterday's parliamentary debate in Britain. The UK has ratified the Rome Statute and thus is a full participating member state in the court.
I am still a little skeptical that there is real proof that Assad ordered the attack, although admittedly less so now that the U.S. claims it has intercepted communications proving it came from his regime. But if they have the goods on him, present the evidence in court. Isn't this just what the Court was created to do? The ICC would have jurisdiction if the UN Security Council referred the case to the ICC. There's no reason that the "something" in "we must do something" has to be a military strike.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Here we go again
By an overwhelming margin, the American public does not want the U.S. to take military action in Syria. The British public is also opposed. So is the Arab League. So is the Arab public.
Who is for a U.S. strike? A bunch of people who were totally wrong about Iraq.
Which means it is going to happen.
Who is for a U.S. strike? A bunch of people who were totally wrong about Iraq.
Which means it is going to happen.
Credibility
That's all that this is really about. The administration feels that it is boxed in because:
It's not about actually stopping any chemical weapons use (except maybe under a vague deterrence theory that if the U.S. does not act, Assad and others will feel empowered to use chemical weapons in the future. Never mind that an ineffective attack, which is what we are probably looking at, would too.).
It's not about "protecting civilians" because bombing a foreign country will result in more civilian deaths, not less.
It's not even about overthrowing Assad.
It's about killing people to avoid embarrassment.
ADDING: what Atrios just posted.
- Obama called the use of chemical weapons in Syria a "red line" that cannot be crossed without "changing [the President's] calculus' which was widely interpreted as a threat to use military force.
- The administration has now publicly stated that the chemical weapon attack last week was perpetrated by the Assad regime.
It's not about actually stopping any chemical weapons use (except maybe under a vague deterrence theory that if the U.S. does not act, Assad and others will feel empowered to use chemical weapons in the future. Never mind that an ineffective attack, which is what we are probably looking at, would too.).
It's not about "protecting civilians" because bombing a foreign country will result in more civilian deaths, not less.
It's not even about overthrowing Assad.
It's about killing people to avoid embarrassment.
ADDING: what Atrios just posted.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Firewall blues
Apparently the WaPo paywall applies to the blogs it hosts. I hit my 20 article monthly allotment this week on this computer (but not on the other computers I use, nor my iPad or iPhone). The paywall is easy to get around. I can just copy the url of the article I want to read and paste it into another browser. Or I can open feedly and read it via the site's RSS feed. Hidemyass.com also works, which means other free proxy sites probably do too. (I am loyal to HMA for its help evading the not-so-great-firewall-of-Kazakhstan) None of those workarounds are that hard, but they are enough of a pain in the ass that I am thinking twice before I click on the Plum Line or Wonkblog (listed as "Ezra Klein" on my blogroll) these days. Which means I visit them less often.
What I haven't considered is paying the Washington Post for access. I mean, why should I? I have a bunch of free workarounds! Also, I already pay for the NYT and I don't want to pay for two newspaper subscriptions. And if I was willing to pay for a second one, I don't think that the WaPa would be it.
I understand why newspapers are putting up paywalls. And if they are going to paywall their site, I do think that a leaky paywall is the way to go. So I'm not really anti-the WaPo paywall. Maybe it's the one that will work for that publication. I'm just noting that despite all my understanding and lack of hostility to the idea, I just don't think it's working on me and I wonder how typical people like me are.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Obscene
Well that's embarrassing, especially today.
(As for Syria, I'm still with Booman on this one.)
(first link via Memeorandum)
(As for Syria, I'm still with Booman on this one.)
(first link via Memeorandum)
Anti-democratic with a small "d"
I'm fascinated by some of the arguments Republicans have been making to justify amending the voting laws to make it harder to vote. For a while, they were basically make an anti-fraud argument. But once they started imposing restrictions beyond voter ID, that argument couldn't be used to explain all of the changes. How would reducing the amount of time that the polls are open stop identity fraud?
The new argument seems to be: we're not trying to disenfranchise black people, we are trying to disenfranchise democrats. That's actually the State of Texas' official position in their federal lawsuit, and Phyllis Schlafly made essentially the same argument to justify the recently passed North Carolina law. Because the Voting Rights Act only prohibits race-based discrimination, it makes some sense in the legal context. But outside of that context, how is that possibly justified? When the party in power changes the law to make it harder for its political opponents to vote, that's banana republic territory. Sure, it might not be racial discrimination, but it does suggest a hostility to democracy and the fear that the powers that be don't believe they can win a fair election where everyone votes.
The new argument seems to be: we're not trying to disenfranchise black people, we are trying to disenfranchise democrats. That's actually the State of Texas' official position in their federal lawsuit, and Phyllis Schlafly made essentially the same argument to justify the recently passed North Carolina law. Because the Voting Rights Act only prohibits race-based discrimination, it makes some sense in the legal context. But outside of that context, how is that possibly justified? When the party in power changes the law to make it harder for its political opponents to vote, that's banana republic territory. Sure, it might not be racial discrimination, but it does suggest a hostility to democracy and the fear that the powers that be don't believe they can win a fair election where everyone votes.
The Do Something Caucus
What Booman said.
That's basically what I was trying to say the other day. Even if we could prove that the chemical attack came from Assad, that doesn't mean that doing something would be better than doing nothing.
...I guess there's the argument that if we do nothing after a confirmed chemical weapons attack against civilians, that would embolden every other awful leader with chemical weapons to think they can get away with using them in the future. But all of the likely scenarios for American intervention that I can see will make the situation there worse, not better. So what kind of precedent would a disastrous intervention be for future would-be chemical gassers? Would a Syrian mess really be a deterrent? I'm not sure if would work on that level either.
That's basically what I was trying to say the other day. Even if we could prove that the chemical attack came from Assad, that doesn't mean that doing something would be better than doing nothing.
...I guess there's the argument that if we do nothing after a confirmed chemical weapons attack against civilians, that would embolden every other awful leader with chemical weapons to think they can get away with using them in the future. But all of the likely scenarios for American intervention that I can see will make the situation there worse, not better. So what kind of precedent would a disastrous intervention be for future would-be chemical gassers? Would a Syrian mess really be a deterrent? I'm not sure if would work on that level either.
Pinning the blame
This makes no sense:
I also don't know what to make of "other facts gathered by open sources" so maybe the unnamed official could let us know. But I bet if they had a smoking gun, we would be hearing about that smoking gun. The fact that they are being vague, sounds like it's just a bullshit catchall when they really don't have much else.
The official, in a written statement, said that “based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts and other facts gathered by open sources, the U.S. intelligence community, and international partners, there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident.”The number of victims and their symptoms cannot tell you who is responsible for an attack. Witness accounts might, but there haven't been any witness accounts in the news other than statements by rebel forces who (obviously) have a clear interest in having the blame go to the Assad regime rather than to the rebels themselves. Maybe there are other witness accounts, but those accounts have not been reported. So lets see them before the Obama administration goes off and does something rash.
I also don't know what to make of "other facts gathered by open sources" so maybe the unnamed official could let us know. But I bet if they had a smoking gun, we would be hearing about that smoking gun. The fact that they are being vague, sounds like it's just a bullshit catchall when they really don't have much else.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Nothing is better than a bad something
Just don't do it.
I have two main objections to intervention. First, we don't know which side is responsible for the chemical weapon attack, we will probably never know, and the rebels have every reason to do it themselves and then blame the Assad regime.
Second, there is no reason to think that an armed American response is going to make things any better in the country and there is a high risk that it will make things worse.
I know that chemical weapon attacks on civilians are horrible, It's totally understandable that people would hear about this and think "we must do something." But the "something" has got to be something that will likely make the situation better. It's better to do nothing than something that makes Syria more of a mess.
I have two main objections to intervention. First, we don't know which side is responsible for the chemical weapon attack, we will probably never know, and the rebels have every reason to do it themselves and then blame the Assad regime.
Second, there is no reason to think that an armed American response is going to make things any better in the country and there is a high risk that it will make things worse.
I know that chemical weapon attacks on civilians are horrible, It's totally understandable that people would hear about this and think "we must do something." But the "something" has got to be something that will likely make the situation better. It's better to do nothing than something that makes Syria more of a mess.
Bat 2013
This story won't make as much sense unless you remember our experience with the bat wars of ought-nine. Go here and here and here and here to get the background (optional background reading: here, although that one is about flying squirrel infestation that occurred roughly 3 weeks after we finally got rid of all 72 bats that were living in our house. While technically that was a separate conflict, in our heads it is all wrapped up in our minds as part of the same traumatic series of incidents)
So anyway, last night Mrs. Noz and Noz Jr. were both asleep and I was sitting in bed streaming a movie to my ipad. At about 11:30, I had to pee. So I got up and walked across our hallway to the bathroom. I didn't bother turning on any lights. It's my house, I know the way. On the way back, I felt this weird blast of air on my upper chest/lower neck. At first, I thought that maybe a stream of air conditioned air was shooting out of a crack in Noz Jr's door (I happened to be right in front of that door when I felt it). But I took a step back, and could not replicate the feeling. It didn't really make sense, but I wanted to get back to my movie before it got too late for me to finish. And so I went back to bed and started streaming again.
But as I watched that mysterious air current was really bugging me. What was it? I started thinking that maybe it was a critter. Once that idea got in my head, I couldn't concentrate on the film. So I stopped the video, opened the door to my bedroom and flicked on the hall light. A bat flew right at me. I hit the light off, jumped back in my room, closed the door, and woke up Mrs. Noz.
Why I turned off the hall light I'm not sure. Because we quickly realized that we needed to light up the house to find the bat and get it out. We grabbed things that we could use to whack the bat, and then crept out into the hallway together and flicked on the light.
There was nothing there. Mr. Noz stayed watch on the second floor, as I crept up to the stairs and slowly walked down. There it was, fluttering wildly around our first floor, back and forth across the bottom of the stairs. I dashed across it's path and opened the front door, hoping that it would just fly out. The mechanism to lock the screen door in the open position wasn't working, so I had to stay by the door and hold the screen open with my hand. As the bat kept diving at me, I was too scared to look at it. I just concentrated on keeping the door open.
Then it was gone. Mrs. Noz was still on the second floor so she didn't see whether it went out the door. And I had my head down and didn't see either. Eventually, we both calmed down. We knew it hadn't flown up to the second floor (Mrs. Noz would have seen it if it did). So I turned on all the lights and did a walk through of the first floor. I didn't see it anywhere. So we guessed that it had flown out of the house when I wasn't looking.
I closed up the door, turned off all the lights, we both went back to our bedroom, and closed the door. The adrenaline wore off and we started talking about how we hoped this was just a single bat invasion and not the first sign of another infestation.
Then we heard a sound in the hallway. Why had I turned off all the lights? I went back out, turning on lights as I went and found it flying back and forth on the first floor again. This time Mr. Noz held the door open and I stood on the stairs and swatted at it if it tried to fly to the second floor. We weren't getting anywhere. The bat kept flying past the open door without trying to leave. So we decided to do what worked on our first bat incident, we called campus security.
Bad idea. Only one security guard showed up (last time it was two) and he was more scared of the bat than we were. We spent about an hour and a half with him in which he talked about how nice it would be if we had a net, left for about 20 minutes to look for a net, knocking over our curtains, threw Noz Jr's nerf football at the bat as it hung on our window sill, and missed. At one point the guard tried to trap it in a box, but instead, that just got it started on another series of dives at us as we cowered, held the door open, and hoped it would notice the way out. It didn't. It landed instead on another window sill and hung there for a while. When Mrs. Noz mentioned that a neighbor called animal control when they had a bat last year, the guard gave us the number for the local police. However, he told us that the police would not help if they saw the campus security vehicle in front of our house. So the plan was that we would call the police, he would leave, he would loop back and pretend to happen upon the police at our house after they arrived, and then he would offer to assist. Whatever, the dude was useless. I was anxious to get someone who could really help.
As we discussed how it would go (the bat folded up and hanging quietly above our living room window), I heard "daddy?" I looked up, and Noz Jr. was looking down at me from the second floor hall. Mrs. Noz went upstairs, took him, and barricaded themselves into our bedroom, I called the police, and the campus security guy left. Then I was alone with the bat. Just staring at it as it hung there and I waited for the police to arrive. It was about 2am. It probably took about 5 minutes before police car arrived, but it seemed like much longer. During those five minutes I was utterly terrified. It wasn't because I thought the bat would hurt me. It's like when you're watching a movie, expecting someone to jump out on the screen. You know it's going to happen, you know when it does it will startle you, and you know that you are in no danger of actually being hurt. And yet there is still all this tension in the air. It was like that. I stared at the bat hanging by the window, hoping that the cops arrived before launched itself into flight and startled me.
And she did arrive before that happened. It was a single policewoman, barely five feet tall. She was utterly fearless. I felt like a total wuss explaining why we called the police for something as stupid as a bat in the house. She asked for a towel, but took a blanket instead. Then she walked over to the bat, covered it with the blanket, wrapped it up, took it outside, and let it go. I closed the door and all the windows. And it was over. Just like that. I was exhausted. It was almost three hours after it started. All over a stupid bat.
Noz Jr. was so excited. Not because of the bat, but because a real police car came to our house (he was watching upstairs from the window). He wanted us to call the fire department next. He was also completely wide awake. None of us got to sleep until about 4:30.
Now the question is: was this just a run of the mill bat wandering into our house, or is it the first sign of another infestation? If 2009 had not happened, this would not have been that big of a deal, just one bad night where we proved completely unable to remove a single harmless bat from our house before getting help from someone who could. But 2009 did happen. So now what?
So anyway, last night Mrs. Noz and Noz Jr. were both asleep and I was sitting in bed streaming a movie to my ipad. At about 11:30, I had to pee. So I got up and walked across our hallway to the bathroom. I didn't bother turning on any lights. It's my house, I know the way. On the way back, I felt this weird blast of air on my upper chest/lower neck. At first, I thought that maybe a stream of air conditioned air was shooting out of a crack in Noz Jr's door (I happened to be right in front of that door when I felt it). But I took a step back, and could not replicate the feeling. It didn't really make sense, but I wanted to get back to my movie before it got too late for me to finish. And so I went back to bed and started streaming again.
But as I watched that mysterious air current was really bugging me. What was it? I started thinking that maybe it was a critter. Once that idea got in my head, I couldn't concentrate on the film. So I stopped the video, opened the door to my bedroom and flicked on the hall light. A bat flew right at me. I hit the light off, jumped back in my room, closed the door, and woke up Mrs. Noz.
Why I turned off the hall light I'm not sure. Because we quickly realized that we needed to light up the house to find the bat and get it out. We grabbed things that we could use to whack the bat, and then crept out into the hallway together and flicked on the light.
There was nothing there. Mr. Noz stayed watch on the second floor, as I crept up to the stairs and slowly walked down. There it was, fluttering wildly around our first floor, back and forth across the bottom of the stairs. I dashed across it's path and opened the front door, hoping that it would just fly out. The mechanism to lock the screen door in the open position wasn't working, so I had to stay by the door and hold the screen open with my hand. As the bat kept diving at me, I was too scared to look at it. I just concentrated on keeping the door open.
Then it was gone. Mrs. Noz was still on the second floor so she didn't see whether it went out the door. And I had my head down and didn't see either. Eventually, we both calmed down. We knew it hadn't flown up to the second floor (Mrs. Noz would have seen it if it did). So I turned on all the lights and did a walk through of the first floor. I didn't see it anywhere. So we guessed that it had flown out of the house when I wasn't looking.
I closed up the door, turned off all the lights, we both went back to our bedroom, and closed the door. The adrenaline wore off and we started talking about how we hoped this was just a single bat invasion and not the first sign of another infestation.
Then we heard a sound in the hallway. Why had I turned off all the lights? I went back out, turning on lights as I went and found it flying back and forth on the first floor again. This time Mr. Noz held the door open and I stood on the stairs and swatted at it if it tried to fly to the second floor. We weren't getting anywhere. The bat kept flying past the open door without trying to leave. So we decided to do what worked on our first bat incident, we called campus security.
Bad idea. Only one security guard showed up (last time it was two) and he was more scared of the bat than we were. We spent about an hour and a half with him in which he talked about how nice it would be if we had a net, left for about 20 minutes to look for a net, knocking over our curtains, threw Noz Jr's nerf football at the bat as it hung on our window sill, and missed. At one point the guard tried to trap it in a box, but instead, that just got it started on another series of dives at us as we cowered, held the door open, and hoped it would notice the way out. It didn't. It landed instead on another window sill and hung there for a while. When Mrs. Noz mentioned that a neighbor called animal control when they had a bat last year, the guard gave us the number for the local police. However, he told us that the police would not help if they saw the campus security vehicle in front of our house. So the plan was that we would call the police, he would leave, he would loop back and pretend to happen upon the police at our house after they arrived, and then he would offer to assist. Whatever, the dude was useless. I was anxious to get someone who could really help.
As we discussed how it would go (the bat folded up and hanging quietly above our living room window), I heard "daddy?" I looked up, and Noz Jr. was looking down at me from the second floor hall. Mrs. Noz went upstairs, took him, and barricaded themselves into our bedroom, I called the police, and the campus security guy left. Then I was alone with the bat. Just staring at it as it hung there and I waited for the police to arrive. It was about 2am. It probably took about 5 minutes before police car arrived, but it seemed like much longer. During those five minutes I was utterly terrified. It wasn't because I thought the bat would hurt me. It's like when you're watching a movie, expecting someone to jump out on the screen. You know it's going to happen, you know when it does it will startle you, and you know that you are in no danger of actually being hurt. And yet there is still all this tension in the air. It was like that. I stared at the bat hanging by the window, hoping that the cops arrived before launched itself into flight and startled me.
And she did arrive before that happened. It was a single policewoman, barely five feet tall. She was utterly fearless. I felt like a total wuss explaining why we called the police for something as stupid as a bat in the house. She asked for a towel, but took a blanket instead. Then she walked over to the bat, covered it with the blanket, wrapped it up, took it outside, and let it go. I closed the door and all the windows. And it was over. Just like that. I was exhausted. It was almost three hours after it started. All over a stupid bat.
Noz Jr. was so excited. Not because of the bat, but because a real police car came to our house (he was watching upstairs from the window). He wanted us to call the fire department next. He was also completely wide awake. None of us got to sleep until about 4:30.
Now the question is: was this just a run of the mill bat wandering into our house, or is it the first sign of another infestation? If 2009 had not happened, this would not have been that big of a deal, just one bad night where we proved completely unable to remove a single harmless bat from our house before getting help from someone who could. But 2009 did happen. So now what?
Friday, August 23, 2013
Bad Boehner Poll
Yeah but what is Boehner's popularity in his home district? That's really all that matters. John Boehner represents his district, not the whole state and only the people in his district can vote him out of office. In that sense, Boehner's popularity in the parts of his home state that are not his district is just as relevant as his popularity in Massachusetts. If you're not surveying his constituents, you're not surveying his constituents. So who cares if they happen to be from the same state as the speaker?
(Okay, I realize that unlike a poll of Boehner's popularity in MA, a poll of OH would include some of his constituents. But unless the polling firm tells us how his numbers stack up just in his home district, it's not going to tell us anything useful.)
(Okay, I realize that unlike a poll of Boehner's popularity in MA, a poll of OH would include some of his constituents. But unless the polling firm tells us how his numbers stack up just in his home district, it's not going to tell us anything useful.)
34 years of protests
This map is mesmerizing.
Does anyone know what that blinking light in Siberia (just North of Mongolia) is? It blinks consistently over the entire 34 years.
(Also does anyone know how to grab the embed code for the map? Some FP links require a FP account, which is free, but annoying for someone who doesn't have an account and wants to click on the above link. So I'm not sure how hard it is for some of my readers to see what I'm talking about)
Does anyone know what that blinking light in Siberia (just North of Mongolia) is? It blinks consistently over the entire 34 years.
(Also does anyone know how to grab the embed code for the map? Some FP links require a FP account, which is free, but annoying for someone who doesn't have an account and wants to click on the above link. So I'm not sure how hard it is for some of my readers to see what I'm talking about)
Erik Erickson is Four and a-Half
I once mentioned to Noz Jr. that sometimes people who are boys go to a doctor and change into girls and vice-versa. Noz Jr. thought the idea was hilarious. He's still getting used to the idea that the people in the world are divided into male and female and as far as he thought everyone fell into one category or the other without any crossover. The notion of trans people transgressed the rule he had learned, which made the whole idea seem silly. So he laughed. He's almost four and a half years old.
I'm sure it won't always seem silly to him. Maybe he has forgotten our earlier conversation and whenever it comes up again it will seem silly again. Or maybe he will remember. Regardless, eventually he will get used to the idea, his world will get a little bigger and more complex, and it won't be funny anymore.
That's called growing up.
I'm sure it won't always seem silly to him. Maybe he has forgotten our earlier conversation and whenever it comes up again it will seem silly again. Or maybe he will remember. Regardless, eventually he will get used to the idea, his world will get a little bigger and more complex, and it won't be funny anymore.
That's called growing up.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Whodunnit
As I said before, any accusation that someone used chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war is going to hard to verify. I'm sure the white coats can verify that chemical weapons were used, but who is responsible for the attack is going to be pretty hard to prove.
And so you have hundreds of people dead, with suggestions that they died in a chemical attack. Syrian rebels claim that the Assad regime did it, and the regime denies it and suggests that any attack came from the rebels. Countries that already sided with the rebels are inclined to believe the rebels, and countries that back Assad are inclined to believe him. How is the rest of the world ever going to figure it out? I doubt it ever will. But people will still see what they want to see.
The pro-Assad side does have one point: It was a pretty senseless attack (with no real military value to anyone), and came on the same day that the Assad regime allowed a U.N. team to arrive in Syria to investigate a prior chemical weapons use allegation. From where I sit, it looks like the Syrian rebels, desperate for international aid and trying very hard to show the world what a monster Assad is, have more of an incentive to wage an attack like this than Assad. If the Syrian government is behind this latest attack, it would be an incredibly stupid move. Then again, it's not exactly unheard of for a political leader under fire (literally or figuratively) to make a stupid move.
And so you have hundreds of people dead, with suggestions that they died in a chemical attack. Syrian rebels claim that the Assad regime did it, and the regime denies it and suggests that any attack came from the rebels. Countries that already sided with the rebels are inclined to believe the rebels, and countries that back Assad are inclined to believe him. How is the rest of the world ever going to figure it out? I doubt it ever will. But people will still see what they want to see.
The pro-Assad side does have one point: It was a pretty senseless attack (with no real military value to anyone), and came on the same day that the Assad regime allowed a U.N. team to arrive in Syria to investigate a prior chemical weapons use allegation. From where I sit, it looks like the Syrian rebels, desperate for international aid and trying very hard to show the world what a monster Assad is, have more of an incentive to wage an attack like this than Assad. If the Syrian government is behind this latest attack, it would be an incredibly stupid move. Then again, it's not exactly unheard of for a political leader under fire (literally or figuratively) to make a stupid move.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Monday, August 19, 2013
al-Jazeera America
Sorry Ms. Beale, I'm skeptical of the new al-Jazeera America channel. Not because it's al-Jazeera. The company has it's problems (especially recently), but it's not the terrorism-loving news outlets that American conservatives assume it to be. I actually think that al-Jazeera English is a solid news channel, better than all three of the American 24 hour news channels.1 Americans speak English, there already is an English language al-Jazeera channel serving the entire English speaking world, why do we need an American-specific channel?
What I suspect is that they will dumb it down for the American audience. That's what CNN does. CNN International is much better than American CNN. But the only time I can watch CNN International is when I'm outside the country because CNN America is what is offered here. It's not just CNN that sells a dumbed down version of their international news operation to the American public. Other news outlets do the same thing. That seems to be the point to having an American edition as opposed to a global English language edition.
If al-Jazeera was really intent to bring the same level of quality as al-Jazeera English to the U.S., it would just bring al-Jazeera English to the U.S. instead of creating a new U.S.-only channel.
I realize that al-J English has not been very successful in getting picked up by American cable companies. But I don't see why al-J America is going to have any better luck. Which is why I suspect, like all the international news companies, al-Jazeera's marketing department has come to the conclusion that Americans need a dumber more sensationalist version of the channel, even if they are trying to market themselves as the opposite. If they really meant it, they wouldn't need to create a new channel. Just stick with a-Jazeera English.
--------------------------
1- Okay longtime Rubber Hose readers (yes, both of you) will recall that I originally predicted that al-Jazeera English would fail. What can I say, I was totally wrong. But you two will also recall that I already copped to that a couple of years ago. And none of that changes my point that having an al-Jazeera America is dumb when it already has an al-Jazeera English.
What I suspect is that they will dumb it down for the American audience. That's what CNN does. CNN International is much better than American CNN. But the only time I can watch CNN International is when I'm outside the country because CNN America is what is offered here. It's not just CNN that sells a dumbed down version of their international news operation to the American public. Other news outlets do the same thing. That seems to be the point to having an American edition as opposed to a global English language edition.
If al-Jazeera was really intent to bring the same level of quality as al-Jazeera English to the U.S., it would just bring al-Jazeera English to the U.S. instead of creating a new U.S.-only channel.
I realize that al-J English has not been very successful in getting picked up by American cable companies. But I don't see why al-J America is going to have any better luck. Which is why I suspect, like all the international news companies, al-Jazeera's marketing department has come to the conclusion that Americans need a dumber more sensationalist version of the channel, even if they are trying to market themselves as the opposite. If they really meant it, they wouldn't need to create a new channel. Just stick with a-Jazeera English.
--------------------------
1- Okay longtime Rubber Hose readers (yes, both of you) will recall that I originally predicted that al-Jazeera English would fail. What can I say, I was totally wrong. But you two will also recall that I already copped to that a couple of years ago. And none of that changes my point that having an al-Jazeera America is dumb when it already has an al-Jazeera English.
eBooks
I'm always reading a book but I sometimes feel like I'm one of the last active book readers who hasn't switched to electronic format. It's not that I'm a Luddite, and I see the advantages of electronic books--those advantages are hard to ignore, people are talking about them all the time. What I find strange is that few people talk about their disadvantages. Here's my list in no particular order:
I'm not trying to criticize anyone else's decision to switch to ebooks. And I do recognize the advantages of the electronic format (less weight to haul around, the ability to buy books instantly, a built-in reading light, etc) I just wish the issue was presented as more of a cost-benefit analysis than "ebooks are awesome for all these reasons!"
- Ebook readers chain you to a particular book vendor. If you have a Kindle, you can only buy books through Amazon. If you have a Nook, you are stuck with Barnes and Noble. That means you can't shop around for books (not a big deal right now when ebooks are comparatively cheap, but it might be later when they completely kill physical books and ebook sellers can take more advantage of their monopolistic powers), and the fate of your book collection is tied to a particular company (if BN goes under, for example). You can mitigate this problem a little bit by using the Kindle or Nook app on an ipad or android tablet, but it's still a problem.
- Ebook readers can't get wet. Forget about reading in a bath tub or bringing a book on a boat trip.
- You don't really own ebooks. When you "buy" an ebook, you are really just purchasing a license to use the code for a while. The books you think you own can be taken away from you under the contract you accepted at one point but haven't read and probably don't know the terms. So stuff like this and this can happen.
- Ebook readers need to be charged. I spend so much fucking time swapping various devices in and out of their charging cables. I just don't want another device with a battery that I have to pay attention to.
- If you buy a book as an ebook, you lose access to the secondary market. That is, you can't buy it used, or sell it when you're done with it. For that matter the potential resale value of your books means that physical books are necessarily that much more expensive than the ebook version.
- You can't get an ebook autographed by the author.
- You can't really give ebooks as a gift. I mean, you can. It just seems really lame. Giving someone an ebooks feels like you're not really giving them a gift. That may change eventually. But right now that's how it is.
I'm not trying to criticize anyone else's decision to switch to ebooks. And I do recognize the advantages of the electronic format (less weight to haul around, the ability to buy books instantly, a built-in reading light, etc) I just wish the issue was presented as more of a cost-benefit analysis than "ebooks are awesome for all these reasons!"
Drinking Liberally: I'm Baaaaaaaaaaack
Or at least I will be soon.
For the first time in over a year, I will show up at the the Center City Philadelphia Drinking Liberally tomorrow (Tuesday, August 20th). Everyone is invited:
For the first time in over a year, I will show up at the the Center City Philadelphia Drinking Liberally tomorrow (Tuesday, August 20th). Everyone is invited:
Jose Pistola'sI'm trying to drum up some old timey peeps and maybe on new timey one. But whatever kind of peep you are, you can join us too.
263 North 15th Street (upstairs bar)
Philadelphia, PA
6pm until you get tired and leave
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Blogpartisanship
Right blogistan is excited by the idea that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity might moderate the GOP primary debates in the 2016 election. So is left blogistan.
This will remain true up until the time that right blogistan realizes that the left is not upset at the idea, at which point they will hunt around for something else that they think will "piss off liberals." Note: there's a fairly good chance that time will never come as right blogistan does not pay that much attention to left blogistan and they prefer to dwell on the stuff they imagine pisses off the left rather than going through the trouble of reading actual arguments from the other side. (That's a lot of generalizations but I think it is generally true)
This will remain true up until the time that right blogistan realizes that the left is not upset at the idea, at which point they will hunt around for something else that they think will "piss off liberals." Note: there's a fairly good chance that time will never come as right blogistan does not pay that much attention to left blogistan and they prefer to dwell on the stuff they imagine pisses off the left rather than going through the trouble of reading actual arguments from the other side. (That's a lot of generalizations but I think it is generally true)
Call a coup a coup
I agree with David Remnick. Sure, suspending aid to Egypt will screw a lot of things up. But the Egyptian military has not only seized power without an election, it has also slaughtered hundreds of protesters. If that isn't enough to justify a cut-off, is there anything that would be?
Put another way, the Foreign Assistance Act requires that aid be automatically cut off if there is a coup d'etat "in which the military plays a decisive role." The purpose of that law was to deter foreign militaries from overthrowing an elected government. By making the suspension of aid automatic, it is the foreign military's action that causes aid to stop flowing. American law puts the cut off trigger in the would-be coup plotter's own hand. That means the coup-plotter must take the expected pain from an aid cut-off in deciding whether to go ahead with a coup. That's where the law's deterrent effect lies.
But if the suspension does not depend upon coup leader's actions, but rather whether the American President decides to label a change in government a "coup", it changes that dynamic. The trigger is no longer in the coup-plotters hands, it's in the President's and there is no real reason to deter would-be coup plotters anymore. Rather than having to balance the benefits of political power with the damage from a suspension in aid that will happen automatically, the coup-plotter knows that he might be able to have his cake and eat it too. What if he can seize power and talk the U.S. into leaving that aid in place? Any coup-plotter is a risk taker, so who wouldn't take that deal?
It's now also clear that the Egyptian military was privately assured by both Israel and the UAE that it could slaughter people on its streets without losing its aid. So fuck al-Sisi, fuck Israel and fuck the UAE. Obama should come out now and call it a "coup." The Egyptians can try to retaliate and make the transit of American military vehicles through Egyptian territory more inconvenient. I'm sure the U.S. will find some way to deal with that. And because the aid package was a bribe to keep Egypt abiding by the Camp David Accords, it might lead to changes in the Egyptian-Israeli relationship if the aid package is suspended long term, and Israel will probably take a serious economic hit if Egypt stops supplying it with natural gas. But if we want the aid to pay for influence, the U.S. needs to use its influence or else it won't have any and then what exactly are we paying for?
Once again, we are talking about a package that is almost entirely military aid. ($1.3 billion in military aid vs. 250 million of non-military aid) The money is not primarily going to feed starving children. It's paying for the weapons to shoot those kids' parents. I'm enough of a realist to think that sometimes it makes sense for the U.S. to spend money to buy influence. But unless the U.S. actually follows its own laws and is willing to cut off aid when recipients do something this egregious, it hasn't got what it paid for.
Put another way, the Foreign Assistance Act requires that aid be automatically cut off if there is a coup d'etat "in which the military plays a decisive role." The purpose of that law was to deter foreign militaries from overthrowing an elected government. By making the suspension of aid automatic, it is the foreign military's action that causes aid to stop flowing. American law puts the cut off trigger in the would-be coup plotter's own hand. That means the coup-plotter must take the expected pain from an aid cut-off in deciding whether to go ahead with a coup. That's where the law's deterrent effect lies.
But if the suspension does not depend upon coup leader's actions, but rather whether the American President decides to label a change in government a "coup", it changes that dynamic. The trigger is no longer in the coup-plotters hands, it's in the President's and there is no real reason to deter would-be coup plotters anymore. Rather than having to balance the benefits of political power with the damage from a suspension in aid that will happen automatically, the coup-plotter knows that he might be able to have his cake and eat it too. What if he can seize power and talk the U.S. into leaving that aid in place? Any coup-plotter is a risk taker, so who wouldn't take that deal?
It's now also clear that the Egyptian military was privately assured by both Israel and the UAE that it could slaughter people on its streets without losing its aid. So fuck al-Sisi, fuck Israel and fuck the UAE. Obama should come out now and call it a "coup." The Egyptians can try to retaliate and make the transit of American military vehicles through Egyptian territory more inconvenient. I'm sure the U.S. will find some way to deal with that. And because the aid package was a bribe to keep Egypt abiding by the Camp David Accords, it might lead to changes in the Egyptian-Israeli relationship if the aid package is suspended long term, and Israel will probably take a serious economic hit if Egypt stops supplying it with natural gas. But if we want the aid to pay for influence, the U.S. needs to use its influence or else it won't have any and then what exactly are we paying for?
Once again, we are talking about a package that is almost entirely military aid. ($1.3 billion in military aid vs. 250 million of non-military aid) The money is not primarily going to feed starving children. It's paying for the weapons to shoot those kids' parents. I'm enough of a realist to think that sometimes it makes sense for the U.S. to spend money to buy influence. But unless the U.S. actually follows its own laws and is willing to cut off aid when recipients do something this egregious, it hasn't got what it paid for.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Egyptian-American Symbiosis
One of those points that I seem to harp on a lot here is the enormous influence that the U.S. has over the Egyptian military because it is funded by American aid. But the NY Times drew my attention to the flip side of this influence, Egypt's influence over the U.S.:
The Egyptian military's aid package dates back to the late 1970s. Which means that the U.S. has had almost 35 years to push its weight around with the Egyptian government to get special concessions and privileges. But then those concessions became the background assumptions for the U.S. government when it planned other things. Planning for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan assumed expedited passage through the Suez Canal, et cetera. As those assumptions are relied upon for more and more activities of the U.S. government, the threat that they may stop becomes more and more disruptive to the U.S. Which means that the Egyptian government ends up with some bargaining power over the U.S. What starts as a one-sided power relationship between superpower and client state, becomes more of a symbiotic relationship as those Egyptian favors get incorporated deeper and deeper into American plans, making it more and more difficult for Americans to imagine going without them.
I had not thought of that aspect to the relationship. As a practical matter, the U.S. has a lot less influence than I have been crediting them with. The influence might be there on paper--cutting off funding would be devastating to the Egyptian military, and the Egyptian military knows it. But because of all those other things, the U.S. is not going to exercise that power, and the Egyptian military probably knows that too. Which means the U.S. really doesn't have that much influence after all.
Most nations, including many close allies of the United States, require up to a week’s notice before American warplanes are allowed to cross their territory. Not Egypt, which offers near-automatic approval for military overflights, to resupply the war effort in Afghanistan or to carry out counterterrorism operations in the Middle East, Southwest Asia or the Horn of Africa.Losing that route could significantly increase flight times to the region.American warships are also allowed to cut to the front of the line through the Suez Canal in times of crisis, even when oil tankers are stacked up like cars on an interstate highway at rush hour. Without Egypt’s cooperation, military missions could take days longer.
The Egyptian military's aid package dates back to the late 1970s. Which means that the U.S. has had almost 35 years to push its weight around with the Egyptian government to get special concessions and privileges. But then those concessions became the background assumptions for the U.S. government when it planned other things. Planning for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan assumed expedited passage through the Suez Canal, et cetera. As those assumptions are relied upon for more and more activities of the U.S. government, the threat that they may stop becomes more and more disruptive to the U.S. Which means that the Egyptian government ends up with some bargaining power over the U.S. What starts as a one-sided power relationship between superpower and client state, becomes more of a symbiotic relationship as those Egyptian favors get incorporated deeper and deeper into American plans, making it more and more difficult for Americans to imagine going without them.
I had not thought of that aspect to the relationship. As a practical matter, the U.S. has a lot less influence than I have been crediting them with. The influence might be there on paper--cutting off funding would be devastating to the Egyptian military, and the Egyptian military knows it. But because of all those other things, the U.S. is not going to exercise that power, and the Egyptian military probably knows that too. Which means the U.S. really doesn't have that much influence after all.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Dumbing defying down
Is installing solar panels on the White House roof really "defying Reagan"? It's true that in 1986 Reagan removed the solar panels that Carter had installed on the roof in 1979. Reagan was probably making a point by taking them down, so maybe you could say that he was "defying Carter" by taking them out. But Ronnie didn't try to decree that the White House roof should be free from solar panels for all time. And the solar panels of today are different from the 1979 models, being much cheaper and more efficient. So whatever reasons Reagan had for removing the Carter panels might not apply to the new Obama ones.
Every time a new occupant comes into the White House, they make changes to the house. Michelle Obama's vegetable garden is on the South lawn of the White House grounds, which means she had to remove whatever was there before she created the garden. FDR had the entire South lawn redesigned by Frederick Olmsted in 1934. Did Michelle "defy FDR" when she created the garden? No more than FDR "defied" his cousin Theodore, who had altered the South lawn during the 1902 White House renovations. I don't see why the solar installation is any different. Why must people spin decisions like these into imaginary conflicts?
(via Memeorandum)
Every time a new occupant comes into the White House, they make changes to the house. Michelle Obama's vegetable garden is on the South lawn of the White House grounds, which means she had to remove whatever was there before she created the garden. FDR had the entire South lawn redesigned by Frederick Olmsted in 1934. Did Michelle "defy FDR" when she created the garden? No more than FDR "defied" his cousin Theodore, who had altered the South lawn during the 1902 White House renovations. I don't see why the solar installation is any different. Why must people spin decisions like these into imaginary conflicts?
(via Memeorandum)
BFD
People are aflutter because the CIA has acknowledged the existence of Area 51. Area 51 in in the popular consciousness because virtually every UFO conspiracy theory involves the U.S. government hiding aliens, alien space crafts, or alien bodies in that secret base. The CIA is not acknowledging that it squirreled away any of that stuff in Area 51. They have just stopped redacting references to "Area 51" from their public archives concerning the U-2 spy plane program.
Which means the whole "revelation" isn't all that revealing. I mean, we all know the CIA does something that occupies physical space. So obviously that means there are "areas" in the world where the CIA has facilities. All they are saying now that they didn't before is the name of one of those areas, one that was already widely known enough for us to put it on the map. The only real question the name raises is if "Area 51" means that there are at least fifty more areas out there somewhere.
Which means the whole "revelation" isn't all that revealing. I mean, we all know the CIA does something that occupies physical space. So obviously that means there are "areas" in the world where the CIA has facilities. All they are saying now that they didn't before is the name of one of those areas, one that was already widely known enough for us to put it on the map. The only real question the name raises is if "Area 51" means that there are at least fifty more areas out there somewhere.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
One of these things is not like the other
In Libya, armed militias have filled a void left by a revolution that felled a dictator. In Syria, a popular uprising has morphed into a civil war that has left more than 100,000 dead and provided a haven for Islamic extremists. In Tunisia, increasingly bitter political divisions have delayed the drafting of a new constitution.
And now in Egypt, often considered the trendsetter of the Arab world, the army and security forces, after having toppled the elected Islamist president, have killed hundreds of his supporters, declared a state of emergency and worsened a deep polarization.The post revolutionary period in Tunisia has had its rocky bits, there has been some political violence.But it hasn't had anything like the scale of violence or the scope of chaos witnessed in Libya, Syria and Egypt. Tunisia, unlike the others, has a functioning democratic government. For all its flaws, the country has a semblance of normalcy and stability that the other three do not have.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
That was fun while it lasted
The period that Egypt was not in a state of emergency since 1981 has ended. The total run time for the non-emergency state was about 14 months.
Yes we can! (But not necessarily that we should)
I gotta disagree with the Big A on this one. When it comes to influencing the actions of the military government there's a whole lot the U.S. can do. As I've pointed out several times before, the U.S. sends a huge foreign aid package to Egypt. The great majority of that aid is military aid, and the American aid package is a significant portion of the Egyptian military's budget (it's hard to say how much, but one calculation puts the U.S. as paying approximately one-third of Egypt's total). Which means the U.S. is paying a big hunk of the salaries of the people currently in charge of that country, not to mention the soldiers and equipment currently used to clear camp of protesters.
Normally, you could argue that cutting off aid would require an act of Congress, because Congress is the body that appropriates the funds when it passes the foreign aid budget. But in this case, Congress has already authorized a cut-off of Egyptian aid. All the President has to do is call the removal of Morsi a "coup" and a lot of the Egyptian military's funding will dry up.
Just having the ability to pull that trigger gives the U.S. enormous influence with the people calling the shots in this particular crisis. So it's wrong to say "probably there isn't" anything we can do.
Of course, whether the U.S. should use its influence is a different question. My point is only that the influence is there, unlike other places, like, for example, Syria, where the U.S. can't do a lot to direct the situation without intervening militarily. Oh and for the record, I think intervening militarily in Syria (or Egypt) would be a terrible idea. Also, even though the U.S. has the ability to threaten an aid cut off to influence the Egyptian junta, I stand by my earlier point that a cut-off will not happen.
Normally, you could argue that cutting off aid would require an act of Congress, because Congress is the body that appropriates the funds when it passes the foreign aid budget. But in this case, Congress has already authorized a cut-off of Egyptian aid. All the President has to do is call the removal of Morsi a "coup" and a lot of the Egyptian military's funding will dry up.
Just having the ability to pull that trigger gives the U.S. enormous influence with the people calling the shots in this particular crisis. So it's wrong to say "probably there isn't" anything we can do.
Of course, whether the U.S. should use its influence is a different question. My point is only that the influence is there, unlike other places, like, for example, Syria, where the U.S. can't do a lot to direct the situation without intervening militarily. Oh and for the record, I think intervening militarily in Syria (or Egypt) would be a terrible idea. Also, even though the U.S. has the ability to threaten an aid cut off to influence the Egyptian junta, I stand by my earlier point that a cut-off will not happen.
Reasonable expectations
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. constitution protects people in the U.S. against "unreasonable searches and seizures." Whether a search is deemed to be "unreasonable" depends on whether the court finds that the individual had a "reasonable expectation of privacy". So government agents opening a sealed letter is an unreasonable search, but agents reading a postcard is not because no one would reasonably expect that writing to be private when it is openly visible to anyone who handles the card as it passes through the mail.
I keep thinking about that legal standard when I hear each new allegation that the government is routinely collecting information on people. Thanks to the ridiculous majority of the current Supreme Court, there doesn't appear to be an avenue for challenging the constitutionality of government surveillance right now. But I'm an optimist. I think in the long run the courts will find a way to work around its ruling in Clapper v. Amnesty International. It was just a 5-4 decision, and as the revelations data collection mount, I think its likely that the Court will eventually acknowledge that someone has the right to challenge this behavior.
But what happens in the meantime? All these revelations are are going to change the public's expectations about what is private. Google current position is shocking now, because email to us feels as private as a sealed snail mail envelope. But after this stuff gets reported and it gets absorbed into the public's consciousness, people probably are going to start thinking differently about their electronic communication. Any message that passes through an external server will start feeling more like a message written on a postcard than a private letter. The public's change in its thinking about privacy is rational because it reflects the reality of what the government is doing without any meaningful check.
That's the problem with having the limits of a constitutional right defined by the collective expectations of society. Those expectations can change, which means the extent of constitutional protections will change with them. By violating the right and then having that violation publicized during a period that it cannot be challenged in court because of a technicality, the public will expect the violations to continue. Once they have that expectation, it won't be a violation anymore. By the time the Court finally finds it way around Clapper v. Amnesty International, I wonder if there will be any constitutional violation left to stop.
I keep thinking about that legal standard when I hear each new allegation that the government is routinely collecting information on people. Thanks to the ridiculous majority of the current Supreme Court, there doesn't appear to be an avenue for challenging the constitutionality of government surveillance right now. But I'm an optimist. I think in the long run the courts will find a way to work around its ruling in Clapper v. Amnesty International. It was just a 5-4 decision, and as the revelations data collection mount, I think its likely that the Court will eventually acknowledge that someone has the right to challenge this behavior.
But what happens in the meantime? All these revelations are are going to change the public's expectations about what is private. Google current position is shocking now, because email to us feels as private as a sealed snail mail envelope. But after this stuff gets reported and it gets absorbed into the public's consciousness, people probably are going to start thinking differently about their electronic communication. Any message that passes through an external server will start feeling more like a message written on a postcard than a private letter. The public's change in its thinking about privacy is rational because it reflects the reality of what the government is doing without any meaningful check.
That's the problem with having the limits of a constitutional right defined by the collective expectations of society. Those expectations can change, which means the extent of constitutional protections will change with them. By violating the right and then having that violation publicized during a period that it cannot be challenged in court because of a technicality, the public will expect the violations to continue. Once they have that expectation, it won't be a violation anymore. By the time the Court finally finds it way around Clapper v. Amnesty International, I wonder if there will be any constitutional violation left to stop.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
class
Rick Santorum on the term "middle class":
Don’t use the term the other side uses. Here’s Barack Obama talking all the time, "the middle class." Since when in America do we have classes? Since when in America are people stuck in areas or defined places called a "class"? That’s Marxism talk. When Republicans get up and talk about "middle class" we’re buying into their rhetoric of dividing America. Stop it. There’s no class in America, and call them on it. America is the place where everybody has the opportunity to succeed. We believe in everybody. We are the party that values the dignity of every human life, not them. Let them take what we rightly own, which is believing in every person and their ability in this county.Stuff I found with a 5 second search on Rick Santorum's 2012 Campaign Web site:
Hogan Gidley, National Communications Director, said: "Rick Santorum stood on the stage tonight and emerged as a candidate ready to be commander-in-chief. Not just the Middle Class, not just Wall Street, but commander-in-chief for all Americans."
On Perry (and his recently announced 20 percent flat tax): "It’s simple and you can put it on a postcard, but it’s a huge shift in the tax burden on to the middle class."
This is why the next President of the United States needs to show true leadership and put federal entitlement programs on a course towards fiscal sustainability. Tragically, President Obama has not shown such leadership. He has expanded eligibility for entitlement programs into the middle class and above.
Santorum Hopes to Rebuild Middle Class: HOLLIDAYSBURG - Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum received a warm welcome Wednesday from a crowd that included local residents and employees of the McLanahan Corp. when he called for the renewal of America's industrial base and a rebuilding of the middle class.It's also amusing to see Santorum telling his supporters to stop "buying into the rhetoric of dividing America" and then going into a riff about what "we believe" versus "them."
Monday, August 12, 2013
Half Seasons
I guess the day after the "premier" of the second half of Breaking Bad, Season Five, is as good a time as any to state my opposition to this new trend of "half seasons." It's bad enough that the "season" of a TV show, which used to last twenty-some weeks, somehow became only 13 episodes in our new golden age of TV. When I first noticed that happening I just figured that was the cost of the relatively high quality of the best TV shows these days. Fewer but better episodes seemed worth it and 13 was still a fair number to call a "season."
Then more recently, they have gone to "half seasons" of a measly eight episodes. When they first started the half season trend, it seemed like there wasn't that long of a gap between the two halves. But now the wait is effectively as long as what one would expect the wait between seasons to be. So Breaking Bad Season Five, Part One aired between July 15, 2012 and September 2, 2012. The second half did not air until last night, August 11, 2013, a year after part one. In no normal sense of the word are the two halves the same "season." The industry is just cutting the length of the season in half and then pretending that two consecutive shortened seasons are really the same season to preserve the fiction that they are still providing the show with the same quantity of episodes as they did before. Its like if a dairy cut the size of a milk container in half but still called it a "gallon" ("you get the second half of the gallon in next week's groceries!")
Then more recently, they have gone to "half seasons" of a measly eight episodes. When they first started the half season trend, it seemed like there wasn't that long of a gap between the two halves. But now the wait is effectively as long as what one would expect the wait between seasons to be. So Breaking Bad Season Five, Part One aired between July 15, 2012 and September 2, 2012. The second half did not air until last night, August 11, 2013, a year after part one. In no normal sense of the word are the two halves the same "season." The industry is just cutting the length of the season in half and then pretending that two consecutive shortened seasons are really the same season to preserve the fiction that they are still providing the show with the same quantity of episodes as they did before. Its like if a dairy cut the size of a milk container in half but still called it a "gallon" ("you get the second half of the gallon in next week's groceries!")
How did they get nukes?
I realize that this smart phone probably wasn't really produced in North Korea, but I do wonder how that country managed to have a nuclear program advanced enough to actually develop some bombs. NoKo is a dirt poor country. People starve there. They can't even keep the lights on. I understand that its leadership wanted a bomb, but lots of leaders of poor countries probably do too, but they can't pull it off. How did this country do it?
Boycotting the Olympics
I'm not a fan of the Olympics. Watching sports never interests me and without the appeal of sports, you are left with this weird institution with a history of corruption that plays on nationalist symbols under the banner of internationalism.
The basic premise of the Olympics is something like this: while a lot of countries and governments in the world suck, everyone will put aside their differences and compete together in the spirit of world harmony. Truly awful regimes participate in the Olympics, but they still get to compete because their participation is said to serve the higher good. Countries that really can't stand one another and which otherwise will have nothing to do with one another have nevertheless competed against each other in the Olympics. That's what the Olympics is about.
Which makes the idea of a boycott a bit difficult. If we're letting genocidal regimes compete, what is the line that cannot be crossed? There is some consensus that legally enforced discrimination is grounds for exclusion. That's why South Africa was excluded from the games between 1964 and 1988. But there is a lot of other legally enforced discrimination in the world. A whole lot of countries have laws that discriminate on the basis of religion, sex and ethnicity. You could say that the exclusion rule is limited to racial discrimination, but the line between race and ethnicity is pretty arbitrary. If, for example, Uighurs or Tibetans are classified as a new race as opposed to an ethnic/religious group, then the largest country in the world would not be allowed to participate.
You could also argue that the standard should be different for the host country than for a mere participant. A participating country can suck quite a lot (provided they don't discriminate on the basis of race like South Africa did during the apartheid era), but the host should be better. If you go back before World War Two, there are a bunch of sucky hosts that seem to break this rule (the Olympics that the Nazis hosted in 1936 is the obvious example). But even if we limit ourselves to the post-war period, there's the Beijing Olympics in 2008.
There's another issue lurking in the background of all of this: the so-called "first world" or "developed" countries tend to have better human rights records than the countries of the "third world"/"developing world." Check out the lists of hosts. Until really recently, the hosts have all been European, North American, or the developed East Asian countries (i.e. Japan and South Korea). The IOC understandably wants the list of host countries to reflect the list of participating countries better. Otherwise, the whole endeavor just smacks of imperialism. If the IOC broadens the list of hosts, there are going to be more human rights concerns about the host countries. It will have to overlook those concerns (as it did with China) to advance its larger mission of bringing the world together, including the sucky parts of the world.
Which is why I am really lukewarm about the boycott Sochi effort. From the outset I really don't care that much if the Olympics doesn't happen this year, nor do I care if it proceeds but it turns into a messy series of protests that are embarrassing for the Putin government. Actually, at least that would make the Olympic games interesting to me for once. But if you buy the premise of the Olympics, I'm not sure a boycott is justified. Yes, the Russian government sucks. The new law criminalizing promotion of homosexuality is appalling. But my understanding is the Olympics is about overlooking that stuff so people from all over the world can sweat together. Also, there are a lot of other really appalling things about the Russian government that have been around before this current anti-gay law. Like the murder of journalists.
On the other hand, the anti-gay issue is the one that has caught on. I can't say I'm against trying to embarrass the Putin government over this particular issue, even if there also happen to be other good reasons that are not being given as much attention. Given what the Olympics stands for, it just seems to be a bad fit. I don't really care what the Olympics stand for, so maybe I don't care about that. Like I said, I'm lukewarm. But I suspect that most people who bring this issue up do care about the Olympics. (That's why they are bringing it up).
The basic premise of the Olympics is something like this: while a lot of countries and governments in the world suck, everyone will put aside their differences and compete together in the spirit of world harmony. Truly awful regimes participate in the Olympics, but they still get to compete because their participation is said to serve the higher good. Countries that really can't stand one another and which otherwise will have nothing to do with one another have nevertheless competed against each other in the Olympics. That's what the Olympics is about.
Which makes the idea of a boycott a bit difficult. If we're letting genocidal regimes compete, what is the line that cannot be crossed? There is some consensus that legally enforced discrimination is grounds for exclusion. That's why South Africa was excluded from the games between 1964 and 1988. But there is a lot of other legally enforced discrimination in the world. A whole lot of countries have laws that discriminate on the basis of religion, sex and ethnicity. You could say that the exclusion rule is limited to racial discrimination, but the line between race and ethnicity is pretty arbitrary. If, for example, Uighurs or Tibetans are classified as a new race as opposed to an ethnic/religious group, then the largest country in the world would not be allowed to participate.
You could also argue that the standard should be different for the host country than for a mere participant. A participating country can suck quite a lot (provided they don't discriminate on the basis of race like South Africa did during the apartheid era), but the host should be better. If you go back before World War Two, there are a bunch of sucky hosts that seem to break this rule (the Olympics that the Nazis hosted in 1936 is the obvious example). But even if we limit ourselves to the post-war period, there's the Beijing Olympics in 2008.
There's another issue lurking in the background of all of this: the so-called "first world" or "developed" countries tend to have better human rights records than the countries of the "third world"/"developing world." Check out the lists of hosts. Until really recently, the hosts have all been European, North American, or the developed East Asian countries (i.e. Japan and South Korea). The IOC understandably wants the list of host countries to reflect the list of participating countries better. Otherwise, the whole endeavor just smacks of imperialism. If the IOC broadens the list of hosts, there are going to be more human rights concerns about the host countries. It will have to overlook those concerns (as it did with China) to advance its larger mission of bringing the world together, including the sucky parts of the world.
Which is why I am really lukewarm about the boycott Sochi effort. From the outset I really don't care that much if the Olympics doesn't happen this year, nor do I care if it proceeds but it turns into a messy series of protests that are embarrassing for the Putin government. Actually, at least that would make the Olympic games interesting to me for once. But if you buy the premise of the Olympics, I'm not sure a boycott is justified. Yes, the Russian government sucks. The new law criminalizing promotion of homosexuality is appalling. But my understanding is the Olympics is about overlooking that stuff so people from all over the world can sweat together. Also, there are a lot of other really appalling things about the Russian government that have been around before this current anti-gay law. Like the murder of journalists.
On the other hand, the anti-gay issue is the one that has caught on. I can't say I'm against trying to embarrass the Putin government over this particular issue, even if there also happen to be other good reasons that are not being given as much attention. Given what the Olympics stands for, it just seems to be a bad fit. I don't really care what the Olympics stand for, so maybe I don't care about that. Like I said, I'm lukewarm. But I suspect that most people who bring this issue up do care about the Olympics. (That's why they are bringing it up).
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Ed Snowden Ate an Egg Sandwich, details at 11
How is this news?
I'm not asking that rhetorically as a way of saying "this is old news," I mean, what about this story is the least bit newsworthy? Is it at all surprising that Snowden's father would want to visit him? that Russia would give the senior Snowden a tourist visa (as it does for thousands of other Americans every year)? that the Snowdens would want to talk about Edward's legal problems? And why would anyone (other than the Showden family) care?
Edward Snowden is definitely newsworthy. But that doesn't make everything and everything relating to him worth a story.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Painting a happy face on flying death robots
I keep seeing articles like these about how you can use drones for stuff other than killing people. Which is great! Except, that doesn't take away from any of my concerns about those other drones that actually are killing people. Also, a lot of these non-killing uses don't hold up very well if I think about them for too long.
Take the article linked above:
No doubt, part of the appeal of schemes like these is the coolness factor of having a beer order filled by a flying robot. And as long as it remains a novelty, the people around the one who placed the order are likely to be cooperative and will help the beer find the right person. But once the public gets used to it and begins to take the technology for granted, having a beer you didn't order parachute onto your head which creates a social obligation to start asking around to find out who ordered the beer when you just want to listen to the concert is going to be viewed as an annoyance.
There is another appeal of a scheme like this, specifically the appeal to drone manufacturers. The idea is that maybe the public will start thinking of drones as friendly roving alcohol delivery devices rather than killing machines. It's not bad as a P.R. stunt, but it could backfire. The people under the parachuting beers are going to experience drone accuracy problems first hand. (Or at least it will seem like they are experiencing a drone accuracy problem when really it will probably be a smartphone GPS accuracy problem). Which could raise more questions about how many innocent people get killed by those weaponized drones.
(via Memorandum)
Take the article linked above:
Revellers at a South African outdoor rock festival no longer need to queue to slake their thirst -- a flying robot will drop them beer by parachute.
After clients place an order using a smartphone app, a drone zooms 15 metres (50 feet) above the heads of the festival-goers to make the delivery.The accuracy of GPS in a smartphone varies a bit by model. According to this study, the GPS in iOS devices averaged an accuracy of about four feet (with individual GPS readings off by much more). Even if we assume the average, delivering beer within four feet of the person who ordered it in a crowded outdoor concert sucks. Maybe some people would be happy to buy a beer for strangers who happen to be sitting around them. But if the person making the order is actually thirsty, it will take a lot of orders to assure that a beer ends up in the orderer's hands.
No doubt, part of the appeal of schemes like these is the coolness factor of having a beer order filled by a flying robot. And as long as it remains a novelty, the people around the one who placed the order are likely to be cooperative and will help the beer find the right person. But once the public gets used to it and begins to take the technology for granted, having a beer you didn't order parachute onto your head which creates a social obligation to start asking around to find out who ordered the beer when you just want to listen to the concert is going to be viewed as an annoyance.
There is another appeal of a scheme like this, specifically the appeal to drone manufacturers. The idea is that maybe the public will start thinking of drones as friendly roving alcohol delivery devices rather than killing machines. It's not bad as a P.R. stunt, but it could backfire. The people under the parachuting beers are going to experience drone accuracy problems first hand. (Or at least it will seem like they are experiencing a drone accuracy problem when really it will probably be a smartphone GPS accuracy problem). Which could raise more questions about how many innocent people get killed by those weaponized drones.
(via Memorandum)
How we lost [country]
Every article titled "How we lost ____" with the name of a country in the blank, really bugs me. This is the article that triggered this particular post, but you can find examples of the same title filling the blank with a bunch of other countries. We don't have any other countries. They are not prizes to win or lose. None of these titles would make sense unless you buy the premise of imperialism.
In Russia, bank get screwed by you
Somehow I doubt this would work in the U.S. The court would find a creative way to rule that handwritten fine print wasn't binding on the bank, maybe by dusting off one of those concepts I learned about in law school that never gets used when the contractual imbalance is weighted in favor of a big financial institution.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Wow
I haven't been paying too much attention to the Bob Filner story. Asshole mayor sexually harasses a bunch of woman, refuses to resign, and then tries to bill the City for his rehab. What a dick! Other than that, I don't have much to say.
But David Wiegel highlighted the fact that several of the women that Filmer harassed he met because they were victims of sexual assault in the military. That's a level of assholery that I had not previously contemplated. What a mega-dick! Even if he never resigns, I bet he won't ever get elected to anything ever again.
UPDATE: see also Feministing.
But David Wiegel highlighted the fact that several of the women that Filmer harassed he met because they were victims of sexual assault in the military. That's a level of assholery that I had not previously contemplated. What a mega-dick! Even if he never resigns, I bet he won't ever get elected to anything ever again.
UPDATE: see also Feministing.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
"Mogul"
For the past two weeks I have been working through this 700 page history of Central Asia. I'm a bit more than halfway through, but I'm far enough along to be amused every time I see the word "mogul" used like this in the popular press.
On the other hand, I would pay money to see Jeff Bezos dressed up like Akbar the Great. Not that Jeff needs my money.
On the other hand, I would pay money to see Jeff Bezos dressed up like Akbar the Great. Not that Jeff needs my money.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Fox News hates America
Cut the legalese, if someone has concern over "due process rights", it means that they can't prove that the ties to extremist groups actually exist. This isn't some example of abstract rights being used to coddle terrorists, it's the army saying that if they cancel a contract and the contractor sues, the army will lose because it doesn't have evidence to justify breaching the contract. That is how our system works. You can't cancel a contract based only on an accusation. There's needs to be actual evidence. If you see it as a scandal that punitive action is not taken on the basis of mere accusations, then you don't believe in the American judicial system.
Also, I hereby accuse Fox News of slaughtering toddlers for sport. So let's burn down their studios.
(via Memeorandum)
Also, I hereby accuse Fox News of slaughtering toddlers for sport. So let's burn down their studios.
(via Memeorandum)
Roadside Kazakhstan
This was no where near any of the places I spent in Kazakhstan, but on my next trip I really want to go to Pentagram Park. I'm guessing the reason it is "upside down" is because the people building it were thinking of their red star from the vantage point of Russia, which is North of the site.
Actually, the whole thing works as a metaphor for the Soviet Union: out of date, currently abandoned, pretending to be about all its nationalities but really centered on Russia, and appearing like a symbol of the devil to those inclined to see such things.
Weird Priorities
If there had been a global thermonuclear exchange with the Soviet Union, rising Scottish nationalism would have been the least of the UK's problems.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
August
I realize everyone else disagrees, but I really hate summer. A perfect day for me is a blizzard, preferably one that keeps me home from work. I spend much of the winter complaining that the weather isn't cold or snowy enough, and the entire year dreading the heat of the summer, particularly August. August in Philly is really a hot humid hell-hole.
Except not this August. We're only three days in, but the weather has been surprisingly mild. The high today will be around the mid-70s, and the 10-day extended forecast doesn't have the temperature going up past the low-80s, which gets us almost halfway through what is usually the hottest most miserable month of the year.
I'm kinda floored by it. Three weeks ago, the temperatures were in the high-90s and low-100s, and I kept thinking "if this is July, August will suck" as per my tradition of summertime grousing. I don't know what to do with a not-miserable August.
Don't get me wrong. It's not snowing. I still occasionally am slightly too warm. This is not the weather I like. I spend the whole year dreading this part of the calendar. I feel almost let down but not being as miserable as I anticipated.
On the other hand, the month is still young! Those extended forecasts don't often hold up, and I don't even have an inaccurate extended forecast for late August yet. There's still time to be miserable.
Except not this August. We're only three days in, but the weather has been surprisingly mild. The high today will be around the mid-70s, and the 10-day extended forecast doesn't have the temperature going up past the low-80s, which gets us almost halfway through what is usually the hottest most miserable month of the year.
I'm kinda floored by it. Three weeks ago, the temperatures were in the high-90s and low-100s, and I kept thinking "if this is July, August will suck" as per my tradition of summertime grousing. I don't know what to do with a not-miserable August.
Don't get me wrong. It's not snowing. I still occasionally am slightly too warm. This is not the weather I like. I spend the whole year dreading this part of the calendar. I feel almost let down but not being as miserable as I anticipated.
On the other hand, the month is still young! Those extended forecasts don't often hold up, and I don't even have an inaccurate extended forecast for late August yet. There's still time to be miserable.
Friday, August 2, 2013
Furious
Aside from the fact that anyone paying attention saw this coming from a mile away, it's ridiculous for the U.S. government to be "furious" over Russia's decision to grant political asylum to Snowden. The U.S. gives political asylum to Russians and other nationals all the time, even though the foreign governments the asylum seekers are fleeing almost always do not approve. Russia is usually not happy when we give their dissidents asylum, but they just have to live with that. America is just not used to having to put up with stuff that other governments regularly put up with.
Asylum claims are not supposed to be a matter of negotiation, they're about the merits of the asylum petition. While I have no illusions that the Russian asylum process is really free from politics and I realize that Snowden presents Putin with an opportunity to give the U.S. a taste of its own medicine. But Snowden's asylum claim is a legitimate opportunity. The U.S. should not be surprised that Russia grabbed it.
Asylum claims are not supposed to be a matter of negotiation, they're about the merits of the asylum petition. While I have no illusions that the Russian asylum process is really free from politics and I realize that Snowden presents Putin with an opportunity to give the U.S. a taste of its own medicine. But Snowden's asylum claim is a legitimate opportunity. The U.S. should not be surprised that Russia grabbed it.
The Wayback Machine
As the GOP prepares a mass filibuster of Obama's court nominees and the democrats scurry to see if they have enough votes to go with the nuclear option, it is pretty fun to read ancient news articles, like this one from 2005, to see how some of the same players as today, were talking about judicial filibusters back then.
The surprising thing is that a lot of these funny old positions on the judicial filibuster issue are still on the Senators' official web sites. Maybe they think if they scrub their site of their former position, it will just draw attention to their shifting views on the subject. Maybe they are right.
The surprising thing is that a lot of these funny old positions on the judicial filibuster issue are still on the Senators' official web sites. Maybe they think if they scrub their site of their former position, it will just draw attention to their shifting views on the subject. Maybe they are right.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Another fruitless point in my occasional but endless efforts to get people to stop paying attention to gaffes in political campaigns
Look at the data, Weigel has a chart! Gaffe's don't matter in election contests.
You know what else, doesn't matter? Weigel's chart. Because political reporters are going to keep focusing on gaffes as if they matter no matter what the data says.
On the other hand, the perception that gaffes matter does matter. For it led Mitt Romney to make Obama's alleged "you didn't build that" gaffe the centerpiece of his campaign and the theme to the Republican National Convention. Now that's a screw-up that none of the gaffe-happy reporters will talk about as they Monday morning quarterback the 2012 Romney Campaign. The dude's campaign strategy was based on the assumption that something that does not matter to voters would be able to attract more votes. For that, I suppose, the country should be eternally grateful.
You know what else, doesn't matter? Weigel's chart. Because political reporters are going to keep focusing on gaffes as if they matter no matter what the data says.
On the other hand, the perception that gaffes matter does matter. For it led Mitt Romney to make Obama's alleged "you didn't build that" gaffe the centerpiece of his campaign and the theme to the Republican National Convention. Now that's a screw-up that none of the gaffe-happy reporters will talk about as they Monday morning quarterback the 2012 Romney Campaign. The dude's campaign strategy was based on the assumption that something that does not matter to voters would be able to attract more votes. For that, I suppose, the country should be eternally grateful.
S&P is a joke
Rating agencies' business is based entirely upon their own credibility. If people stop believing that the agencies triple-A best-in-show rating indicates something real, then no one will attach any value to it. Maybe all the rating agencies are doing it too, but S&P seems intent on completely destroying any remaining credibility it has.
It makes sense why banks are willing to pretend that S&P ratings are meaningful, even if bankers privately know it is all bullshit. They want to be able to hide behind the positive ratings when their risky investments go south to escape responsibility for the loss ("We didn't know mortgage-backed securities were that risky! S&P said it was safe!") But it doesn't make sense why anyone else would believe banks when their defense depends upon their believing an agency with as little credibility as S&P.
In other words, S&P's rating services is just a grift. It is selling credibility when it has little credibility to sell.
It makes sense why banks are willing to pretend that S&P ratings are meaningful, even if bankers privately know it is all bullshit. They want to be able to hide behind the positive ratings when their risky investments go south to escape responsibility for the loss ("We didn't know mortgage-backed securities were that risky! S&P said it was safe!") But it doesn't make sense why anyone else would believe banks when their defense depends upon their believing an agency with as little credibility as S&P.
In other words, S&P's rating services is just a grift. It is selling credibility when it has little credibility to sell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)