Sorry I haven't been posting regularly lately. Work complications (and an increase in mindless recreation to recoup afterward) have been distracting me.
Today isn't a full blog post either. Just a link to an interesting and unusual political view: a defense of insider trading in the stock market.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Storm (Ororo Munroe)
According to Marvel Comics, Storm (Ororo Munroe) was born to an African princess and an African-American journalist. She also has blue eyes and white hair. Why is that?
The obvious answer is "because she looks cool that way." Which she really does.
The comic strip "The Boondocks" criticized the X-Men movie for taking the only black main character and twisting her to match a white concept of beauty with white hair and blue eyes. That might be true, but having Halle Berry ask "Do you know what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?" had to be more damaging to the character's credibility.
But is it totally impossible? According to a Sanford geneticist, "African Americans with blue eyes are not unheard of but they are pretty rare." He gives four possible causes of blue eyes in people of African descent: Caucasian ancestors, ocular albinism, Waardenburg syndrome, or (most appropriately) a genetic mutation. Caucasian ancestors would only validate Boondocks' Euro-centrism claim. Ocular albinos tend to have vision problems and Waardenburg sufferers tend to be deaf, not disabilities possessed by Storm. A genetic mutation blocking melatonin in the iris is the best explanation for her blue eyes.
What about her hair? The comics say her Kenyan princess mother also had white hair and blue eyes, as had her ancestors for generations. However, there is absolutely no real-world way for white hair to be a continuously inherited trait. Albinism is not very likely to occur to the children of albinos, not dependably for generation after generation. Also, there's not a common albinism of the hair the way there is of the eyes. The idea of white hair from severe psychological trauma is more Rogue's thing. It's not age; she joins the X-Men in her mid-20s, and she still had white hair all the way back to her early childhood. So, short of dying it for fashion reasons, I've got no good explanation there.
In a world where Lorna Dane can have green hair and Beast and Nightcrawler can have full-body blue fur, I'm not going to begrudge Ororo her snowy locks. Plus it fits great with the weather powers, visually symbolic of clouds and flashing lightning. I say give her mom a regular hair color and make Storm's hair color another effect of the same impossible magic as her mutant power. That's a great explanation for why they match so well stylistically.
The length and straightness of Storm's hair is not impossible for African descent, nor even dramatically uncommon. Many West African tribes consider long, full hair a sign of strength, health, and capability [source]. Storm's homeland, Kenya, is in West Africa. Her massive 80's hair-band style actually fits the genetic and cultural reality.
Storm is supposed to be a noble matriarch, the wild power and quiet dignity of Mother Nature personified. As early as her late 20s, she was already a mother-figure to young X-Men (Kitty Pryde, specifically). If anyone goes to make some new movie or TV show with her in it, please reflect that better. The movies didn't show that. In my view, she was never the shallow, token black character until the X-Men movies. Her character deserves better writing.
The obvious answer is "because she looks cool that way." Which she really does.
The comic strip "The Boondocks" criticized the X-Men movie for taking the only black main character and twisting her to match a white concept of beauty with white hair and blue eyes. That might be true, but having Halle Berry ask "Do you know what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?" had to be more damaging to the character's credibility.
But is it totally impossible? According to a Sanford geneticist, "African Americans with blue eyes are not unheard of but they are pretty rare." He gives four possible causes of blue eyes in people of African descent: Caucasian ancestors, ocular albinism, Waardenburg syndrome, or (most appropriately) a genetic mutation. Caucasian ancestors would only validate Boondocks' Euro-centrism claim. Ocular albinos tend to have vision problems and Waardenburg sufferers tend to be deaf, not disabilities possessed by Storm. A genetic mutation blocking melatonin in the iris is the best explanation for her blue eyes.
What about her hair? The comics say her Kenyan princess mother also had white hair and blue eyes, as had her ancestors for generations. However, there is absolutely no real-world way for white hair to be a continuously inherited trait. Albinism is not very likely to occur to the children of albinos, not dependably for generation after generation. Also, there's not a common albinism of the hair the way there is of the eyes. The idea of white hair from severe psychological trauma is more Rogue's thing. It's not age; she joins the X-Men in her mid-20s, and she still had white hair all the way back to her early childhood. So, short of dying it for fashion reasons, I've got no good explanation there.
In a world where Lorna Dane can have green hair and Beast and Nightcrawler can have full-body blue fur, I'm not going to begrudge Ororo her snowy locks. Plus it fits great with the weather powers, visually symbolic of clouds and flashing lightning. I say give her mom a regular hair color and make Storm's hair color another effect of the same impossible magic as her mutant power. That's a great explanation for why they match so well stylistically.
The length and straightness of Storm's hair is not impossible for African descent, nor even dramatically uncommon. Many West African tribes consider long, full hair a sign of strength, health, and capability [source]. Storm's homeland, Kenya, is in West Africa. Her massive 80's hair-band style actually fits the genetic and cultural reality.
Storm is supposed to be a noble matriarch, the wild power and quiet dignity of Mother Nature personified. As early as her late 20s, she was already a mother-figure to young X-Men (Kitty Pryde, specifically). If anyone goes to make some new movie or TV show with her in it, please reflect that better. The movies didn't show that. In my view, she was never the shallow, token black character until the X-Men movies. Her character deserves better writing.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
U.N. & Obama vs. Freedom of Speech
I am religious. More than that, my religion is rather unique as well as relatively new and small, which makes it a popular target for bashing from mainstream religious adherents and the anti-religious alike. It's not fun to be a scapegoat to both sides of a hugely polarizing debate.
But when an Obama-backed U.N. Resolution (which passed unanimously, as are most UN resolutions) calls for "negative racial and religious stereotyping" to be a just exception to freedom of speech on the grounds that it is abusive and incites unrest... that is ridiculously, dangerously wrong. The resolution's Egyptian co-sponsor defended the ruling with the words "freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused," and "the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner."
Got that, news media? Shutting up is the ethical choice. Don't go criticizing Catholics, Muslims, Adventists, Mormons or Scientologists or you could end up censored or jailed.
By the way, Egypt has no freedom of speech and uses the same court system to rule on religious and secular matters.
The whole point of the freedom of speech is to allow criticisms of any institution or individual without having to prove a rational basis first. That way, corruption can always be identified and defied by articulation and expression. The identification of corrupt philosophies and practices in sacrosanct institutions allowed the Protestant Reformation and the American Revolution, the events which initiated the historic expansion of democratic and human rights -- the rational basis of practical freedom -- across the modern world.
All reform starts with freedom of expression.
Yes, people should be held accountable for their speech. When Newsweek published a false story about Korans being flushed down the toilet in Gitmo, Muslims rioted and people died. They recognized they screwed up, and apologized. Many rational people (I flatter myself by inclusion) decided not to trust Newsweek at face value anytime soon. They suffered for their mistake. Perhaps insufficiently, but at least some measure of justice exists in the world.
Should Newsweek be forcefully disbanded by national and international governments? Should news media generally be censored to prevent further costly mistakes? No. Their stories should be distrusted, but they should be allowed to write whatever they want. Perhaps, from time to time, they will make valid criticisms that need to be made. I supremely distrust the magazine, but they should be allowed the chance to prove me wrong. If they continue to be dependably wrong, their dramatic failures will build up until they discredit themselves entirely and fail financially. That is both probable and just.
(This wasn't the only time I've found Newsweek's stories to be erroneous. Far from it; for a while there, they seemed to be pursuing a campaign of misinformation against my religion. But the Koran thing was the most topic-appropriate example, and less prone to be biased by my personal religious feelings.)
It is preferable to punish people for the results of their words and advocacy, not the content. If a building is burning down and I yell "Fire!", I may initiate emergency actions that can save lives. If I am in a crowded theatre and yell "Fire!", I may initiate a stampede in which people are trampled to death. I may be killer or savior by the same expression. Neither morality nor justice regarding free expression can be determined by the idea expressed; context and consequence determine it.
Obama's successful advocacy of this resolution proves an utter lack of respect for free men. If he thinks accountability is broken, he should be reforming accountability. Instead, he is taking the authoritarian route, throwing out well- and mis-used freedoms together, the baby with the bathwater, in order to improve America's reputation in the Muslim world; a purely political maneuver without even the intent to promote liberty or justice.
It horrifies me that an American leader is so disconnected from the best ideals of the American philosophy.
But when an Obama-backed U.N. Resolution (which passed unanimously, as are most UN resolutions) calls for "negative racial and religious stereotyping" to be a just exception to freedom of speech on the grounds that it is abusive and incites unrest... that is ridiculously, dangerously wrong. The resolution's Egyptian co-sponsor defended the ruling with the words "freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused," and "the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner."
Got that, news media? Shutting up is the ethical choice. Don't go criticizing Catholics, Muslims, Adventists, Mormons or Scientologists or you could end up censored or jailed.
By the way, Egypt has no freedom of speech and uses the same court system to rule on religious and secular matters.
The whole point of the freedom of speech is to allow criticisms of any institution or individual without having to prove a rational basis first. That way, corruption can always be identified and defied by articulation and expression. The identification of corrupt philosophies and practices in sacrosanct institutions allowed the Protestant Reformation and the American Revolution, the events which initiated the historic expansion of democratic and human rights -- the rational basis of practical freedom -- across the modern world.
All reform starts with freedom of expression.
Yes, people should be held accountable for their speech. When Newsweek published a false story about Korans being flushed down the toilet in Gitmo, Muslims rioted and people died. They recognized they screwed up, and apologized. Many rational people (I flatter myself by inclusion) decided not to trust Newsweek at face value anytime soon. They suffered for their mistake. Perhaps insufficiently, but at least some measure of justice exists in the world.
Should Newsweek be forcefully disbanded by national and international governments? Should news media generally be censored to prevent further costly mistakes? No. Their stories should be distrusted, but they should be allowed to write whatever they want. Perhaps, from time to time, they will make valid criticisms that need to be made. I supremely distrust the magazine, but they should be allowed the chance to prove me wrong. If they continue to be dependably wrong, their dramatic failures will build up until they discredit themselves entirely and fail financially. That is both probable and just.
(This wasn't the only time I've found Newsweek's stories to be erroneous. Far from it; for a while there, they seemed to be pursuing a campaign of misinformation against my religion. But the Koran thing was the most topic-appropriate example, and less prone to be biased by my personal religious feelings.)
It is preferable to punish people for the results of their words and advocacy, not the content. If a building is burning down and I yell "Fire!", I may initiate emergency actions that can save lives. If I am in a crowded theatre and yell "Fire!", I may initiate a stampede in which people are trampled to death. I may be killer or savior by the same expression. Neither morality nor justice regarding free expression can be determined by the idea expressed; context and consequence determine it.
Obama's successful advocacy of this resolution proves an utter lack of respect for free men. If he thinks accountability is broken, he should be reforming accountability. Instead, he is taking the authoritarian route, throwing out well- and mis-used freedoms together, the baby with the bathwater, in order to improve America's reputation in the Muslim world; a purely political maneuver without even the intent to promote liberty or justice.
It horrifies me that an American leader is so disconnected from the best ideals of the American philosophy.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Obameter #224: $2 bn for Bryne/JAG
Back in 1994, then-President Bill Clinton signed into law an omnibus law enforcement bill that became known as "the Crime Bill" (as if there were no others). It was a major centralizing reform of law enforcement which, among other things, instituted a federal law enforcement grants system wherein states and local level law enforcement agencies can petition the federal government for funding called the Bryne Justice Assistance Grant (one of the few things Wikipedia does not have a page for, by the way).
In his late-term attempts to cut domestic spending, President Bush (hefting his veto-stamp menacingly) convinced Congress to cut the funding of the Bryne/JAG program from $520 million down to $170 million. Democrats generally and Obama specifically were appalled by the cuts, spouting rhetoric about police agencies crippled by the cuts and, as a result, crime running a muck.
Obama promised to refund the program, and fulfilled his pledge with a $2 billion stimulus to Bryne/JAG.
The idea seems to be that anytime law enforcement needs money for a new task force or a new police helicopter or whatever, they dig through some red tape and find Uncle Sam's out-stretched fist full of dollars on the other side.
Now, it makes perfect sense to my right-wing brain that a Republican would be cutting domestic spending and a Democrat would be increasing spending and centralization. But it instantly struck me as bizarre that the law-and-order Republican was cutting law enforcement spending while the same Democrat President that recently declared the de facto decriminalization of medical marijuana at the federal level was restoring funding to the major source of most anti-drug task forces and enforcement programs.
Even stranger, I couldn't find any Republican articles defending the choice. The only article I found that favored cutting JAG funding was from StopTheDrugWar.com. Bush allied with legalize it libertarians... that's just plain strange.
The JAG program limits grant approvals to proposals that fit into one of these distinct areas:
As for the program itself, I don't like the centralization aspect of the program. If two local governments are enforcing dramatically different rules in different precincts and on populations with with different local cultures and habits, why should they get the same funding from the same source? I can see a police station in Nebraska trying to crack down on marijuana use and a station in coastal California trying to keep people from hassling the potheads both using the same funding, and one of them seemingly in contradiction to the administration's position on marijuana use.
There's also the issue that the program dispenses money with little oversight. Isn't that one of the major causes of the financial collapse? It seems pretty stupid to be doing the same thing again when we're not even out of the pit dug by doing it the first time.
I also expect a good deal of that funding to be going to "solutions" to crime of questionable efficacy that I expect to hear from the American left: prisoner rehabilitation, job training programs, community corrections (actually I don't know what that is, but it sounds like it fits), and other plans straight from after school specials. Not every prisoner is Jean Valjean.
But all of these are rather vague impressions, not solid fact-based reasoning. For that, I'm going to have to trust the Office of Budget Statistics: they described the program with the phrase "results not demonstrated." They scored it weak in it's Management (67%) and just terrible in it's Purpose & Design (20%), Strategic Planning (38%), and Results/Accountability (13%). In other words, they find it to be a half-formed idea, badly implemented, mismanaged, unaccountable, and ineffective. If it was that incompetent with half a billion dollars, what is it going to do with two billion?
Still, despite this reasoning, it weirds me out to be ruling with StopTheDrugWar.com and against law enforcement funding. I mean, their overall reasoning is basically sound: don't make overly restrictive laws you can't enforce. But their solutions continue to be "nothing works, so try nothing." Opposing JAG doesn't oppose law enforcement universally, it just opposes a specific, ineffective funding mechanism... right?
This whole issue feels like a setup. It's too weird to be true.
In his late-term attempts to cut domestic spending, President Bush (hefting his veto-stamp menacingly) convinced Congress to cut the funding of the Bryne/JAG program from $520 million down to $170 million. Democrats generally and Obama specifically were appalled by the cuts, spouting rhetoric about police agencies crippled by the cuts and, as a result, crime running a muck.
Obama promised to refund the program, and fulfilled his pledge with a $2 billion stimulus to Bryne/JAG.
The idea seems to be that anytime law enforcement needs money for a new task force or a new police helicopter or whatever, they dig through some red tape and find Uncle Sam's out-stretched fist full of dollars on the other side.
Now, it makes perfect sense to my right-wing brain that a Republican would be cutting domestic spending and a Democrat would be increasing spending and centralization. But it instantly struck me as bizarre that the law-and-order Republican was cutting law enforcement spending while the same Democrat President that recently declared the de facto decriminalization of medical marijuana at the federal level was restoring funding to the major source of most anti-drug task forces and enforcement programs.
Even stranger, I couldn't find any Republican articles defending the choice. The only article I found that favored cutting JAG funding was from StopTheDrugWar.com. Bush allied with legalize it libertarians... that's just plain strange.
The JAG program limits grant approvals to proposals that fit into one of these distinct areas:
- Law Enforcement
- Prosecution & Court
- Prevention & Education
- Corrections & Community Corrections
- Drug Treatment & Enforcement
- Planning, Evaluation, & Technology
- Crime Victim & Witness (except compensation)
As for the program itself, I don't like the centralization aspect of the program. If two local governments are enforcing dramatically different rules in different precincts and on populations with with different local cultures and habits, why should they get the same funding from the same source? I can see a police station in Nebraska trying to crack down on marijuana use and a station in coastal California trying to keep people from hassling the potheads both using the same funding, and one of them seemingly in contradiction to the administration's position on marijuana use.
There's also the issue that the program dispenses money with little oversight. Isn't that one of the major causes of the financial collapse? It seems pretty stupid to be doing the same thing again when we're not even out of the pit dug by doing it the first time.
I also expect a good deal of that funding to be going to "solutions" to crime of questionable efficacy that I expect to hear from the American left: prisoner rehabilitation, job training programs, community corrections (actually I don't know what that is, but it sounds like it fits), and other plans straight from after school specials. Not every prisoner is Jean Valjean.
But all of these are rather vague impressions, not solid fact-based reasoning. For that, I'm going to have to trust the Office of Budget Statistics: they described the program with the phrase "results not demonstrated." They scored it weak in it's Management (67%) and just terrible in it's Purpose & Design (20%), Strategic Planning (38%), and Results/Accountability (13%). In other words, they find it to be a half-formed idea, badly implemented, mismanaged, unaccountable, and ineffective. If it was that incompetent with half a billion dollars, what is it going to do with two billion?
Still, despite this reasoning, it weirds me out to be ruling with StopTheDrugWar.com and against law enforcement funding. I mean, their overall reasoning is basically sound: don't make overly restrictive laws you can't enforce. But their solutions continue to be "nothing works, so try nothing." Opposing JAG doesn't oppose law enforcement universally, it just opposes a specific, ineffective funding mechanism... right?
This whole issue feels like a setup. It's too weird to be true.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Penguins and Sexuality
Okay, this is just stupid.
I've just become aware that part of the culture war over homosexuality has been waged via penguin stories. Really.
There is a pair of male Chinstrap Penguins (apparently the capitalization is appropriate) at the Central Park Zoo in New York City who were seen trying to hatch a rock together as if it were an egg. Zoo officials gave the penguins, Roy and Silo, an egg from a heterosexual penguin couple to see what they did. They hatched it and raised the chick, a female named Tango.
A children's book ("And Tango Makes Three") was written about the story thus far, but more has happened since then. The author opined that it was a reasonable tool to help parents explain same-sex parents to their children. Backlash against the book from social conservatives resulted in it being the most challenged and banned book in the USA for several years. Apparently, conservatives prefer the heterosexual penguins from "The March of the Penguins."
The penguins, of course, lived on after the book was written. Tango grew up and stayed with another female penguin ("Tanuzi") for two mating seasons. Roy and Silo broke up after six mating seasons when Silo seemingly left Roy for a female penguin from San Diego's Sea World named Scrappy. There are 4 other homosexual couples among the zoo's 65 Chinstrap Penguins.
Liberal lessons from these events:
Conservative lessons from these events:
But the most important lesson of all is this crap is stupid. The behavior of penguins proves absolutely nothing about the ideal behavior of humans, and only tells us what we already know about actual human behavior, except badly generalized and subjectivized.
Fine, it's entertaining water-cooler conversation. But when it starts getting op/ed space in the New York Times and people start advocating for the book to be banned from public libraries then people are taking this gibberish way too seriously.
(On another note, speaking as a social conservative, don't ban the stupid book. Just don't read it. Yeah, it irritates me, too. But freedom of speech should win, even if the speech is irritating.)
I've just become aware that part of the culture war over homosexuality has been waged via penguin stories. Really.
There is a pair of male Chinstrap Penguins (apparently the capitalization is appropriate) at the Central Park Zoo in New York City who were seen trying to hatch a rock together as if it were an egg. Zoo officials gave the penguins, Roy and Silo, an egg from a heterosexual penguin couple to see what they did. They hatched it and raised the chick, a female named Tango.
A children's book ("And Tango Makes Three") was written about the story thus far, but more has happened since then. The author opined that it was a reasonable tool to help parents explain same-sex parents to their children. Backlash against the book from social conservatives resulted in it being the most challenged and banned book in the USA for several years. Apparently, conservatives prefer the heterosexual penguins from "The March of the Penguins."
The penguins, of course, lived on after the book was written. Tango grew up and stayed with another female penguin ("Tanuzi") for two mating seasons. Roy and Silo broke up after six mating seasons when Silo seemingly left Roy for a female penguin from San Diego's Sea World named Scrappy. There are 4 other homosexual couples among the zoo's 65 Chinstrap Penguins.
Liberal lessons from these events:
- Homosexuality is natural, since animals do it.
- Homosexuals can have stable, long-term relationships (6 years out of a 20-year lifespan).
- Homosexuals can raise infants to adulthood.
- Without social stigma, about 13% of the population is gay.
Conservative lessons from these events:
- Young raised by homosexuals turn out homosexual.
- Homosexuality requires irrationality: rocks aren't eggs.
- Homosexuals eventually turn straight or go celibate.
- The Beach Boys were right about California girls.
But the most important lesson of all is this crap is stupid. The behavior of penguins proves absolutely nothing about the ideal behavior of humans, and only tells us what we already know about actual human behavior, except badly generalized and subjectivized.
Fine, it's entertaining water-cooler conversation. But when it starts getting op/ed space in the New York Times and people start advocating for the book to be banned from public libraries then people are taking this gibberish way too seriously.
(On another note, speaking as a social conservative, don't ban the stupid book. Just don't read it. Yeah, it irritates me, too. But freedom of speech should win, even if the speech is irritating.)
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Obameter #222: Open Cuba
Since the 1959 Communist Revolution in Cuba, it has been a thorn in America's side. It was the only US territory to be lost to Communism in the time of the Cold War, and the site of the Cuban Missile Crisis (the closest the world has ever come to global nuclear war). It is awash with human rights violations, including harsh penalties for opposition to the Castro government, extreme censorship of media and the press, and alleged "re-education camps" where forced labor and torture are performed on such groups as homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, conscientious objectors, and political dissidents. Travel within the nation and emigration to other nations are both prohibited barring special approval by the government.
It was to encourage democracy and human rights, and perhaps to "break" the Castro regime, that the United States established a complete trade embargo on Cuba - if you want to trade with Cuba, you cannot trade with the United States or any company based therein. Most people choose to trade with the $12.5 trillion behemoth economy rather than $46 billion speck on the map.
However, signs from Cuba show subtle reforms: gays are no longer openly penalized for their sexuality, religious meetings can now be held openly and freely, and health care and education are doing very well. Many in human rights organizations and the UN now see the embargo as part of the problem. Maybe things are worse precisely because of the sanctions imposed by the USA.
In this political atmosphere, President Obama has fulfilled his promise to open Cuba to travel and remittances from Cuban Americans. People can visit their families and send them money, even bring them cell phones, satellite radios, and televisions as gifts. Broadcasters can extend their services to Cuban shores. US sanctions on these things have been lifted.
Will the lifting of these restrictions send the message of democracy, freedom, and prosperity to the Cuban people, thus undermining or reforming the Cuban regime? Or will it be the sanctions and embargo that is undermined, thus empowering the oppressive Castro government?
Honestly, I can't begin to guess. The complexity of the problem is beyond me. All I see are families separated by an ocean and two governments, and Obama moving one of those governments out of the way. Family is sacrosanct. All else is just hope or fear.
Obama has my support on this one. He also has the support of most Cuban-Americans, who largely favor visitation rights but oppose an end to the embargo and are largely Republican voters. Smart political strategy as well as support for families.
It was to encourage democracy and human rights, and perhaps to "break" the Castro regime, that the United States established a complete trade embargo on Cuba - if you want to trade with Cuba, you cannot trade with the United States or any company based therein. Most people choose to trade with the $12.5 trillion behemoth economy rather than $46 billion speck on the map.
However, signs from Cuba show subtle reforms: gays are no longer openly penalized for their sexuality, religious meetings can now be held openly and freely, and health care and education are doing very well. Many in human rights organizations and the UN now see the embargo as part of the problem. Maybe things are worse precisely because of the sanctions imposed by the USA.
In this political atmosphere, President Obama has fulfilled his promise to open Cuba to travel and remittances from Cuban Americans. People can visit their families and send them money, even bring them cell phones, satellite radios, and televisions as gifts. Broadcasters can extend their services to Cuban shores. US sanctions on these things have been lifted.
Will the lifting of these restrictions send the message of democracy, freedom, and prosperity to the Cuban people, thus undermining or reforming the Cuban regime? Or will it be the sanctions and embargo that is undermined, thus empowering the oppressive Castro government?
Honestly, I can't begin to guess. The complexity of the problem is beyond me. All I see are families separated by an ocean and two governments, and Obama moving one of those governments out of the way. Family is sacrosanct. All else is just hope or fear.
Obama has my support on this one. He also has the support of most Cuban-Americans, who largely favor visitation rights but oppose an end to the embargo and are largely Republican voters. Smart political strategy as well as support for families.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Obameter #221: Double the Peace Corps
In good ol' election year 2008, there were about 8,000 Peace Corps volunteers. Candidate Obama promised to double that number by 2011. A whole year later, his 2010 budget is out and it calls for "9,000 Americans enrolled in the Peace Corps by the end of FY 2012 and 11,000 by the end of FY 2016." Epic fail.
Okay, technically he hasn't failed yet. He has until Dec. 31st, 2011 to turn things around. It's not impossible, but it's also not likely.
At least the promise was good. The Peace Corps has a long track record of helping people on an impressive scale in pursuing their goals of spreading technology and cultural understanding. Those rare times that criticism is leveled against the organization tend to be textbook examples of baseless bias (for example, Nixon claimed it was just a loophole for draft-dodgers, and a Colombian urban legend claims it was Peace Corps volunteers who first created cocaine from coca leaves).
Obama supports doubling the program as part of his efforts to make America popular in the international community. That overreaching goal is a little silly (It's better to be right than popular), but I can't fault the expansion of the Peace Corps itself and Americans doing substantial good seems like a good way to drum up international goodwill.
Overall, his promise was commendable but his failure isn't. Kinda the reverse of his national security promises.
Okay, technically he hasn't failed yet. He has until Dec. 31st, 2011 to turn things around. It's not impossible, but it's also not likely.
At least the promise was good. The Peace Corps has a long track record of helping people on an impressive scale in pursuing their goals of spreading technology and cultural understanding. Those rare times that criticism is leveled against the organization tend to be textbook examples of baseless bias (for example, Nixon claimed it was just a loophole for draft-dodgers, and a Colombian urban legend claims it was Peace Corps volunteers who first created cocaine from coca leaves).
Obama supports doubling the program as part of his efforts to make America popular in the international community. That overreaching goal is a little silly (It's better to be right than popular), but I can't fault the expansion of the Peace Corps itself and Americans doing substantial good seems like a good way to drum up international goodwill.
Overall, his promise was commendable but his failure isn't. Kinda the reverse of his national security promises.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Obameter #193: Summit on Nuclear Terrorism
Einstein proved that a little matter can be converted to a massive amount of energy. Atoms of some isotopes of some elements are capable of breaking down into several smaller atoms in such a way that some mass is lost and, thus, a great amount of energy is gained. Uranium-235 is one such isotope, the only naturally-occurring isotope of any element that can sustain a chain reaction of atomic fission; that is, that the fission of one atom can trigger the fission of another, over and over until the U235 is all used up. Thus, a great enough mass of U235 at a sufficiently extreme density can cause a massive output of energy - an atomic chain reaction. The theoretical maximum energy production is 19.54 TJ/mol - in other words, one mole of U235 (235 g or ½ pound) is enough to heat 18 Olympic swimming pools from frozen to boiling.
Click to see the math.
Nuclear fission is powerful. The concept of that power in the wrong hands is frightening. Even the most peace-loving international cooperation advocate must recognize the security risk posed by nuclear terrorism.
Thus, the Obama/Biden ticket promised to hold international conferences on nuclear terrorism, first in 2009 and then periodically forever after. After campaigning on the premise that Saddam's Iraq was not a threat to global or US national security, and that the Iranian nuclear program is not a threat to global or US national security, and that various programs instituted to fight international terrorism were overreactions to the global and US national security threat posed by terrorism, Obama/Biden needed to prove they weren't universally opposed to protecting national security on principle.
Thus, they retooled the half-century old anti-nuke campaign with anti-terrorist rhetoric and sold it as a national security issue that a liberal internationalist could support - that is to say, a national security threat that could be opposed by international diplomacy and UN talks rather than military force.
It really is the absolute least they could possibly do.
Further proving their lack of interest in the topic, the first meeting has been announced for March 2010 - not sometime in 2009, as was promised. PolitiFact calls it a compromise.
Don't misunderstand - they're not wrong. Nuclear terrorism is a horrible concept, something that should be prevented and something that too little is being done to prevent. There are many places in the world where cold war era nuclear bombs and rockets are being protected by decaying or failed security systems, and the risk of them being found operational, repaired, or even just studied is a serious nuclear proliferation risk. Aside from that, Uranium is found naturally throughout the Earth's crust at about 40 times the rate of silver, though only 0.72% of that is the U235 that is useful for nuclear reactions. That means U235 is about 1/4th as common as silver. That is a LOT of potential for mining by terrorists.
But it should be an important detail of a defensive foreign policy of a much broader scope. Leaving Iraq, the possibility of a troop surge in Afghanistan, and diplomacy about nuclear terrorism do not combine Voltron-style to form a comprehensive plan for national defense. I have, in the past, expressed hope that Obama is beginning to understand that and develop his defense policy in his breaking of anti-defense promises, but his having made those promises shows a great gap between the defense policy he should have and what he vocally advocates.
I do technically support Obama's position on this issue so I'm counting it as a point in his favor, but his overall weakness on the issue of defense is understated because of his lack of strong promises in that regard.
In case you're curious, the score so far is 9 points in support vs. 10 points opposed. 47% correct is an F in any classroom I know of, but it's not that bad for government efficiency. Also, the informal mathematical proof that a mole of U235 will boil 18 Olympic pools was a ton of fun to research and write. I wish I could get a job doing stuff like that.
Click to see the math.
Nuclear fission is powerful. The concept of that power in the wrong hands is frightening. Even the most peace-loving international cooperation advocate must recognize the security risk posed by nuclear terrorism.
Thus, the Obama/Biden ticket promised to hold international conferences on nuclear terrorism, first in 2009 and then periodically forever after. After campaigning on the premise that Saddam's Iraq was not a threat to global or US national security, and that the Iranian nuclear program is not a threat to global or US national security, and that various programs instituted to fight international terrorism were overreactions to the global and US national security threat posed by terrorism, Obama/Biden needed to prove they weren't universally opposed to protecting national security on principle.
Thus, they retooled the half-century old anti-nuke campaign with anti-terrorist rhetoric and sold it as a national security issue that a liberal internationalist could support - that is to say, a national security threat that could be opposed by international diplomacy and UN talks rather than military force.
It really is the absolute least they could possibly do.
Further proving their lack of interest in the topic, the first meeting has been announced for March 2010 - not sometime in 2009, as was promised. PolitiFact calls it a compromise.
Don't misunderstand - they're not wrong. Nuclear terrorism is a horrible concept, something that should be prevented and something that too little is being done to prevent. There are many places in the world where cold war era nuclear bombs and rockets are being protected by decaying or failed security systems, and the risk of them being found operational, repaired, or even just studied is a serious nuclear proliferation risk. Aside from that, Uranium is found naturally throughout the Earth's crust at about 40 times the rate of silver, though only 0.72% of that is the U235 that is useful for nuclear reactions. That means U235 is about 1/4th as common as silver. That is a LOT of potential for mining by terrorists.
But it should be an important detail of a defensive foreign policy of a much broader scope. Leaving Iraq, the possibility of a troop surge in Afghanistan, and diplomacy about nuclear terrorism do not combine Voltron-style to form a comprehensive plan for national defense. I have, in the past, expressed hope that Obama is beginning to understand that and develop his defense policy in his breaking of anti-defense promises, but his having made those promises shows a great gap between the defense policy he should have and what he vocally advocates.
I do technically support Obama's position on this issue so I'm counting it as a point in his favor, but his overall weakness on the issue of defense is understated because of his lack of strong promises in that regard.
In case you're curious, the score so far is 9 points in support vs. 10 points opposed. 47% correct is an F in any classroom I know of, but it's not that bad for government efficiency. Also, the informal mathematical proof that a mole of U235 will boil 18 Olympic pools was a ton of fun to research and write. I wish I could get a job doing stuff like that.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
To Fast
A great many religions believe that going without food for a time encourages spirituality. The reasoning is common enough to be referenced by the pop philosophy movie The Matrix; food alters one's perceptions. The Oracle uses food to manipulate Neo, Cypher eats steak before betraying Morpheus, and in food "in the real world" is hardly food at all - suggesting a clearer understanding of truth. The Bible depicts stories of people fasting to rid themselves of pride, to aid repentance, and to protect from divine judgment.
My own religion has a charitable tradition of fasting -- once a month, we are invited to skip two consecutive meals (all food and drink, even water, with concessions made for personal health) and donate the money saved to the hungry and needy. This is considered both a charitable donation and an exercise in empathy - it is easier to give to the hungry when you personally and sharply know what they are suffering.
Perhaps it is also more difficult to waste what you receive when you know it is food formerly destined for another's stomach.
But today I have another reason for fasting, a personal reason. My extended family is facing tough economic times. Their problems require more and greater solutions than I can provide. I fast to remind myself of my limits, and to ask God for the things I cannot provide them. I have too much pride, and too much need of repentance. A perfect judgment would not be kind to me. But it is for my family that I worry. It is for them I petition for grace.
Maybe if I better myself morally I will find more grace granted to them. Maybe if I do more good they will face less fear. But even if not, at least I'll have done more good and become better.
I am not good with rite and ritual, or with obedience for it's own sake. But I believe fasting will help, so I'll try. My thoughts are with my family.
My own religion has a charitable tradition of fasting -- once a month, we are invited to skip two consecutive meals (all food and drink, even water, with concessions made for personal health) and donate the money saved to the hungry and needy. This is considered both a charitable donation and an exercise in empathy - it is easier to give to the hungry when you personally and sharply know what they are suffering.
Perhaps it is also more difficult to waste what you receive when you know it is food formerly destined for another's stomach.
But today I have another reason for fasting, a personal reason. My extended family is facing tough economic times. Their problems require more and greater solutions than I can provide. I fast to remind myself of my limits, and to ask God for the things I cannot provide them. I have too much pride, and too much need of repentance. A perfect judgment would not be kind to me. But it is for my family that I worry. It is for them I petition for grace.
Maybe if I better myself morally I will find more grace granted to them. Maybe if I do more good they will face less fear. But even if not, at least I'll have done more good and become better.
I am not good with rite and ritual, or with obedience for it's own sake. But I believe fasting will help, so I'll try. My thoughts are with my family.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Obameter #181: Habeas Corpus Rights for Enemy Combatants
The phrase habeas corpus is Latin, meaning "You have the body." The premise is that one cannot be imprisoned for murder unless a murder has certainly happened: therefore, there has to be a body. It was originally used by the King or his representatives to ensure local governments were not impeding Crown business with false charges against Crown agents. Then it was extended to all subjects of the King, allowing the King to protect their rights (if he felt like it). When the 13 original colonies declared independence, they also provided the authority to demand formal, legal proof of habeas corpus to every citizen. It was a universal civil right only after a long evolution.
It is a central philosophy of criminal law everywhere the English Empire touched in it's imperial heyday. As such, it is one of the most universal legal principles there are: there can be no imprisonment without proof of a crime. That is what separates legal imprisonments from illegal kidnappings.
Except for prisoners of war. It is inherently entangled in the motivations of war to prevent captured enemy soldiers from ever again being about to fight against you. In ancient times this was accomplished by wholesale slaughter, or more beneficially by slavery, or more ethically by imprisonment. Even the Third Geneva Convention requires only allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the detaining power as reason enough to hold a person as a prisoner of war. And if there is any doubt as to whether a prisoner constitutes a prisoner of war, they are to be treated as one.
During the War in Iraq, the United States faced the phenomenon of "enemy combatants" for perhaps the first time. These are people who fight for the other side, but do not obviously fit the Geneva definition of "soldiers". Many such combatants were captured and held without trial by the US, often in Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, an American military prison on the island of Cuba.
Critics of the USA's handling of these "enemy combatants" argue that all prisoners are either prisoners of war or be civilians. "There is no intermediate status." I'm no legal scholar, but assuming that's true still doesn't guarantee enemy combatants habeas corpus rights. If they must be one, Geneva says "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons[ are prisoners of war], such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention" [source]. Thus, Geneva says these disputed persons should be prisoners of war and have no habeas corpus rights.
That is not the reasoning given by the Bush Administration. Neither is it the reasoning given by the Obama Administration. But it is Geneva's reasoning.
Candidate Obama promised to restore habeas corpus to the enemy combatants, which is identical to declaring them civilians subject to due process. Since his election (May 21, to be precise), President Obama classified 5 fates for enemy combatants:
This is a kind of reasoning called deconstruction: if you cannot determine a solution that works for all in a group, subdivide them into groups based on what decision applies. It forks from Candidate Obama's reasoning that all were civilians, instead treating enemy combatants as a complex and diverse group that needs further classification.
I completely agree with Obama's deconstructionist thinking: they are a diverse group. Humanity always is. By the same reasoning, I dispute the claim that there can only be soldiers and civilians. Humanity is more diverse than that. A good soldier can also be a petty criminal against civilian laws; should he be immune by reason of his military prowess? A good civilian may, in time of local unrest, fight to defend his land, family, or life. Civilian laws condemn his violent behavior, but he deserves military respect in proportion to his successes.
I do not consider any of these lines of reasoning infallible. Like all reasoning pertaining to reality, they are all flawed to some extent. Bush's reasoning is utilitarian: they must be kept out of the war, and this is the reasoning that will a accomplish that. Candidate Obama's is rejection: Bush was extremely wrong, so the opposite extreme must be right. Geneva's is committee authoritarianism: our committee agreed this is true, and thus all must concede it to be. President Obama's is perhaps the best of the four. It is a concession between a generalist's idealism and the harsh complexity of reality, an aspiration to do what is right for the combatants tempered by a necessity to do what is right for everyone outside of Guantanamo.
The promise was stupid, but the compromise is smart. I cautiously support Obama on this issue. He might just bring justice without abandoning security. He might, maybe, just manage to do it right.
It is a central philosophy of criminal law everywhere the English Empire touched in it's imperial heyday. As such, it is one of the most universal legal principles there are: there can be no imprisonment without proof of a crime. That is what separates legal imprisonments from illegal kidnappings.
Except for prisoners of war. It is inherently entangled in the motivations of war to prevent captured enemy soldiers from ever again being about to fight against you. In ancient times this was accomplished by wholesale slaughter, or more beneficially by slavery, or more ethically by imprisonment. Even the Third Geneva Convention requires only allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the detaining power as reason enough to hold a person as a prisoner of war. And if there is any doubt as to whether a prisoner constitutes a prisoner of war, they are to be treated as one.
During the War in Iraq, the United States faced the phenomenon of "enemy combatants" for perhaps the first time. These are people who fight for the other side, but do not obviously fit the Geneva definition of "soldiers". Many such combatants were captured and held without trial by the US, often in Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, an American military prison on the island of Cuba.
Critics of the USA's handling of these "enemy combatants" argue that all prisoners are either prisoners of war or be civilians. "There is no intermediate status." I'm no legal scholar, but assuming that's true still doesn't guarantee enemy combatants habeas corpus rights. If they must be one, Geneva says "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons[ are prisoners of war], such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention" [source]. Thus, Geneva says these disputed persons should be prisoners of war and have no habeas corpus rights.
That is not the reasoning given by the Bush Administration. Neither is it the reasoning given by the Obama Administration. But it is Geneva's reasoning.
Candidate Obama promised to restore habeas corpus to the enemy combatants, which is identical to declaring them civilians subject to due process. Since his election (May 21, to be precise), President Obama classified 5 fates for enemy combatants:
- trial in federal courts (domestic civilians)
- trial through military commissions in his superficially modified version of the Bush-era system (military criminals)
- freed by the federal court decisions (free civilians)
- turned over to other countries (foreign civilians)
- no trial and no release (prisoners of war)
This is a kind of reasoning called deconstruction: if you cannot determine a solution that works for all in a group, subdivide them into groups based on what decision applies. It forks from Candidate Obama's reasoning that all were civilians, instead treating enemy combatants as a complex and diverse group that needs further classification.
I completely agree with Obama's deconstructionist thinking: they are a diverse group. Humanity always is. By the same reasoning, I dispute the claim that there can only be soldiers and civilians. Humanity is more diverse than that. A good soldier can also be a petty criminal against civilian laws; should he be immune by reason of his military prowess? A good civilian may, in time of local unrest, fight to defend his land, family, or life. Civilian laws condemn his violent behavior, but he deserves military respect in proportion to his successes.
I do not consider any of these lines of reasoning infallible. Like all reasoning pertaining to reality, they are all flawed to some extent. Bush's reasoning is utilitarian: they must be kept out of the war, and this is the reasoning that will a accomplish that. Candidate Obama's is rejection: Bush was extremely wrong, so the opposite extreme must be right. Geneva's is committee authoritarianism: our committee agreed this is true, and thus all must concede it to be. President Obama's is perhaps the best of the four. It is a concession between a generalist's idealism and the harsh complexity of reality, an aspiration to do what is right for the combatants tempered by a necessity to do what is right for everyone outside of Guantanamo.
The promise was stupid, but the compromise is smart. I cautiously support Obama on this issue. He might just bring justice without abandoning security. He might, maybe, just manage to do it right.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Super Powers
I've been reading X-Men comics and thinking about super powers. Mostly about what ridiculously shallow treatment comics give to powers. Of course, if you think about these things too critically you come to the obvious conclusion that most powers are impossible: people don't fly, shoot rays from their eyes, or grow an extra set of limbs. There's no way to actually make those things happen.
But some powers are only exaggerations of things people really can do: super strength, toughness, speed, intelligence, healing, or agility. The nature of the power in these cases is totally reasonable. Only it's extent is impossible. Similarly, some super powers are actually only extreme talents: engineering, science, psychology, empathy, athletics, acrobatics, combat, or espionage. For some, being extraordinarily wealthy seems to be their primary power.
Some "powers" are explained as the common traits of extraordinary beings, especially aliens, angels, ghosts, and demons. Others are unique, inbred "gifts" inherent to unique individuals. Still others are attained only through extensive research or practice; this category seems to consist mostly of wizardry and science, probably owing to authors who don't know the difference.
(Side point: I really hate aliens in comic books. They're never handled well. They're rarely handled well in TV or movies either, though there are some fantastic exceptions like Contact or The Forgotten. Books tend to give them more thought.)
Powers can also be categorized by their use: passive powers that always work (Wolverine's healing power, Rogue's touch), active powers that are activated at will (Storm's weather control, Nightcrawler's teleportation), and environmental powers that consist of mundane reality interacting with other powers (Wolverine's skeleton, Cyclops' visor).
Some powers show up time and again until their wielders start to blur together. How many brute fighter mutants are there in the X-Men universe? Wolverine, Bishop, Cable, Colossus, Beast, Sabertooth, Deadpool, The Blob, Sunder, Stonewall, Strong Guy, Puck, Sasquatch... how many do you need before they become redundant? Flight, the ability to control fire, and powers of suggestion are also ridiculously popular.
The ability to tell the future is an interesting power, but can come in three different forms: one can extrapolate the future as extrapolated from the intents and goals of individuals (like watchers from the movie Push), from foreseeing the physical results of physical events (like the precogs from Minority Report), or from actually viewing future events (like in the movie Paycheck or the book Pastwatch). I especially like the contrast between the first two: a watcher of human intent cannot see the future of a deserted isle nor predict natural disasters, but a watcher of physical inevitabilities has their view clouded by the free will choices (espeically those an economist would call "choices on the margin"). Future viewing seems more like time travel than psychic powers; it is rather distinct from the other two.
I have always liked powers of knowing more than powers of doing, probably because my own habits are geared more towards study than action. (This blog is a partially successful attempt to increase my dedication to action.)
In the end, though, what makes a mutant an interesting character is not their powers but their personality. Wolverine is cool more because he is fierce, independent, and passionate than because he slices things up and seemingly cannot die. Beast is interesting not for his big, furry brutality but for how that contrasts and combines with his cultured, intellectual personality. Rogue is beautiful for the ways she finds to enjoy life, not the power that makes it difficult for her.
I'd love to have mentioned Storm, but those who have only seen the movies would disagree that she is interesting at all.
Characters are written to be impossibly and uniquely unlike humanity, but the ones we love are the ones who strikingly resemble mundane humanity. Perhaps the most loved superhero would do better things than all others without any powers at all.
But some powers are only exaggerations of things people really can do: super strength, toughness, speed, intelligence, healing, or agility. The nature of the power in these cases is totally reasonable. Only it's extent is impossible. Similarly, some super powers are actually only extreme talents: engineering, science, psychology, empathy, athletics, acrobatics, combat, or espionage. For some, being extraordinarily wealthy seems to be their primary power.
Some "powers" are explained as the common traits of extraordinary beings, especially aliens, angels, ghosts, and demons. Others are unique, inbred "gifts" inherent to unique individuals. Still others are attained only through extensive research or practice; this category seems to consist mostly of wizardry and science, probably owing to authors who don't know the difference.
(Side point: I really hate aliens in comic books. They're never handled well. They're rarely handled well in TV or movies either, though there are some fantastic exceptions like Contact or The Forgotten. Books tend to give them more thought.)
Powers can also be categorized by their use: passive powers that always work (Wolverine's healing power, Rogue's touch), active powers that are activated at will (Storm's weather control, Nightcrawler's teleportation), and environmental powers that consist of mundane reality interacting with other powers (Wolverine's skeleton, Cyclops' visor).
Some powers show up time and again until their wielders start to blur together. How many brute fighter mutants are there in the X-Men universe? Wolverine, Bishop, Cable, Colossus, Beast, Sabertooth, Deadpool, The Blob, Sunder, Stonewall, Strong Guy, Puck, Sasquatch... how many do you need before they become redundant? Flight, the ability to control fire, and powers of suggestion are also ridiculously popular.
The ability to tell the future is an interesting power, but can come in three different forms: one can extrapolate the future as extrapolated from the intents and goals of individuals (like watchers from the movie Push), from foreseeing the physical results of physical events (like the precogs from Minority Report), or from actually viewing future events (like in the movie Paycheck or the book Pastwatch). I especially like the contrast between the first two: a watcher of human intent cannot see the future of a deserted isle nor predict natural disasters, but a watcher of physical inevitabilities has their view clouded by the free will choices (espeically those an economist would call "choices on the margin"). Future viewing seems more like time travel than psychic powers; it is rather distinct from the other two.
I have always liked powers of knowing more than powers of doing, probably because my own habits are geared more towards study than action. (This blog is a partially successful attempt to increase my dedication to action.)
In the end, though, what makes a mutant an interesting character is not their powers but their personality. Wolverine is cool more because he is fierce, independent, and passionate than because he slices things up and seemingly cannot die. Beast is interesting not for his big, furry brutality but for how that contrasts and combines with his cultured, intellectual personality. Rogue is beautiful for the ways she finds to enjoy life, not the power that makes it difficult for her.
I'd love to have mentioned Storm, but those who have only seen the movies would disagree that she is interesting at all.
Characters are written to be impossibly and uniquely unlike humanity, but the ones we love are the ones who strikingly resemble mundane humanity. Perhaps the most loved superhero would do better things than all others without any powers at all.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Comparing Apples to Apples in Health Care III
Here are links to the first and second articles in the Apples to Apples series.
FactCheck.org, an institution I greatly support, has gotten into the survival rate issue. Previously I've been criticizing the comparison of health care systems via life expectancy and infant mortality rates while promoting survival rates for specific ailments as a better comparison of systems. FactCheck has taken it upon themselves to criticize straight survival rate numbers.
They start by conceding the obvious difference in the stats: "Across the board, the United States boasts a higher five-year relative survival rate than the European average," they say. "But survival rates also differ within the United States, between insured and uninsured populations. […] survival rates among the uninsured were [&hellip] similar to Europe[.] […] Rates for people on Medicaid were similar to the uninsured."
That initially looks pretty good for the US status quo, but this is a comparison of the USA to Europe, not to socialized medicine. When comparing cancer survival rates from the USA to Canada, Japan, Australia and Cuba (all nations with single-payer government health coverage systems) we come up even or low pretty consistently. (Except with prostate cancer, which is apparently more of a money-maker for doctors than a major harm to public health.)
Also, early detection campaigns can distort a nation's survival rate numbers; catching cancer early rather than waiting for more serious symptoms means you're treating a weaker form of the cancer. Even with identical health care systems, early detection means a better survival rate. Thus, societal differences can distort the comparison of health care systems. Europe isn't big on cancer screenings, and neither are the American uninsured. That explains pretty well why the lower tier of Europe and uninsured Americans doesn't really compare to the higher tier of care enjoyed by socialized medicine and the American insured.
As their dedication to non-partisanship demands, FactCheck.org refuses to take sides on the debate overall. Survival rates do make the USA look much better than life expectancy and infant mortality statistics do -- we have great survival rates overall. Also, it doesn't bode well for the public option when it's current American counterpart, Medicare, is more like being uninsured than well-covered. Thus, these points could be used to argue against the public option before the legislature. On the other hand, insured Americans essentially tie the four socialized medicine nations mentioned suggesting that a socialized medicine system would mean top-tier coverage for all. "There's no way to know!" is the unspoken FactCheck theme.
What would be ideal is a statistical analysis of deeply similar cases in different nations. Great collections of parallel case studies would give a good comparison view of the systems. But I haven't seen any sign that anyone has done that. So the job is to derive what conclusions we can from the information given.
The big thing that strikes me hardest is cancer survival rates: the USA is the worldwide best at surviving breast and prostate cancer [source], but FactCheck explains that away as powerful early detection campaigns. Which makes sense. That leaves me without any way to guess which nation has the best cancer treatment.
That leaves the pro-US-system argument heavily relying on a sentence from Wikipedia of all places: "Canadian patients [...] had a 17% higher risk of dying from heart attacks than did U.S. patients." [source] Okay, technically it refers to a study in the cardiovascular medicine journal Circulation, but I haven't actually read that article. It's a thin strand to cling to. Maybe, despite my confident facade, I really don't know who has the best health care system.
One of the Wikipedia footnotes links to this article, gives a brief analysis of some of these same points, followed by a great and universal principle that I shall now steal as the beginning this article's conclusion: "The available data often do not provide clear answers." That being the case, isn't a diversity of approaches the best way to determine the best approach? The USA should remain unique until it's system is proven inferior. Since such proof remains elusive, don't fix anything.
FactCheck.org, an institution I greatly support, has gotten into the survival rate issue. Previously I've been criticizing the comparison of health care systems via life expectancy and infant mortality rates while promoting survival rates for specific ailments as a better comparison of systems. FactCheck has taken it upon themselves to criticize straight survival rate numbers.
They start by conceding the obvious difference in the stats: "Across the board, the United States boasts a higher five-year relative survival rate than the European average," they say. "But survival rates also differ within the United States, between insured and uninsured populations. […] survival rates among the uninsured were [&hellip] similar to Europe[.] […] Rates for people on Medicaid were similar to the uninsured."
That initially looks pretty good for the US status quo, but this is a comparison of the USA to Europe, not to socialized medicine. When comparing cancer survival rates from the USA to Canada, Japan, Australia and Cuba (all nations with single-payer government health coverage systems) we come up even or low pretty consistently. (Except with prostate cancer, which is apparently more of a money-maker for doctors than a major harm to public health.)
Also, early detection campaigns can distort a nation's survival rate numbers; catching cancer early rather than waiting for more serious symptoms means you're treating a weaker form of the cancer. Even with identical health care systems, early detection means a better survival rate. Thus, societal differences can distort the comparison of health care systems. Europe isn't big on cancer screenings, and neither are the American uninsured. That explains pretty well why the lower tier of Europe and uninsured Americans doesn't really compare to the higher tier of care enjoyed by socialized medicine and the American insured.
As their dedication to non-partisanship demands, FactCheck.org refuses to take sides on the debate overall. Survival rates do make the USA look much better than life expectancy and infant mortality statistics do -- we have great survival rates overall. Also, it doesn't bode well for the public option when it's current American counterpart, Medicare, is more like being uninsured than well-covered. Thus, these points could be used to argue against the public option before the legislature. On the other hand, insured Americans essentially tie the four socialized medicine nations mentioned suggesting that a socialized medicine system would mean top-tier coverage for all. "There's no way to know!" is the unspoken FactCheck theme.
What would be ideal is a statistical analysis of deeply similar cases in different nations. Great collections of parallel case studies would give a good comparison view of the systems. But I haven't seen any sign that anyone has done that. So the job is to derive what conclusions we can from the information given.
The big thing that strikes me hardest is cancer survival rates: the USA is the worldwide best at surviving breast and prostate cancer [source], but FactCheck explains that away as powerful early detection campaigns. Which makes sense. That leaves me without any way to guess which nation has the best cancer treatment.
That leaves the pro-US-system argument heavily relying on a sentence from Wikipedia of all places: "Canadian patients [...] had a 17% higher risk of dying from heart attacks than did U.S. patients." [source] Okay, technically it refers to a study in the cardiovascular medicine journal Circulation, but I haven't actually read that article. It's a thin strand to cling to. Maybe, despite my confident facade, I really don't know who has the best health care system.
One of the Wikipedia footnotes links to this article, gives a brief analysis of some of these same points, followed by a great and universal principle that I shall now steal as the beginning this article's conclusion: "The available data often do not provide clear answers." That being the case, isn't a diversity of approaches the best way to determine the best approach? The USA should remain unique until it's system is proven inferior. Since such proof remains elusive, don't fix anything.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Obameter #178: Handling Military Combatants
The classic idea of war is that two nations each build up an army and try to bash the other nation's army and country to bits. In order to minimize the inhumane damage war causes to the wounded, the sick, prisoners, civilians and other victims of war, several conventions were held in Geneva, Switzerland starting in 1864. These rules of wartime conduct are well-known under the name "the Geneva Conventions".
A new convention was held in Geneva in 1929 (at the beginning of WW2) to extend rules of humane conduct to the treatment of prisoners of war. This third Geneva Convention is the best known of the four, and is what people refer to when they say "the Geneva Convention" in the singular. The most widely known offenders of this third convention are the horrible concentration camps of Nazi Germany; the war crimes trials that followed WW2 made the term "Geneva Convention" a household name. A fourth convention was held in 1949 to protect noncombatant civilians from the horrors of war.
When the United States under George W. Bush invaded Iraq under Saddam Hussein, a problem quickly arose. The enemy soldiers were quickly defeated when they fought as the Geneva definition of "soldiers", and instead abandoned their uniforms and open opposition for subtle antagonism and terrorism. As they no longer qualified as soldiers in combat, they no longer qualified as prisoners of war under the 3rd Geneva Convention.
To be a soldier under Geneva, one must either belong to an official armed forces or militia for a government or other central authority or meet four other requirements:
But the war dragged on. Facing public pressure, the Bush Administration established a military tribunal system for trying the enemy combatants. In 2006 the Supreme Court ruled that the process violated US military law and the Geneva Conventions, specifically declaring these violations of :
The previous system having thus been eliminated, Congress passed and Bush signed a new system by the name The Military Commissions Act of 2006. Two years later, a part of this process was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, specifically the part where detainees of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center were not eligible for trial by the US civil justice system. This ruling occurred in June of 2008, only months before Barack Obama's election.
Obama, as a candidate, denounced the existing mess of a policy and promised, as President, "to distinguish between those prisoners who should be prosecuted for their crimes, those who can't be prosecuted but who can be held in a manner consistent with the laws of war, and those who should be released or transferred to their home countries." Almost immediately after his election (21 Jan 09), he made a powerful move toward that end: he suspended all the military commissions for 120 days to give the administration "time to review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently before military commissions, specifically."
On 15 May 09, just days before military tribunals would continue, the Obama Administration announced it was instituting a system of military tribunals. It denounced "the Military Commissions Act that was drafted by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress" that "had only succeeded in prosecuting three suspected terrorists in more than seven years." It announced the administration's intent to "ensure swift and certain justice against those detainees" and to "seek more time to allow us time to reform the military commission process." and concluded that "These reforms will begin to restore the Commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law."
While the White House is calling it a wholesale change in approach, human rights advocates are furious, calling it a continuation of the inhumane Bush policies. Specifically, they oppose the impression given that the Military Commissions Act was generally on the right track though wrong on specifics. One legal expert disapproved that Obama's plan lacked provisions for "detainees [to] have the opportunity to employee a civilian lawyer from their own country."
The announcement gives Congress 60 days to offer opinions and advice on how to reform the system, but it went into effect 60 days after the announcement whether altered or not. That deadline expired on July 14th. The superficially altered "Bush-era relic" is currently being used to try detainees.
Most will consider this a failing of Obama's ability to enact moral policies, perhaps even a flaw in his respect for human rights. I disagree. His respect for human rights stands as powerfully as ever. It is his respect for the legal complexity of the situation that has changed; in fact, it has grown. Where his rhetoric as a candidate spoke of the absolute moral choice and Bush's flawed choice, the reality of the situation requires implementing the choice and suffering it's effects. Bush was responding ably to a surprising, overwhelming issue, adapting the policy gradually toward a policy that would work. Obama assumed (or at least claimed) Bush's gradual adaptation was a moral failure; in essence, that Bush should have got it right the first try regardless of all circumstances. When faced with the same complexity and responsibility Bush had faced, Obama now sees that he can only put the final touches on a Bush creation that was adapted extremely well to the circumstances.
Sure, it'd have been preferable to have the finished work in 2002. But it was a puzzle that had to be solved, and the solving of it necessitated time spent. In the race for a winning policy, Bush didn't run a 4-minute mile. But he ran the distance, and in a respectable time. It speaks to Obama's naïveté that he judged Bush's attempt at a higher standard than Obama himself could achieve. His rhetoric is greater than his ability.
Thus, I count this issue as a mark against Obama, not because his policy is wrong but because he failed to contrast with the policy he denounced. Either his rhetoric is an ambitious lie or he has failed just as his predecessor did. Either is a mark against him.
Your biblical thought for the day is Matt 7:2. "with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." It applies all over this issue.
A new convention was held in Geneva in 1929 (at the beginning of WW2) to extend rules of humane conduct to the treatment of prisoners of war. This third Geneva Convention is the best known of the four, and is what people refer to when they say "the Geneva Convention" in the singular. The most widely known offenders of this third convention are the horrible concentration camps of Nazi Germany; the war crimes trials that followed WW2 made the term "Geneva Convention" a household name. A fourth convention was held in 1949 to protect noncombatant civilians from the horrors of war.
When the United States under George W. Bush invaded Iraq under Saddam Hussein, a problem quickly arose. The enemy soldiers were quickly defeated when they fought as the Geneva definition of "soldiers", and instead abandoned their uniforms and open opposition for subtle antagonism and terrorism. As they no longer qualified as soldiers in combat, they no longer qualified as prisoners of war under the 3rd Geneva Convention.
To be a soldier under Geneva, one must either belong to an official armed forces or militia for a government or other central authority or meet four other requirements:
- be accountable to a commander.
- wear a uniform that demonstrates your allegiance from a distance.
- carry weapons openly.
- follow the laws of war.
But the war dragged on. Facing public pressure, the Bush Administration established a military tribunal system for trying the enemy combatants. In 2006 the Supreme Court ruled that the process violated US military law and the Geneva Conventions, specifically declaring these violations of :
These grievances against due process were ruled to violate Article 3 of Geneva requirement for "all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
- The defendant and the defendant's attorney may be forbidden to view certain evidence used against the defendant; the defendant's attorney may be forbidden to discuss certain evidence with the defendant;
- Evidence judged to have any probative value may be admitted, including hearsay, unsworn live testimony, and statements gathered through torture; and
- Appeals are not heard by courts, but only within the Executive Branch
The previous system having thus been eliminated, Congress passed and Bush signed a new system by the name The Military Commissions Act of 2006. Two years later, a part of this process was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, specifically the part where detainees of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center were not eligible for trial by the US civil justice system. This ruling occurred in June of 2008, only months before Barack Obama's election.
Obama, as a candidate, denounced the existing mess of a policy and promised, as President, "to distinguish between those prisoners who should be prosecuted for their crimes, those who can't be prosecuted but who can be held in a manner consistent with the laws of war, and those who should be released or transferred to their home countries." Almost immediately after his election (21 Jan 09), he made a powerful move toward that end: he suspended all the military commissions for 120 days to give the administration "time to review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently before military commissions, specifically."
On 15 May 09, just days before military tribunals would continue, the Obama Administration announced it was instituting a system of military tribunals. It denounced "the Military Commissions Act that was drafted by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress" that "had only succeeded in prosecuting three suspected terrorists in more than seven years." It announced the administration's intent to "ensure swift and certain justice against those detainees" and to "seek more time to allow us time to reform the military commission process." and concluded that "These reforms will begin to restore the Commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law."
While the White House is calling it a wholesale change in approach, human rights advocates are furious, calling it a continuation of the inhumane Bush policies. Specifically, they oppose the impression given that the Military Commissions Act was generally on the right track though wrong on specifics. One legal expert disapproved that Obama's plan lacked provisions for "detainees [to] have the opportunity to employee a civilian lawyer from their own country."
The announcement gives Congress 60 days to offer opinions and advice on how to reform the system, but it went into effect 60 days after the announcement whether altered or not. That deadline expired on July 14th. The superficially altered "Bush-era relic" is currently being used to try detainees.
Most will consider this a failing of Obama's ability to enact moral policies, perhaps even a flaw in his respect for human rights. I disagree. His respect for human rights stands as powerfully as ever. It is his respect for the legal complexity of the situation that has changed; in fact, it has grown. Where his rhetoric as a candidate spoke of the absolute moral choice and Bush's flawed choice, the reality of the situation requires implementing the choice and suffering it's effects. Bush was responding ably to a surprising, overwhelming issue, adapting the policy gradually toward a policy that would work. Obama assumed (or at least claimed) Bush's gradual adaptation was a moral failure; in essence, that Bush should have got it right the first try regardless of all circumstances. When faced with the same complexity and responsibility Bush had faced, Obama now sees that he can only put the final touches on a Bush creation that was adapted extremely well to the circumstances.
Sure, it'd have been preferable to have the finished work in 2002. But it was a puzzle that had to be solved, and the solving of it necessitated time spent. In the race for a winning policy, Bush didn't run a 4-minute mile. But he ran the distance, and in a respectable time. It speaks to Obama's naïveté that he judged Bush's attempt at a higher standard than Obama himself could achieve. His rhetoric is greater than his ability.
Thus, I count this issue as a mark against Obama, not because his policy is wrong but because he failed to contrast with the policy he denounced. Either his rhetoric is an ambitious lie or he has failed just as his predecessor did. Either is a mark against him.
Your biblical thought for the day is Matt 7:2. "with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." It applies all over this issue.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Comparing Apples to Apples in Health Care II
My first Apples to Apples post is here.
Often, the health care systems of various nations are compared by infant mortality rates, a scale upon which the United States ranks badly. But the comparison is awash with inconsistencies that distort the national scores based on the national rules of self-assessment. Some examples of regional rules:
Once again, the claims that the American health care system is a national shame are discredited. Remind me, why is it we're so convinced it needs major reforms?
Note: This article was also posted on my new blog site. It's still very rough and incomplete, but it allows users to sign up and leave comments. Unlike this blog, it even has a mechanism to quote from the article and others' comments.
Often, the health care systems of various nations are compared by infant mortality rates, a scale upon which the United States ranks badly. But the comparison is awash with inconsistencies that distort the national scores based on the national rules of self-assessment. Some examples of regional rules:
- the U.S. tabulates every birth, even in poor, small and remote areas, while other countries are not always so meticulous.
- We also count every baby who shows any sign of life, irrespective of size or weight at birth.
- much of Europe treats babies born before 26 weeks' gestation who later die as miscarriages rather than infant deaths.
- Switzerland only counts babies who are at least 30 centimeters long (11.8 inches) as being born alive, thus disqualifying smaller babies from infant mortality numbers.
- Along the same lines, Canada, Austria and Germany only count babies weighing at least a pound as live births.
- many industrialized nations, such as France, Hong Kong and Japan don't count infant deaths that occur in the 24 hours after birth. About half of infant mortality in the USA takes place in that same one-day period.
Once again, the claims that the American health care system is a national shame are discredited. Remind me, why is it we're so convinced it needs major reforms?
Note: This article was also posted on my new blog site. It's still very rough and incomplete, but it allows users to sign up and leave comments. Unlike this blog, it even has a mechanism to quote from the article and others' comments.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Is the Health Care Overhaul Constitutional?
Even FactCheck.org was unable to answer that question definitively. I obviously oppose the health care reforms being considered.
The FactCheck.org analysis makes both sides of the issue sound pretty rational and reasonable, with one major exception:
Money is material security. Economics is how people attain material security. Purely economic liberty empowers one to protect one's own personal and bodily integrity. To impose upon economics liberties is a little push toward naked, homeless starvation. You cannot separate economic and personal liberties. Like energy and matter, they are phases of the same thing.
How is health insurance more directly related to personal, bodily integrity than cash money? The major difference I see is the difference between cash money and a food stamps or gift cards: one can be used for anything, while the other is limited. Also, food stamps and health insurance cost radically more to oversee and implement, so you get less out of it than you put into it. The generalized, low-cost version works better.
I'm absolutely convinced that forcing people to be consumers to a particular industry is wrong. I'm strongly confident (though not absolutely) it should be unconstitutional, but I'm a little doubtful that it actually will be declared unconstitutional. I far prefer it simply lose out in Congress, preventing it from consideration in the Supreme Court. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it'd be better for it to be considered by SCOTUS while it has this kind of chance of being declared unconstitutional rather than in some socialist future where opposition to centralized economic control has collapsed.
Save us from government's good intentions!
The FactCheck.org analysis makes both sides of the issue sound pretty rational and reasonable, with one major exception:
Mark Hall, professor of law and public health at Wake Forest University’s law school, writes that there is no fundamental right to be uninsured. "The liberty in question is purely economic and has none of the strong elements of personal or bodily integrity that invoke constitutional protection," he says.The sentence in bold is terribly ominous. It is horrifying to me that the right to property ("purely economic" liberty) is considered so easily divisible from the right to life ("personal or bodily integrity"). Bodily integrity is protected, day by day, by such material goods as clothes, shelter, seat belts, etc. These things are in turn provided by money, a purely economic entity. The core purpose of money is that we cannot possibly know every material good we may need in the future, so we have a general, all-purpose good that can be exchanged for whatever object fills whatever needs may arise.
Money is material security. Economics is how people attain material security. Purely economic liberty empowers one to protect one's own personal and bodily integrity. To impose upon economics liberties is a little push toward naked, homeless starvation. You cannot separate economic and personal liberties. Like energy and matter, they are phases of the same thing.
How is health insurance more directly related to personal, bodily integrity than cash money? The major difference I see is the difference between cash money and a food stamps or gift cards: one can be used for anything, while the other is limited. Also, food stamps and health insurance cost radically more to oversee and implement, so you get less out of it than you put into it. The generalized, low-cost version works better.
I'm absolutely convinced that forcing people to be consumers to a particular industry is wrong. I'm strongly confident (though not absolutely) it should be unconstitutional, but I'm a little doubtful that it actually will be declared unconstitutional. I far prefer it simply lose out in Congress, preventing it from consideration in the Supreme Court. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it'd be better for it to be considered by SCOTUS while it has this kind of chance of being declared unconstitutional rather than in some socialist future where opposition to centralized economic control has collapsed.
Save us from government's good intentions!
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Obameter #174: Speaking to Islam
Dang, that's a good speech!
I heard a small part of Obama's April speech to the Turkish Parliament on the radio the day it happened. I read it again just now, to renew my impressions. Both times, my strongest impression was "That's a good speech."
The speech was given at 3:30 PM Turkey time, which is 9 hours later my native Mountain time. So that's 6:30 AM to me.
Obama promised to reach out to the Muslim world with such a speech, and in that he clearly delivered. I'm going to go through it one more time, watching for specific points of interesting history, partisanship, or of stretching the truth for political ends.
"Turkey is an important part of Europe. […] So let me be clear: The United States strongly supports Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union."
• Turkey has been fighting a controversial battle to be accepted as an official part of Europe and it's Union as long as such international organizations have existed. It's membership is supported by the UK, Greese, and Sweden, but opposed by Austria by habit (they were a historic bulwark against the old Ottoman Empire) and France on the basis that it expands the borders of Europe (only a small part of Turkey is actually on the European continent). There are also concerns about waves of Muslim immigrants (France recently had serious problems an unruly subset of their Muslim population seemingly enforcing Sharia law on non-Muslims by vigilante violence) and the sudden great strength Turkey would have as the second largest body of MEPs, which representatives are proportional to national population.
"This morning I had the great privilege of visiting the tomb of your extraordinary founder of your republic. […] His greatest legacy is Turkey's strong, vibrant, secular democracy"
• Mustafa Kemal Atatürk first made a name for himself as a WW1 military commander for the Central Powers (for Americans, Brits, and Canadians that's "the other side"). The Central Powers didn't handle their defeat and the harsh sanctions levied against them very well. Most famously, Hitler led a surge of nationalist sentiment in Germany known by the abbreviation "Nazi." Atatürk, too, led a surge of nationalist sentiment in his native Turkey. In dramatic contrast to Hitler's Germany, Atatürk's national revolution was based on the principles of enlightenment philosophy and secular democracy (much like the USA's). The Kemalist ideology he originated is remarkably similar to a European parliamentary republic. It's not quite the diverse melting-pot that the USA is, but it's a remarkably strong democracy. It is one of the freest nations in the Muslim world.
"Turkey's democracy is your own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power"
• There's a little criticism of the Republican hawk position that war in Iraq will provide democracy. There was, however, an attempt at an Iraqi revolution in Shia southeast in the early 90s, just after the invasion of Kuwait was repelled. Negotiations were allegedly made between them and the American diplomats for the USA to provide weapons and aid to the cause much like France did in the American Revolution. The difference was that with a change of President the US government changed policies on providing aid to foreign rebellions. Without the promised aid, the rebellion was crushed. Having thwarted the home-grown revolution, don't we then have some moral responsibility to restore it?
"Now, my country's democracy has its own story. […] I can see the Washington Monument from the window of the White House every day. […] Over time, more and more people contributed to help make this monument the inspiring structure that still stands tall today. Among those who came to our aid were friends from […] Istanbul. Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid sent a marble plaque […] Inscribed […] with a few simple words: 'So as to strengthen the friendship between the two countries.' Over 150 years have passed since those words were carved into marble. Our nations have changed in many ways. But our friendship is strong, and our alliance endures."
• Cool story, and one I hadn't heard before. Good rhetorical use of it, too, wielding it to strengthen the alliance between the USA and Turkey.
"the future will be shaped by fear or by freedom; by poverty or by prosperity; by strife or by a just, secure and lasting peace."
• More realistically, the future will be shaped by both of each of those pairs in some proportion, and the hope is that there will be more of the latter and less of the former. It's unrealistic to expect a complete extinction of fear, poverty, or strife. It's a minor quibble, though.
"This much is certain: No one nation can confront these challenges alone, and all nations have a stake in overcoming them. That is why we must listen to one another, and seek common ground. That is why we must build on our mutual interests, and rise above our differences. We are stronger when we act together."
• I'm not so paranoid as to see New World Order conspiracies behind these statements, but I know there are people who will.
"America and Turkey are working with the G20 on an unprecedented response to an unprecedented economic crisis."
• As I've mentioned before, the unemployment rate after the stimulus is dramatically worse than was predicted by the Obama Administration if their stimulus was not implemented. It's up to 9.8% in September. That seems to suggest the unprecedented response is an unprecedented failure. I wonder how Turkey's and other international efforts are doing. Incidentally, that source for the unemployment rate also says the rate is the worst since 1983 -- when Reagan dramatically cut taxes and attempted to cut non-military spending to reverse a combination of unemployment and inflation. You know, exactly the opposite approach Obama is using.
"We should build on our Clean Technology Fund to leverage efficiency and renewable energy investments in Turkey. And to power markets in Turkey and Europe, the United States will continue to support your central role as an East-West corridor for oil and natural gas."
• In other words, we'll continue to spend money to make your major industries of oil and natural gas shipping obsolete. It takes great talent to threaten someone in such a way that they feel more secure hearing it.
"Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith -- it is not diminished by it."
• Amen.
"In the last several years, you've abolished state security courts, you've expanded the right to counsel. You've reformed the penal code and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly."
• Turkey has never really been a liberal democracy in the sense of constitutional civil rights. State security courts were something akin to military tribunals over civilian crimes; you know, the kind of thing that exaggerated claims about the USA PATRIOT Act claimed would happen to terrorism suspects. Except it was the literal policy as implemented. Reforming that was obviously good. Implementing trial by jury would also appeal to me, but that reform isn't very likely in Turkey. Still, they are definitely improving.
"An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens."
• Absolutely true.
"An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your nations."
• Turkey and Armenia were enemies in WW1, with Armenian troops aiding the Russian Army in crushing the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman was divided among various Allied nations, then restored to nationhood by the war of independence I mentioned before.
"[Turkey] can play a constructive role in helping to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has continued for far too long."
• A small section of the Caucasian nation of Azerbaijan called Nagorno-Karabakh wants to secede from Azerbaijan largely at the behest of the Armenian ethnic majority in the region. This is all right near the Turkish border, perhaps as far as Florida to Cuba. An undeclared war was fought there for years until an official declaration of war in 1992. The war officially ended in 1994 with a Russian-brokered ceasefire and continuing peace talks. Tensions have risen and threats issued all through 2008, indicating peace talks taking a turn for the worse. It seems... subjective for Obama to call it a continuing war. Maybe he's playing to local sentiment. Or maybe he's just oversimplifying.
"The United States is willing to offer all the help sought by the parties as they work towards a just and lasting settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bizonal and bicommunal federation."
• Turkey is the only nation in the world that recognizes Northern Cyprus as an independent nation. A coup was attempted by ethnically Greek Cypriots, triggering a Turkish invasion, which lead to a standoff where Turkey recognizes an independent nation and everyone else sees a region of the existing Republic of Cyprus. Turkey, apparently with approval from the USA, seeks a federation of two "zones", one ethnically Greek and one Turkish, federalized into one nation. Apparently the idea of a melting pot only applies to our own nation, not to our allies.
"The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis, and people of goodwill around the world."
• It's a great solution, except for the unsolvable problem of drawing borders, especially pertaining to Jerusalem. Both sides would rather fight than lose exclusive control over Jerusalem, which both sides cannot hold at the same time. That's why the peace talks never go anywhere. Only by waiting perpetually can peace talks avoid this issue and, thus, avoid open war. Unless one side gives up.
Reminds me of the sword dual at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean. "So what now, Jack? Are we to be two immortals locked in an epic battle until Judgment Day and trumpets sound?" "Or you could surrender." I think a more accurate view of the American position on the issue is "Knock it off already!"
"The peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions."
• It amuses me how Iranian nuclear ambitions are just a rumor perpetuated by Cheney and the neocons to stir up trouble... until Obama gets security clearance. Then it's accepted fact.
" Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a common threat from terrorism. That includes the al Qaeda terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and destroy their country. That includes the PKK."
• The PKK is the Kurdistan Worker's Party ("Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan" in Kurdish). It's basically a socialist, militant extremist version of the Kurdish separatists common to the Turkish/Iraqi border region extending a little into Syria and Iran. The people Saddam Hussein bombed with chemical weapons -- this is the radical, violent, nutball version of those guys. They are listed as a terrorist organization by the USA, UN, NATO, and the European Union. Their supporters also protested the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Because the US and the Kurds of northern Iraq are strong allies in the War in Iraq, there hasn't been a lot of US effort expended against the Kurdish extremists near the border. Apparently, that's what Obama is suggesting will change.
"There's an old Turkish proverb: 'You cannot put out fire with flames.' America knows this. Turkey knows this. There's some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy."
• Great message. I'm tempted to call the epic economic stimulus spending and over-regulation of the health care and energy industries "destructive" and turn this principle against it's speaker. I really like the use of a local proverb, a la Ronald "Trust, but verify." Reagan.
"This is not where East and West divide -- this is where they come together."
• If rhetoric were still taught in school (like it should be), this could be a lesson unto itself.
All in all, it's a great speech. Obama is still Obama, ideologically and stylistically. But it's strong, persuasive, and filled with good stuff. It made me research a lot of Turkish history, which was interesting. Even under my critical eye, it persuades me to value Turkey as a rich culture and a valuable American ally.
I can't help but admit, George W. Bush should've done some of this kind of outreach to the moderate Muslim world. Not the BS liberal internationalism, but the praise of the best traits of the best nations in the region. It would have gone a long way to diffusing the constant-but-baseless criticisms of him. Good job, President Obama.
I heard a small part of Obama's April speech to the Turkish Parliament on the radio the day it happened. I read it again just now, to renew my impressions. Both times, my strongest impression was "That's a good speech."
The speech was given at 3:30 PM Turkey time, which is 9 hours later my native Mountain time. So that's 6:30 AM to me.
Obama promised to reach out to the Muslim world with such a speech, and in that he clearly delivered. I'm going to go through it one more time, watching for specific points of interesting history, partisanship, or of stretching the truth for political ends.
"Turkey is an important part of Europe. […] So let me be clear: The United States strongly supports Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union."
• Turkey has been fighting a controversial battle to be accepted as an official part of Europe and it's Union as long as such international organizations have existed. It's membership is supported by the UK, Greese, and Sweden, but opposed by Austria by habit (they were a historic bulwark against the old Ottoman Empire) and France on the basis that it expands the borders of Europe (only a small part of Turkey is actually on the European continent). There are also concerns about waves of Muslim immigrants (France recently had serious problems an unruly subset of their Muslim population seemingly enforcing Sharia law on non-Muslims by vigilante violence) and the sudden great strength Turkey would have as the second largest body of MEPs, which representatives are proportional to national population.
"This morning I had the great privilege of visiting the tomb of your extraordinary founder of your republic. […] His greatest legacy is Turkey's strong, vibrant, secular democracy"
• Mustafa Kemal Atatürk first made a name for himself as a WW1 military commander for the Central Powers (for Americans, Brits, and Canadians that's "the other side"). The Central Powers didn't handle their defeat and the harsh sanctions levied against them very well. Most famously, Hitler led a surge of nationalist sentiment in Germany known by the abbreviation "Nazi." Atatürk, too, led a surge of nationalist sentiment in his native Turkey. In dramatic contrast to Hitler's Germany, Atatürk's national revolution was based on the principles of enlightenment philosophy and secular democracy (much like the USA's). The Kemalist ideology he originated is remarkably similar to a European parliamentary republic. It's not quite the diverse melting-pot that the USA is, but it's a remarkably strong democracy. It is one of the freest nations in the Muslim world.
"Turkey's democracy is your own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power"
• There's a little criticism of the Republican hawk position that war in Iraq will provide democracy. There was, however, an attempt at an Iraqi revolution in Shia southeast in the early 90s, just after the invasion of Kuwait was repelled. Negotiations were allegedly made between them and the American diplomats for the USA to provide weapons and aid to the cause much like France did in the American Revolution. The difference was that with a change of President the US government changed policies on providing aid to foreign rebellions. Without the promised aid, the rebellion was crushed. Having thwarted the home-grown revolution, don't we then have some moral responsibility to restore it?
"Now, my country's democracy has its own story. […] I can see the Washington Monument from the window of the White House every day. […] Over time, more and more people contributed to help make this monument the inspiring structure that still stands tall today. Among those who came to our aid were friends from […] Istanbul. Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid sent a marble plaque […] Inscribed […] with a few simple words: 'So as to strengthen the friendship between the two countries.' Over 150 years have passed since those words were carved into marble. Our nations have changed in many ways. But our friendship is strong, and our alliance endures."
• Cool story, and one I hadn't heard before. Good rhetorical use of it, too, wielding it to strengthen the alliance between the USA and Turkey.
"the future will be shaped by fear or by freedom; by poverty or by prosperity; by strife or by a just, secure and lasting peace."
• More realistically, the future will be shaped by both of each of those pairs in some proportion, and the hope is that there will be more of the latter and less of the former. It's unrealistic to expect a complete extinction of fear, poverty, or strife. It's a minor quibble, though.
"This much is certain: No one nation can confront these challenges alone, and all nations have a stake in overcoming them. That is why we must listen to one another, and seek common ground. That is why we must build on our mutual interests, and rise above our differences. We are stronger when we act together."
• I'm not so paranoid as to see New World Order conspiracies behind these statements, but I know there are people who will.
"America and Turkey are working with the G20 on an unprecedented response to an unprecedented economic crisis."
• As I've mentioned before, the unemployment rate after the stimulus is dramatically worse than was predicted by the Obama Administration if their stimulus was not implemented. It's up to 9.8% in September. That seems to suggest the unprecedented response is an unprecedented failure. I wonder how Turkey's and other international efforts are doing. Incidentally, that source for the unemployment rate also says the rate is the worst since 1983 -- when Reagan dramatically cut taxes and attempted to cut non-military spending to reverse a combination of unemployment and inflation. You know, exactly the opposite approach Obama is using.
"We should build on our Clean Technology Fund to leverage efficiency and renewable energy investments in Turkey. And to power markets in Turkey and Europe, the United States will continue to support your central role as an East-West corridor for oil and natural gas."
• In other words, we'll continue to spend money to make your major industries of oil and natural gas shipping obsolete. It takes great talent to threaten someone in such a way that they feel more secure hearing it.
"Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith -- it is not diminished by it."
• Amen.
"In the last several years, you've abolished state security courts, you've expanded the right to counsel. You've reformed the penal code and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly."
• Turkey has never really been a liberal democracy in the sense of constitutional civil rights. State security courts were something akin to military tribunals over civilian crimes; you know, the kind of thing that exaggerated claims about the USA PATRIOT Act claimed would happen to terrorism suspects. Except it was the literal policy as implemented. Reforming that was obviously good. Implementing trial by jury would also appeal to me, but that reform isn't very likely in Turkey. Still, they are definitely improving.
"An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens."
• Absolutely true.
"An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your nations."
• Turkey and Armenia were enemies in WW1, with Armenian troops aiding the Russian Army in crushing the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman was divided among various Allied nations, then restored to nationhood by the war of independence I mentioned before.
"[Turkey] can play a constructive role in helping to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has continued for far too long."
• A small section of the Caucasian nation of Azerbaijan called Nagorno-Karabakh wants to secede from Azerbaijan largely at the behest of the Armenian ethnic majority in the region. This is all right near the Turkish border, perhaps as far as Florida to Cuba. An undeclared war was fought there for years until an official declaration of war in 1992. The war officially ended in 1994 with a Russian-brokered ceasefire and continuing peace talks. Tensions have risen and threats issued all through 2008, indicating peace talks taking a turn for the worse. It seems... subjective for Obama to call it a continuing war. Maybe he's playing to local sentiment. Or maybe he's just oversimplifying.
"The United States is willing to offer all the help sought by the parties as they work towards a just and lasting settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bizonal and bicommunal federation."
• Turkey is the only nation in the world that recognizes Northern Cyprus as an independent nation. A coup was attempted by ethnically Greek Cypriots, triggering a Turkish invasion, which lead to a standoff where Turkey recognizes an independent nation and everyone else sees a region of the existing Republic of Cyprus. Turkey, apparently with approval from the USA, seeks a federation of two "zones", one ethnically Greek and one Turkish, federalized into one nation. Apparently the idea of a melting pot only applies to our own nation, not to our allies.
"The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis, and people of goodwill around the world."
• It's a great solution, except for the unsolvable problem of drawing borders, especially pertaining to Jerusalem. Both sides would rather fight than lose exclusive control over Jerusalem, which both sides cannot hold at the same time. That's why the peace talks never go anywhere. Only by waiting perpetually can peace talks avoid this issue and, thus, avoid open war. Unless one side gives up.
Reminds me of the sword dual at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean. "So what now, Jack? Are we to be two immortals locked in an epic battle until Judgment Day and trumpets sound?" "Or you could surrender." I think a more accurate view of the American position on the issue is "Knock it off already!"
"The peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions."
• It amuses me how Iranian nuclear ambitions are just a rumor perpetuated by Cheney and the neocons to stir up trouble... until Obama gets security clearance. Then it's accepted fact.
" Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a common threat from terrorism. That includes the al Qaeda terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and destroy their country. That includes the PKK."
• The PKK is the Kurdistan Worker's Party ("Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan" in Kurdish). It's basically a socialist, militant extremist version of the Kurdish separatists common to the Turkish/Iraqi border region extending a little into Syria and Iran. The people Saddam Hussein bombed with chemical weapons -- this is the radical, violent, nutball version of those guys. They are listed as a terrorist organization by the USA, UN, NATO, and the European Union. Their supporters also protested the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Because the US and the Kurds of northern Iraq are strong allies in the War in Iraq, there hasn't been a lot of US effort expended against the Kurdish extremists near the border. Apparently, that's what Obama is suggesting will change.
"There's an old Turkish proverb: 'You cannot put out fire with flames.' America knows this. Turkey knows this. There's some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy."
• Great message. I'm tempted to call the epic economic stimulus spending and over-regulation of the health care and energy industries "destructive" and turn this principle against it's speaker. I really like the use of a local proverb, a la Ronald "Trust, but verify." Reagan.
"This is not where East and West divide -- this is where they come together."
• If rhetoric were still taught in school (like it should be), this could be a lesson unto itself.
All in all, it's a great speech. Obama is still Obama, ideologically and stylistically. But it's strong, persuasive, and filled with good stuff. It made me research a lot of Turkish history, which was interesting. Even under my critical eye, it persuades me to value Turkey as a rich culture and a valuable American ally.
I can't help but admit, George W. Bush should've done some of this kind of outreach to the moderate Muslim world. Not the BS liberal internationalism, but the praise of the best traits of the best nations in the region. It would have gone a long way to diffusing the constant-but-baseless criticisms of him. Good job, President Obama.
Fontopia
I've got a friend that's fairly obsessed with fonts, colors, photography, and design these days. He sent me a link to this game. Can you tell the difference between the real logo and the fake one? Yeah, I couldn't either. Statistically, I should've done slightly better if I were guessing at random.
He also showed me this Color IQ thing. Try to organize the colors into a perfect gradient by dragging them around with the mouse.
Yeah, he's nuts. He randomly provides me amusements from the intertubes, though. Can't complain about that.
He also showed me this Color IQ thing. Try to organize the colors into a perfect gradient by dragging them around with the mouse.
Yeah, he's nuts. He randomly provides me amusements from the intertubes, though. Can't complain about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)