Showing posts with label issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label issues. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
The Climate Change Issue: Finally, We're Growing Up
I have some material I'll develop in an upcoming blog on (broadly speaking) rationality given uncertainty. This got kick-started from an interesting article from The New Republic about developing rational strategies to tackle climate change given the uncertainty of our predictions and the very many other risks (and their uncertainties) that we all face. It's a good read, and strikes a rare reasonable, non-partisan tone on the topic of climate change.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
On Mercy and Judgement
In The New Testament, John 8:7, Jesus defends a sinful woman against an angry crowd:
"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
In Schindler's List, the movie, Oskar Schindler challenges Amon Goeth's killing of Jewish prisoners:
Oskar Schindler: Power is when we have every justification to kill, and we don't.
Amon Goeth: You think that's power?
Oskar Schindler: That's what the Emperor said. A man steals something, he's brought in before the Emperor, he throws himself down on the ground. He begs for his life, he knows he's going to die. And the Emperor... pardons him. This worthless man, he lets him go.
Amon Goeth: I think you are drunk.
Oskar Schindler: That's power, Amon. That is power.
What is this? Forgiveness, or power? In Matthew 21:12 Jesus walks into the temple, yells, overturns tables, and drives out the banking crowd, later healing the less fortunate in the vacant temple. What are we to make of this? Why didn't he treat the money lenders as he did the sinful woman? Why did he judge the bankers and not the prostitute?
These diametric opposites -- forgiveness and judgement -- are it seems perpetually resistant to systematizing with ethical theories. They continue to sit, unanalyzed, unresolved, through millenia of human history.
The history of human ethics is a commentary on the proper application of mercy and judgement. So far we've come, and so long we continue to stand motionless and without understanding.
"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
In Schindler's List, the movie, Oskar Schindler challenges Amon Goeth's killing of Jewish prisoners:
Oskar Schindler: Power is when we have every justification to kill, and we don't.
Amon Goeth: You think that's power?
Oskar Schindler: That's what the Emperor said. A man steals something, he's brought in before the Emperor, he throws himself down on the ground. He begs for his life, he knows he's going to die. And the Emperor... pardons him. This worthless man, he lets him go.
Amon Goeth: I think you are drunk.
Oskar Schindler: That's power, Amon. That is power.
What is this? Forgiveness, or power? In Matthew 21:12 Jesus walks into the temple, yells, overturns tables, and drives out the banking crowd, later healing the less fortunate in the vacant temple. What are we to make of this? Why didn't he treat the money lenders as he did the sinful woman? Why did he judge the bankers and not the prostitute?
These diametric opposites -- forgiveness and judgement -- are it seems perpetually resistant to systematizing with ethical theories. They continue to sit, unanalyzed, unresolved, through millenia of human history.
The history of human ethics is a commentary on the proper application of mercy and judgement. So far we've come, and so long we continue to stand motionless and without understanding.
No Nuclear Speaks Volumes
If the threat of Global Warming is so dire, and so immediate, why not adopt nuclear power, like France? Compared to wind or solar, it's much more economic (I've heard wind is X10 the cost of coal, and nuclear X1.5), and pretty much everyone not stuck in 1970s Sierra Club environmentalism agrees that it's safe today. So, in the face of such grave environmental challenges, why not do like France, and adopt cheap, clean, nuclear? Or, are we not serious yet? Still pie-in-the-sky-I-wish-the-world-was-different-everyone-turn-your-lights-off-for-an-hour, unserious posers.
Nuclear means we're serious about reducing emissions. It's not carbon, and it actually works. Nuclear is the solution if the problem is so damn imminent. If no nuclear, no seriousness from the Left about claims of impending doom.
Nuclear means we're serious about reducing emissions. It's not carbon, and it actually works. Nuclear is the solution if the problem is so damn imminent. If no nuclear, no seriousness from the Left about claims of impending doom.
Monday, March 23, 2009
We were blind, and now we see
Chris Mooney responds to George Will's Feb. 15th climate change op-ed piece in The Washington Post.
This debate goes on and on like a lover's quarrell, and I've long since given up on trying to "fell swoop" it with any argument or appeal to this or that empirical desiderata. Read Will. Read Mooney. Be confused. Be confirmed.
I'll add only that Mooney takes a predictable swipe at Will when he challenges the relevance of Will's observation that there was a global cooling scare-- a view espoused by enough scientists to get it aired in mainstream media -- in the 1970s. Will's point is that, every decade or two, some new bugaboo about the environment pops up, and after seeing enough of them, we ought to be a little sceptical of the latest "end of days" scenario. Mooney's point is that science is much more accurate and mature today than it was in the 1970s, and so who cares about what those cave men were screeching about three decades ago? We've got it right now. This is the trump card, I suppose, for anyone prone to what C.S. Lewis once called "chronological snobbery": the view that whatever we think now must by this fact alone be superior to what we thought yesterday.
But most of us who take Lewis' point will still admit to endorsing Lewis' snobbery when it comes to science, in particular. After all, we don't bleed people anymore to get rid of disease. We're pretty sure there aren't witches, or an elan vital, or ether, or phlogiston. As we continue to look at the world, we find what really does exist. Microscopic organisms (germs), not miasma ("bad air"). Oxidation, not phlogiston. Darwinian Evolution, not Lamarckism. Scientific progress is, in short, a manifest phenomenon. We see it marching forward from generation to generation.
But here's the disconnect. With sweeping questions about the future of the global climate, we're going way beyond pasteurizing milk, or vaccinating for polio. We're into much more speculative science. Speculative science wants desperately to be, well, established science, in the sense that it earns a place in the text books and is largely beyond question, complaint, or challenge. Climate theories, almost by definition given the complexity of the climate and the difficulty predicting its future behavior, are speculative much more than politicians or scientists themselves want to admit. The debate is closed, 'cause the global warming theorists said so. Oh really.
Put it this way: in the 1970s, global cooling scientists patiently explained to sceptics that the old climate theories of the 1950s were based on an undeveloped and much more primitive science. In the 70s, however, the theories were now correct. Fast forward to today. Decades from now, future scientists will no doubt proclaim that in the dark days of the early 21st century, we hardly had the techniques to get our arms around the problem at all. Someone in the back row of these future climate conferences, maybe some gung-ho freshman studying epistemology at the local U, may well wonder if more distant generations, reaching different conclusions yet again, will turn up their noses at the conclusions reached in his own time. If he was brave enough to ask the room of experts, he'd likely be rewarded with something like the following: "Perhaps, but we must act, young lad. We must act!" Indeed. And so too would the 1970s cooling crowd and by the same logic make the same assertion.
This debate goes on and on like a lover's quarrell, and I've long since given up on trying to "fell swoop" it with any argument or appeal to this or that empirical desiderata. Read Will. Read Mooney. Be confused. Be confirmed.
I'll add only that Mooney takes a predictable swipe at Will when he challenges the relevance of Will's observation that there was a global cooling scare-- a view espoused by enough scientists to get it aired in mainstream media -- in the 1970s. Will's point is that, every decade or two, some new bugaboo about the environment pops up, and after seeing enough of them, we ought to be a little sceptical of the latest "end of days" scenario. Mooney's point is that science is much more accurate and mature today than it was in the 1970s, and so who cares about what those cave men were screeching about three decades ago? We've got it right now. This is the trump card, I suppose, for anyone prone to what C.S. Lewis once called "chronological snobbery": the view that whatever we think now must by this fact alone be superior to what we thought yesterday.
But most of us who take Lewis' point will still admit to endorsing Lewis' snobbery when it comes to science, in particular. After all, we don't bleed people anymore to get rid of disease. We're pretty sure there aren't witches, or an elan vital, or ether, or phlogiston. As we continue to look at the world, we find what really does exist. Microscopic organisms (germs), not miasma ("bad air"). Oxidation, not phlogiston. Darwinian Evolution, not Lamarckism. Scientific progress is, in short, a manifest phenomenon. We see it marching forward from generation to generation.
But here's the disconnect. With sweeping questions about the future of the global climate, we're going way beyond pasteurizing milk, or vaccinating for polio. We're into much more speculative science. Speculative science wants desperately to be, well, established science, in the sense that it earns a place in the text books and is largely beyond question, complaint, or challenge. Climate theories, almost by definition given the complexity of the climate and the difficulty predicting its future behavior, are speculative much more than politicians or scientists themselves want to admit. The debate is closed, 'cause the global warming theorists said so. Oh really.
Put it this way: in the 1970s, global cooling scientists patiently explained to sceptics that the old climate theories of the 1950s were based on an undeveloped and much more primitive science. In the 70s, however, the theories were now correct. Fast forward to today. Decades from now, future scientists will no doubt proclaim that in the dark days of the early 21st century, we hardly had the techniques to get our arms around the problem at all. Someone in the back row of these future climate conferences, maybe some gung-ho freshman studying epistemology at the local U, may well wonder if more distant generations, reaching different conclusions yet again, will turn up their noses at the conclusions reached in his own time. If he was brave enough to ask the room of experts, he'd likely be rewarded with something like the following: "Perhaps, but we must act, young lad. We must act!" Indeed. And so too would the 1970s cooling crowd and by the same logic make the same assertion.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Decaf Drinkers Shut Out
Starbucks nixes decaf after noon. I'm sure people will be screaming in the streets with this latest.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Troubles in Texas - New Evidence in the Larry Swearingen Case
A man on death row in Texas who is scheduled to be executed Tuesday for the murder of a nineteen year old college student received last minute hope from forensic pathologists -- including one who performed the original autopsy on the victim -- who have concluded that the prosecution's case does not square with further forensic analysis of the victim's body.
In 1998, Larry Swearingen was found guilty of the strangulation death of Melissa Trotter, whose body was discovered dumped in the woods of East Texas. The original autopsy concluded that her body was discovered about twenty five days after her murder, a conclusion that coincided with the last time she was seen alive, having lunch with Mr. Swearingen.
The latest forensic analysis since the 1998 murder, however, suggests a far different picture -- her body was discovered at most within fourteen days of her death, and probably within two to three days. The forensic evidence supporting this conclusion is substantial, including well-known decay rates for organs, levels of bacteria in the body, absence of factors such as bloat, lack of animal mutilation, loss of body weight, and others.
If the forensic scenario is correct, Mr. Swearingen could not have committed the murder, since he would have been in jail for unpaid traffic violations when the murder occurred. "It's just scientifically impossible for him to have killed the girl and thrown her into the woods," said James Rytting, Swearingen's appellate lawyer. "It's guilt by imagination."
In the original trial of Mr. Swearingen, the prosecution built its case on strong evidence, including "a match between the panty hose leg found around Trotter's neck and the stocking remnant found in a trash dump next to Swearingen's mobile home." Additionally, hair samples from Ms. Trotter were found in Swearingen's truck, and witnesses say that she had had lunch with Swearingen the day she disappeared.
In 1998, Larry Swearingen was found guilty of the strangulation death of Melissa Trotter, whose body was discovered dumped in the woods of East Texas. The original autopsy concluded that her body was discovered about twenty five days after her murder, a conclusion that coincided with the last time she was seen alive, having lunch with Mr. Swearingen.
The latest forensic analysis since the 1998 murder, however, suggests a far different picture -- her body was discovered at most within fourteen days of her death, and probably within two to three days. The forensic evidence supporting this conclusion is substantial, including well-known decay rates for organs, levels of bacteria in the body, absence of factors such as bloat, lack of animal mutilation, loss of body weight, and others.
If the forensic scenario is correct, Mr. Swearingen could not have committed the murder, since he would have been in jail for unpaid traffic violations when the murder occurred. "It's just scientifically impossible for him to have killed the girl and thrown her into the woods," said James Rytting, Swearingen's appellate lawyer. "It's guilt by imagination."
In the original trial of Mr. Swearingen, the prosecution built its case on strong evidence, including "a match between the panty hose leg found around Trotter's neck and the stocking remnant found in a trash dump next to Swearingen's mobile home." Additionally, hair samples from Ms. Trotter were found in Swearingen's truck, and witnesses say that she had had lunch with Swearingen the day she disappeared.
Nonetheless, the Texas death penalty case is particularly troubling for the prosecution -- and more generally for advocates of capital punishment -- because it reveals that even when death penalty cases have seemingly indisputable, damning evidence and even after a lengthy appeals process, new evidence can surface that may call into question the guilty verdict. When such evidence is compelling, as it appears to be in this case, concerns about the innocence of the condemned should receive further, serious review. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard of course for all criminal trials in our judicial system; it does not appear, given the apparently exculpatory forensic findings in the case against Mr. Swearingen, that the standard has been met.
With days left before the state is scheduled to execute Mr. Swearingen for the murder of Melissa Trotter, one can only hope that the execution is stayed while the additional forensic evidence is reviewed.
Source article here.
Antarctica conundrum... solved at last?
Apparently, the Antarctica conundrum has been solved. Antarctica is now believed to be uniformly warming, according to Eric J. Steig at the University of Washington. The new evidence comes from interpolating the measurements of relatively isolated weather stations using satellite data. Some of those stations had been recording cooling temperatures, leading to the hypothesis that Antarctica was cooling in some regions, and warming in others.
I'm skeptical of "interpolation" techniques that run counter to the conclusions drawn from review of actual physical readings, but I won't be so bold as to declare this latest twist in the ongoing Global Warming discussion suspect. How would I know? We'll have to let the experts evaluate the findings over time, and communicate to us the validity and significance of this latest piece of the puzzle.
What I will offer, in the meantime, is a "meta" observation about how discussions about Global Warming typically go, this latest about Antarctica a prime example: if there is evidence of cooling somewhere (especially at the poles, which are in general more sensitive to the factors thought to lead to climate change), GW proponents are quick to invoke language about complexity, pointing out that we should expect local cooling even when the mean temperature of the Earth is increasing. When such evidence is debunked, however, or at least called into question, the GW crowd breathes a collective sigh of relief, and points to the latest warming as clear evidence for the global warming theory. In other words, when some Region A is believed to be cooling, it's argued that this is consistent with Global Warming. And when the science then suggests that Region A is in fact warming, the new finding then fixes the prior problem with Region A appearing to cool. But I thought it wasn't a problem? Such strategies justifiably encourage a healthy scepticism from the discerning public, who might begin to wonder what evidence would ever be counted against the theory by its proponents.
Steig's results were published Thursday in the journal Nature.
I'm skeptical of "interpolation" techniques that run counter to the conclusions drawn from review of actual physical readings, but I won't be so bold as to declare this latest twist in the ongoing Global Warming discussion suspect. How would I know? We'll have to let the experts evaluate the findings over time, and communicate to us the validity and significance of this latest piece of the puzzle.
What I will offer, in the meantime, is a "meta" observation about how discussions about Global Warming typically go, this latest about Antarctica a prime example: if there is evidence of cooling somewhere (especially at the poles, which are in general more sensitive to the factors thought to lead to climate change), GW proponents are quick to invoke language about complexity, pointing out that we should expect local cooling even when the mean temperature of the Earth is increasing. When such evidence is debunked, however, or at least called into question, the GW crowd breathes a collective sigh of relief, and points to the latest warming as clear evidence for the global warming theory. In other words, when some Region A is believed to be cooling, it's argued that this is consistent with Global Warming. And when the science then suggests that Region A is in fact warming, the new finding then fixes the prior problem with Region A appearing to cool. But I thought it wasn't a problem? Such strategies justifiably encourage a healthy scepticism from the discerning public, who might begin to wonder what evidence would ever be counted against the theory by its proponents.
Steig's results were published Thursday in the journal Nature.
Gore Gets His Hawk On
Richard Clarke (former Clinton antiterror czar), in his "Against All Enemies" book, describes a surprisingly hawkish Al Gore, arriving late to a meeting with White House Special Counsel Lloyd Cutler and President Clinton on the subject of "extraordinary rendition" -- the practice of sending prisoners to foreign countries to be interrogated. Mr. Cutler was strongly objecting to the rendition option, and, as Clarke recounts, had seemed to sway Clinton in his direction, when Gore arrived. According to Clarke, Clinton briefed Gore on the arguments presented in the meeting, and "Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"
Gore's machiavellian moment raises interesting and obvious moral questions that I won't broach here. But his remark also underscores my own suspicion that, likely, "enhanced interrogation techniques" will continue to be practiced by the CIA whenever it's believed that such practices may reduce clear and present threats to national interest (such as, say, obtaining information from an Al-Queda operative about a planned attack). For all the hay making about the Bush administration's policies -- and I'll have more to say in another post about why it'll be virtually impossible to get a single prosecution if AG-designate Eric Holder ever proceeds with "torture investigations" -- covert techniques will likely continue, as I suspect they have for decades, and under Democratic or Republican administrations. As Mr. Gore puts it, of course it'll violate laws... that's why it's covert.
So I think the upshot here is that the Bush administration is guilty indeed, but of a political blunder, and a bad one: next time, don't brag about use of enhanced techniques as if it's scoring political points at home. It isn't. Just leave it covert, and we'll all be on our way.
Gore's machiavellian moment raises interesting and obvious moral questions that I won't broach here. But his remark also underscores my own suspicion that, likely, "enhanced interrogation techniques" will continue to be practiced by the CIA whenever it's believed that such practices may reduce clear and present threats to national interest (such as, say, obtaining information from an Al-Queda operative about a planned attack). For all the hay making about the Bush administration's policies -- and I'll have more to say in another post about why it'll be virtually impossible to get a single prosecution if AG-designate Eric Holder ever proceeds with "torture investigations" -- covert techniques will likely continue, as I suspect they have for decades, and under Democratic or Republican administrations. As Mr. Gore puts it, of course it'll violate laws... that's why it's covert.
So I think the upshot here is that the Bush administration is guilty indeed, but of a political blunder, and a bad one: next time, don't brag about use of enhanced techniques as if it's scoring political points at home. It isn't. Just leave it covert, and we'll all be on our way.
Friday, January 23, 2009
The Trio
I've long been interested in writing about our three favorite habits: alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine. It's of course possible and perhaps even probable that I'm interested only because I indulge regularly myself. A kind of self-interest, as it were. But regardless, I'm here tonight to stand up in the group meeting and admit my problem. Here goes.
This evening after work I'm sitting watching the news, drinking a glass of Chianti, and it dawns on me, slowly, that something's wrong. Finally I pinpoint it... no coffee today. Not good. I drink, as a habit it should be told, two to three cups of strong coffee every morning, without exception. And today I was interupted working on the initial stages of my first cup, with no additional coffee drinking in my day.
So, here I am, hours later, with a physical problem worming its way into my awareness, and suddenly the nickel drops and it occurs to me that I haven't had enough caffeine. Ahhh. It all makes sense now. It explains how I'm dull, headachy, almost depressed. I'm sluggish, uninteresting and uninterested. The wine means nothing. In fact it's exacerbating my situation.
So, I hate to admit it, but I'm soon trucking down to the local Starbucks, 6:30 in the evening, wine half drank sitting on the counter, ordering a Grande Latte, with an extra shot. The perky woman behind the counter, with the store fairly dead by Starbucks standards, asks if (and I'm repeating this basically verbatim) "I'd like another shot on the house". Huh? This is bar talk. Sure, I reply, bellying up to the barista. Another shot of the stuff, and on the house, lady! Now I'm looking around. Things seem better. Perhaps I should strike up some random conversations with the other caffeinated souls perkily reading and chatting and yacking around me. Maybe this place could get jumpin' after all!
Anyway, this is an interesting subject to me, this whole idea of our habits and how we view them. And so I won't put off much longer my exploration of our beloved trio; call it the alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine diaries. More to come.
This evening after work I'm sitting watching the news, drinking a glass of Chianti, and it dawns on me, slowly, that something's wrong. Finally I pinpoint it... no coffee today. Not good. I drink, as a habit it should be told, two to three cups of strong coffee every morning, without exception. And today I was interupted working on the initial stages of my first cup, with no additional coffee drinking in my day.
So, here I am, hours later, with a physical problem worming its way into my awareness, and suddenly the nickel drops and it occurs to me that I haven't had enough caffeine. Ahhh. It all makes sense now. It explains how I'm dull, headachy, almost depressed. I'm sluggish, uninteresting and uninterested. The wine means nothing. In fact it's exacerbating my situation.
So, I hate to admit it, but I'm soon trucking down to the local Starbucks, 6:30 in the evening, wine half drank sitting on the counter, ordering a Grande Latte, with an extra shot. The perky woman behind the counter, with the store fairly dead by Starbucks standards, asks if (and I'm repeating this basically verbatim) "I'd like another shot on the house". Huh? This is bar talk. Sure, I reply, bellying up to the barista. Another shot of the stuff, and on the house, lady! Now I'm looking around. Things seem better. Perhaps I should strike up some random conversations with the other caffeinated souls perkily reading and chatting and yacking around me. Maybe this place could get jumpin' after all!
Anyway, this is an interesting subject to me, this whole idea of our habits and how we view them. And so I won't put off much longer my exploration of our beloved trio; call it the alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine diaries. More to come.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Remember the 70s
Some more red meat for the Global Warming "deniers", as Global Warming believers like to put it (can't we just say Global Warming "sceptics"? Aren't "believer" and "sceptic" a pair?). Anyway, check it out. I haven't done much with it but received it from a friend in Seattle who works in the ultra-liberal tech community there; he's a closet denier.
Gaza War Zone
Stacking up bodies in Gaza, again. There is no clear path ahead for this damnable conflict. Israel offers at present no answer. Their thesis is apparently that Hamas can be bombed into military submission (which it likely can) and then soon after into changes in politics (which it can't). And so the bodies keep piling up. What the First World fails to understand about this perpetual bloodbath is that it is, at root, a religious war.
It is true that the Israeli response is heavy-handed and troublesome (again), but equally, Hamas is predictably fomenting a constant radicalization of this conflict at the expense of compromise, an end to violence, and a lasting peace. Victory at all costs makes sense when one is confronted with an enemy bent on global domination, as Churchill well knew and as France surely learned in those dark hours of the 20th century. But the "kill the Infidels" battle cry of Hamas given Israel's desire to exist in the region without constant threat of terrorist attack cannot be excused easily, if at all. It is a Holy War more than a rational assessment of the conditions for peace. And so the usual carrots offered by the First World-- money, prospects for a better economy -- never find purchase with Hamas, and more generally with leaders steeped in radical Islamic dogma. To hell with modernity makes it difficult to propose modern solutions.
What to do? Who knows? I do know that the political Left hopes that compromises and concessions by Israel will have some real effect on the policies of Hamas. It's hard to see how this will transpire, and history suggests that it's just so much more wishful thinking . On the Right, this idea that full-scale bombing campaigns into heavily populated areas will brow-beat Hamas into "coming to the table" is surely wishful thinking as well. The end Israel will achieve, if any at all, is just another temporary cessation of violence, while Hamas re-organizes, and reloads. In the meantime, thousands of innocent people in Gaza are the unfortunate and truly tragic victims of this damnable conflict.
It is true that the Israeli response is heavy-handed and troublesome (again), but equally, Hamas is predictably fomenting a constant radicalization of this conflict at the expense of compromise, an end to violence, and a lasting peace. Victory at all costs makes sense when one is confronted with an enemy bent on global domination, as Churchill well knew and as France surely learned in those dark hours of the 20th century. But the "kill the Infidels" battle cry of Hamas given Israel's desire to exist in the region without constant threat of terrorist attack cannot be excused easily, if at all. It is a Holy War more than a rational assessment of the conditions for peace. And so the usual carrots offered by the First World-- money, prospects for a better economy -- never find purchase with Hamas, and more generally with leaders steeped in radical Islamic dogma. To hell with modernity makes it difficult to propose modern solutions.
What to do? Who knows? I do know that the political Left hopes that compromises and concessions by Israel will have some real effect on the policies of Hamas. It's hard to see how this will transpire, and history suggests that it's just so much more wishful thinking . On the Right, this idea that full-scale bombing campaigns into heavily populated areas will brow-beat Hamas into "coming to the table" is surely wishful thinking as well. The end Israel will achieve, if any at all, is just another temporary cessation of violence, while Hamas re-organizes, and reloads. In the meantime, thousands of innocent people in Gaza are the unfortunate and truly tragic victims of this damnable conflict.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Keith Olbermann's Really Special Comment
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Perhaps it's not NYT's Paul Krugman, as I suggested here, but rather media personality Keith Olbermann, who is most energetically expressing the anger from the wider-circulated Left about the Bush Administration's policies regarding fighting terrorism after September 11. His moral indignation cannot best be captured with just words, I don't think, and so (another first on this blog), here's the video.
These are Mr. Olbermann's concluding remarks, by the way, on Martin Luther King day and on the eve of the inauguration of President-Elect Obama. A little ironic, maybe, given that MLK did not strike a particularly litigious tone, and that Mr. Obama seems intent on moving forward and healing wounds -- bridging gaps -- between the Right and Left with his upcoming Presidency. If President-Elect Obama is watching Keith Olbermann's program at all, he's certainly getting confirmation from cable news media that the road ahead will be long, indeed.
(Incidentally, I'm sure there's a better way to embed the video, but I couldn't find it on blogspot from my brief perusal of the options. I'll look into it. Also, if time is an issue with viewing, the last 2 - 2.5 minutes are I think of most value, although the clip in toto is quite worth it as well.)
Glenn Greenwald (Salon.com) on FISA Ruling
More on warrantless wiretapping in the courts. The Wall Street Journal editorial (find it here with my initial commentary) made mention of the limited scope of the recent FISA ruling -- it applies only to the 2007 Congressional authorization of eavesdropping powers -- but perhaps a little too quickly. Greenwald makes it a bit more clear. However, as Greenwald himself admits, the ruling is still "significant". WSJ said as much or more when concluding that it "sets a precedent".
In general, I'm interested to see how Obama treats the terrorist fighting apparatus erected by the Bush administration after September 11: the warrantless wiretapping issue, Guantanamo, homeland security, and a host of other issues that, on the one side, are intended to keep us safer, and on the other, present challenges to our liberty. This double edged sword will be held in his hand soon enough.
In general, I'm interested to see how Obama treats the terrorist fighting apparatus erected by the Bush administration after September 11: the warrantless wiretapping issue, Guantanamo, homeland security, and a host of other issues that, on the one side, are intended to keep us safer, and on the other, present challenges to our liberty. This double edged sword will be held in his hand soon enough.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Surprising FISA Ruling
It turns out that the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program was legal and Constitutional, according to, somewhat surprisingly, the FISA appellate court in a just released 2008 ruling . This is quite a ruling, especially coming from FISA. Not sure I agree, but then I'm not a Constitutional scholar either.
I haven't seen this in the media, come to think of it, and it seems significant, since what's at issue -- whether the government can spy on its citizens -- is clearly of major concern to all of us. Someone cover this story! I'd like to hear some analysis of it from both sides.
I haven't seen this in the media, come to think of it, and it seems significant, since what's at issue -- whether the government can spy on its citizens -- is clearly of major concern to all of us. Someone cover this story! I'd like to hear some analysis of it from both sides.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Why It's Outrageous to Call Bush a Liar
Yes, I know he bungled many aspects of the war in Iraq (including the decision to wage it, in my view). Yes, I know about Mission Accomplished. Yes, I know there were no WMD.
But here's why it's outrageous to say that Bush lied to the American people about the existence of the WMD to get us into Iraq. To begin, if it was all a lie, President Bush must have known that there would be no mushroom cloud, and no biological weapons, and that therefore there was no imminent threat, because Saddam Hussein had no active WMD. We have to believe he knew this (it's in fact necessary to believe this to get the liar charge off the ground). Two, given that President Bush knew this, he still committed his staff, the international community, and thousands of American troops to wage a war that he knew was not necessary at all.
Now, we need these two claims to support the "Bush lied" charge. This is the logic (in a simplified version, but adequate to make the present point clear). And here's where the liar charge starts to unravel. We are to believe that President Bush, ignoring the best intelligence from the CIA, from Great Britain, from France, and indeed China and Russia, had some independent information, that in fact Iraq did not have WMD. That's, right, President Bush has this secret intel-- independent of the conclusions of the entire world intelligence community -- and that he therefore knew (or at least strongly suspected) that there were no WMD in Iraq. That's what we have to believe. Put aside worries about how possibly a guy commonly accused of being a bungling ignoramus had such personal, penetrating intelligence about weapons in Iraq; to make our "Bush is liar" charge we must simply suppose that he did.
Second, given that he has this independent source of intel that shows no WMD in Iraq, he yet decides to launch a full scale attack, in the process pulling the rest of the world into a pit of mortars and explosions and violence. In Hitler like fashion, the diabolical Bush, knowing there were no WMD, still lets slip the dogs of war. And the rest of the world goes along with it (make sinister sounds of laughter now).
Now, if you believe these two claims -- that Bush knew there were no WMD in spite of the consensus of the intel community, and that he nonetheless claimed that WMD were there (that's the lie part), then, well, you should go around charging that Bush lied to us.
But if you find any problem with these claims (say, for instance, that Bush had no such super-secret intel from some unknown, Godlike source), then probably you don't mean that he lied about the existence of WMD in Iraq. Probably you mean that you're against the war, and that it was a bad idea, and that even if Iraq had some mustard gas, it would have been far preferable to let the UN inspections proceed to an outcome that might have avoided war. (This is pretty much what I believe.)
So, for those still inclined to use the word "lie" anyway, I'd say it's outrageous (also fallacious, also disengenuous, also provocative, tendentious, contentious, maddening, and, of course, itself mendacious).
But here's why it's outrageous to say that Bush lied to the American people about the existence of the WMD to get us into Iraq. To begin, if it was all a lie, President Bush must have known that there would be no mushroom cloud, and no biological weapons, and that therefore there was no imminent threat, because Saddam Hussein had no active WMD. We have to believe he knew this (it's in fact necessary to believe this to get the liar charge off the ground). Two, given that President Bush knew this, he still committed his staff, the international community, and thousands of American troops to wage a war that he knew was not necessary at all.
Now, we need these two claims to support the "Bush lied" charge. This is the logic (in a simplified version, but adequate to make the present point clear). And here's where the liar charge starts to unravel. We are to believe that President Bush, ignoring the best intelligence from the CIA, from Great Britain, from France, and indeed China and Russia, had some independent information, that in fact Iraq did not have WMD. That's, right, President Bush has this secret intel-- independent of the conclusions of the entire world intelligence community -- and that he therefore knew (or at least strongly suspected) that there were no WMD in Iraq. That's what we have to believe. Put aside worries about how possibly a guy commonly accused of being a bungling ignoramus had such personal, penetrating intelligence about weapons in Iraq; to make our "Bush is liar" charge we must simply suppose that he did.
Second, given that he has this independent source of intel that shows no WMD in Iraq, he yet decides to launch a full scale attack, in the process pulling the rest of the world into a pit of mortars and explosions and violence. In Hitler like fashion, the diabolical Bush, knowing there were no WMD, still lets slip the dogs of war. And the rest of the world goes along with it (make sinister sounds of laughter now).
Now, if you believe these two claims -- that Bush knew there were no WMD in spite of the consensus of the intel community, and that he nonetheless claimed that WMD were there (that's the lie part), then, well, you should go around charging that Bush lied to us.
But if you find any problem with these claims (say, for instance, that Bush had no such super-secret intel from some unknown, Godlike source), then probably you don't mean that he lied about the existence of WMD in Iraq. Probably you mean that you're against the war, and that it was a bad idea, and that even if Iraq had some mustard gas, it would have been far preferable to let the UN inspections proceed to an outcome that might have avoided war. (This is pretty much what I believe.)
So, for those still inclined to use the word "lie" anyway, I'd say it's outrageous (also fallacious, also disengenuous, also provocative, tendentious, contentious, maddening, and, of course, itself mendacious).
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Gore Apology Accepted
I stumbled upon this gem, improbably, while perusing the liberal Huffington Post. It's a fairly sweeping criticism of Gore-style Global Warming claims; I found the discussion about the absorptive capacity of Co2 most interesting, and germane, to the present Global Warming discussion.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Friedman Op-Ed
Here's what I consider to be a balanced look at the latest Palestine Israel conflagration, from Tom Friedman writing for the New York Times. Comments anyone?
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Hamas Charter
For those who are Middle East curious, here are some highlights from the Hamas Charter (it's like their Constitution...). Following I'll post the link to the full charter. Read up!
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
Full Charter:
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
Full Charter:
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
