Notes from Underground

The Myth of "Independent Thinkers"

2009-10-28T00:32:00.002+05:00

The Economist's Democracy in America blog has a nice little piece on the reasoning behind why so many Americans deny that there is, in fact, any global warming. A fairly straight line is drawn between global warming deniers (and their mindsets and backgrounds) and support for the torture of terrorist suspects. Part of the scientific answer:

"People's pre-existing personality biases, they find, actually shape their beliefs about the factual reality of the world; more information is unlikely to produce consensus, because people tend to reject information that does not cohere with their worldview."

The Economist blogger's further reasoning:

"A substantial number of Americans came to insist that torturing suspected terrorists was acceptable because it was a practice identified with the people they had voted for, and because it was behaviour that American troops had engaged in. The same process occurred with belief in the existence of WMD in Iraq, and, in some countries, with the 9/11 "truther" scenarios, which retain an irrational hold in many quarters; and it also seems to have occurred with climate change. We have a dynamic of political discourse that produces absolute belief in things that, often enough, aren't true. I don't believe there is any further data that could cause people who still deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming to change their minds."

Basically, people believe in irrational theories because the people who they want to lead them become associated with irrational theories. And, at this point, there is precious little that can be said that would actually convince these people otherwise, as they hold that they are "bucking the trend" or "fighting the consensus". In other words, they are being different because they want to be different and think that they are being individuals, instead of being "sheeple". It reminds me of something Ricky Gervais once said about why conspiracy theorists are obnoxious, because they think that they are just too smart because they've figured out what's "really" going on. Instead of proving how much smarter they are, they usually end up doing the opposite...

Stalinism in Kyrgyzstan

2009-10-27T19:34:00.003+05:00

This is a well-written - and rare - dispatch from Scott Horton, an American journalist visiting a former Stalinist gulag at Chon Tash in Kyrgyzstan. The message is simple: never forget the crimes committed by the dictators of the 20th century, but also do not lightly throw around comparisons where they are not due.

I think that the work of remembering the crimes committed by Stalinism in Central Asia are particularly important. As the article notes, in 1937 Stalin conducted a purge (ie a mass murder) of "bourgeois nationalists" in Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan included. These subversive elements were largely nationalist figures in the arts, sciences, government and politics who for the most part had reconciled themselves to communist rule. As such, in Stalin's paranoid mind they were suspect elements and needed to be treated as such. Their deaths helped to essentially cause a cultural and veritable civilizational collapse in Central Asia: all that comes after is largely Soviet colonialism.

I am happy that Kyrgyzstan so openly and officially recognizes this crimes, as it is a first step on a long road of healing. In my experience, most other Central Asian states could care less, beyond the perfunctory rehabilitation of these victims. The governing elites of these countries are largely Soviet holdovers, and the last thing that they would want to do is to help their people remember martyrs who believed in national independence, a strong culture, and even (gasp!) perhaps democracy. Kazakhstan's treatment of the Alash Orda movement, which established an independent Kazakh state during the Russian Civil War, and which promoted Kazakh nationalism, education, and scientific development, and whose leaders perished at the hands of Stalinist firing squads is a case in point. Likewise the Stalinist-caused famines of the 1930s, which killed half of the Kazakh population at the time (something like more than a million people) are mentioned only in passing. Far more energy is given to praising the Soviet victory of the Second World War, much as is done in Putin's Russia. Apparently a forthright examination of the past, and a grappling of its questions is too much of a social threat - it might lead to a developed, democratic society.

Their Man in Tashkent

2009-10-27T01:24:00.003+05:00

Here is a compelling testimonial from the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan in 2002. It seems to be a pretty damning narrative of the extent of torture in Uzbekistan, and the lengths to which it was allegedly utilized by the Americans and British to outsource "enhanced interrogation" of terrorist suspects.

I find the author's observation that a totalitarian state feels remarkably different from even a run of the mill authoritarian state (I am much more familiar with the latter, less so with the former). I would find his argument much more solidaly presented if he avoided the neo-marxist rant at the end about a small coterie of businessmen engineering wars in Central Asia and the Middle East in order to gain contracts for fossil fuel extraction (such as the alleged link between Enron attempting to win a contact in Uzbekistan and its declaration as a major ally in the so-called "War on Terror".). But then again perhaps such theories are par for the course in the British civil service - I don't know. I do know that this testimony is still strong evidence against a particularly sadistic and bloodthirsty regime.

How Valuable Are States? ctd.

2009-10-19T22:49:00.001+05:00

Like I wrote, I'm still up in the air over this one. I think that the boundaries/number/size of states could be altered, especially in the American West where most of the states between the Sierra Nevada and the Rockies were created in the 1890s by Republicans in order to maximize their Senate seats during a phase of unpopularity during an economic depression. No one even knows which became a state first, North or South Dakota (Benjamin Harrison shuffled the papers for a practical joke on history). Now, especially as these areas are rapidly depopulating, it seems odd to say the least that Wyoming or Idaho have the clout that they do, controlling the destiny of essentially all of America and the entire world.

I also think that the defenders of states are mixing two separate debates: the merits of a Senate equally apportioned among states, and the merits of a level of state government, period. I do think that overall the Senate makes sense in some intentionally twisted and backward way, and is ultimately a source of constitutional genius. SO many constitutional arguments (Europe, Iraq, what have you) seem like they could be smoothed if they were offered a Connecticut Compromise.

Also, one rebuttal against the pro-state article. The states are not sovereign in the sense that they have approved the Constitution. The original 13 states did approve a federal level of government in the sense that they agreed to nullify and forsake their previous Confederation as quasi-independent states. However, in all cases the Constitution was ratified by popularly-elected conventions, not by state legislatures. The federal government, like the state government, therefore derives its legitimacy directly from the citizenry, and not from the states. All subsequent states could only become states upon approval by Congress (and quite a few, such as "Franklin" and "Jefferson", were vetoed, despite having functioning governments).

Anyway, to address some of Andrew's points: I'm not sure how abolishing state governments in favor of non-governmental organizations or metropolitan authorities would actually streamline governance, especially as these two types of entities are already in operation (besides, wouldn't giving this kind of authority to non-governmental organizations make them, well, governments?).

And as for registering businesses/regulating intra-state commerce, I would say that a) most businesses are small and their effective business reach is within a few miles of their home point of operation, and b) states governing the registration and operation of businesses gives larger organizations the ability to operate more efficiently (apparently from observation with little "race to the bottom"). If a state has enough commercial expertise or is a focal point for many major businesses, it can have quite some clout in lawsuits against defendants in other countries even. Delaware's business courts are quite powerful (I believe that the Russian government was sued over its dismemberment of Yukos there). Perhaps Delaware has a limited reach beyond its borders, but considering how many businesses register there for doing business in the US, one does not cross them lightly.

How Valuable Are States?

2009-10-17T02:09:00.002+05:00

An argument today for and against the continued utility of states, state government and US Senate representation by state. An interesting debate. I honestly didn't know that the equal apportionment of US Senators was the one aspect of the Constitution that was explicitly prohibited from amendment.

Personally, I'm not sure that states need to be abolished wholesale (although there is a process for merging states with other states, I believe - North and South Dakota strike me as strong candidates for merger), but certainly the Western states have borders that are completely arbitrary and could be redrawn (along, say, watershed boundaries). But this has been done in the past (such as to Nevada), and does not necessarily question the validity of state governments per se.

Why Are We in Afghanistan?, II

2009-10-14T03:37:00.001+05:00

Nifty infographicand map on US and NATO troop levels in Afghanistan since 2001. FYI when the Taliban was overthrown at the end of 2001 there was something like 2,000 troops in the country.

So, what's the plan again?

Underestimate the Jesuits At Your Own Peril

2009-10-14T03:26:00.002+05:00

Here is a stimulating profile of Guy Consolmagno, one of the Vatican's astronomers. Despite much of the controversy historically surrounding the Vatican with regards to science, the truth is that the Vatican Observatory has some very active scientists conducting research (the Vatican's Chief Astronomer has addressed the prospect of encountering intelligent extraterrestrial life.

NEEDLESS to say, Fr. Consolmagno is obviously a Jesuit:

“Poverty and chastity, I was used to — I had been a graduate student,” he says. “But obedience was a tough one.”

“Science cannot prove God, or disprove Him. He has to be assumed. If people have no other reason to believe in God than that they can’t imagine how the human eye could have evolved by itself, then their faith is very weak.”

America's New Police State: G20 Paranoia

2009-10-14T03:23:00.002+05:00

Another interesting link:

A Youtube video of a small, relatively inconequential portion of the police presence in Pittsburgh. Its basically a police crackdown on a hot dog stand frequented by UPenn Pittsburgh students.

I'm actually a little shocked at how Hollywood-esque police crackdowns have become. Minus the bike-cops, this really looked like a scene out of Demolition Man or some sort of cyber punk dystopia. "I hereby declare this an unlawful assembly" indeed. Send in the hunter-killers...

And please bear in mind that these people being maced and threatened with arrest are not actually engaging even in any form of protest (although I remember something about that being constitutionally-protected as well).

Why Are We in Afghanistan?, I

2009-10-14T03:19:00.002+05:00

If we can't do nation-building in Mexico, then why in Afghanistan?

I think this essay pretty much succinctly sums up whats wrong with
American imperium....

Scouting in Today's Police-State

2009-07-28T18:41:00.002+05:00

Here is a rather shocking article on how today's Explorer Scouts are being trained by local law enforcement agencies to act in anti-terrorism operations, border patrolling, and drug interdiction. Because a society doesn't develop problems when 14 year olds are given a sense of authority, and potentially weapons...

On a personal note, I was previously under the assumption that the Explorer Scouts was a more laid-back organization compared to the Boy Scouts, if for no other reason than because it is coeducational. I guess I've been disabused of that notion.

Perhaps what goes around comes around. Lord Baden-Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts, was a one-time admirer of fascism, after all. But I think that even he would admit that moving young people from hiking, camping and whittling to training in police brutality is definitely not a healthy step for the direction of this country.

Turkmenistan Backing Away from the Ledge?

2009-07-22T21:05:00.002+05:00

I suppose one should be thankful for anything resembling normality in Turkmenistan. While I don't think I would much trust my dentist to remove a benign tumour from behind my ear, I think that the people of Turkmenistan can be thankful that their current President, Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, a trained dentist, did so as the inaugural operation for a new cancer hospital in Ashgabat. It's definitely better than, say, building a golden statue of yourself that always faces the sun, as the former president "Turkmenbashi" did. Who knows, perhaps this goes some way to reversing the decision five years ago to close all hospitals and fire all medical professionals in Turkmenistan.

The calendar has reverted to its original names, rather than using the names of Turkmenbashi's family. There still seems to be some dispute as to whether the Ruhnama is still official reading in Turkmenistan. Once Turkmenbashi's book is no longer used both as a means of entering paradise and as a required test for all drivers licensing exams, then I think it will be safe to say that Turkmenistan has become just another poor, hydrocarbon-rich, repressive state in Central Asia. Ruhnama text, courtesy of the government of Turkmenistan here.

Shameless Self-Promotion

2009-07-17T19:10:00.002+05:00

Via Andrew Sullivan, some young wannabe conservative pundit hack claims that the average American decides to marry later and have less children because of cultural decay and a society swimming in pornography. Perhaops by no concidence, a certain other aspiring pundit made similar claims 80 years ago in a little tract titled Mein Kampf.

In any case, I thought that I should provide The Daily Dish with a strong rebuttal, complete with stats and semi-biographical info. They published my counter-rant here.

While I'm on the subject, I should mention that I've gotten a piece on the blog's site before.

Return of the Iron Cross

2009-07-06T21:06:00.003+05:00

This post title sounds like a 1960's Allistair Maclean war-thriller. However, as of today German Chancellor Angela Merkel has awarded four German soldiers with the "Cross of Honour for Bravery", the first such award since the Iron Cross was eliminated in 1945.

The soldiers were awarded the cross for saving wounded soldiers and children during a suicide attack in Afghanistan. While honorable actions, this shows how much the Germany military has changed. Once upon a time such medals were awarded for things like shooting down 100 enemy aircraft.

Uighur Unrest

2009-07-06T20:49:00.002+05:00

Uighurs are in the news again. This time, the cause is reports of serious unrest in the province of Xinjiang. Some 140 are reported dead, and hundreds injured. The causes, as can be imagined in Communist China, are murky and do not seem to have been clarified by the media, but I would venture a guess that the causes are similar to last year's riots in Tibet. The riots in Tibet were ignited by ethnic clashes between Han Chinese immigrants and the native Tibetan population. Something similar seems to have happened among the Uighurs.

China's West is looking increasingly wild...

Carbon Footprints

2009-07-06T20:24:00.003+05:00

Over the holiday weekend, while relaxing on the Cape Cod shore, I had the opportunity to be subjected to a number of carbon-themed radio segments, including one excoriating me for using a charcoal grill instead of a gas grill (I prefer gas grills actually, but I use what I can). Other stories told of the glories of cutting one's carbon footprint by moving into micro houses worthy of Thoreau's cabin.

Honestly, this has all become too much. I am very concerned about the noticeable effects of climate change, and I feel that strong measures must be taken as soon as possible. However, efforts like those mentioned above strike me as an "ascetic chic". The inhabitants of the developed world should obsess over the carbon properties of their slightest actions and should dutifully self-flagellate themselves (paying a carbon-offset premium on a plane ticket is another example). But this all just a distraction. The problem is not Americans or Europeans using charcoal instead of propane, but the hundreds of millions of Africans and South Asians that use charcoal as their first and only energy source. McMansions are definitely a grotesque excess of American culture, but the remedy is not to force everyone to live in garden sheds. Even Thoreau lived in his cabin for only two years as a thought experiment. The great mistake of this movement of modern-day hermits is that they assume that were society's members to live in a simpler way reminiscent of past times, that we all would be in tune with a healthier nature. Unfortunately, the truth is closer to the opposite. I have actually lived in rural, less-developed societies, and the pollution and environmental degradation is often worse, not better. We should remember that the English and the French swtiched to coal as a fuel source because their landscapes were largely denuded of trees by the early Modern Period. And that was without chainsaws, multinationals, factories and credit cards.

Humans will demand to live in a more complex, progressively more technologically advanced civilization. Attempting to turn the clock back is a pure pipe dream. This is not to say that overpopulation, pollution and climate change are not extremely serious issues: indeed, they are arguably the most serious issues that civilization faces today. However, the more developed parts of society would do better to focus their energies on preventing deforestation, making agriculture more efficient, and developing clean, alternate energy sources for industry and consumer use. Market forces, not shame or self-righteousness, will be the only means of meeting these goals. People must be given a real incentive for making choices that help to restore environmental equilibrium. Just to give a personal example: in the Northeast, during the winter, I rarely use our natural gas heating system, as the cost is (in my opinion) higher than the actual value of some 5 C degrees of extra heat. In the former Soviet Union, however, where natural gas is subsidized and only directly costs consumers pennies, I had no compuction of lighting up the stove to heat the apartment, opening the window to the Siberian winter in order to prevent asphyxiation (don't try this at home!). Pricing incentives, and focusing on the truly big issues in global climate change seem like a much better investments of time and energy than worrying about how your dogs are grilled, or if you should move into a teepee.

NPR as Orwellian Mouthpiece

2009-07-02T19:23:00.002+05:00

This is a very good post written by Glenn Greenwald in response to the NPR ombudsman's public defense of why the "harsh interrogation techniques" used by the American military and intelligence operatives in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanimo will not be referred to by NPR as "torture". I heard this ombudsman on the radio (NPR of course), and her spoken argument mostly follows the written argument, ie these actions were not done to Americans, Bush said it was not torture, and calling it torture could infer that there is some sort of crime committed that should face consequences.

So basically, the goal is to avoid truth-telling and journalistic integrity. As Greenwald points out, it is ironic how such supposed paragons of "liberal media" as the New York Times, Washington Post and NPR are so unwilling to risk official displeasure by calling American war crimes what they are. Apparently access to the elite is all-important. And these are the very media institutions that complain about new media and the way that it is making life difficult for older media organizations that are the "pillars of democracy" (ie themselves).

Another gripe I personally have with NPR is the way that they constantly refer to those supportive of civil liberties, and who oppose the torture techniques and war crimes committed by the Bush administration, as "far left". Since when has the defense of constitutional liberties and the upholding of internationally-established norms regarding the laws of war become "leftist" or "liberal" (in the American sense)?

Russia as a Chinese Gas Station

2009-06-29T19:09:00.004+05:00

With Russian economic output plummeting in ways not seen since the massive restructuring of the early 1990's, the big questions being asked now are Kto vinovat? ("Who's to blame?") and shto delat'? ("What is be done?") Here is an interesting article on the state of Russian thinkers' discontent with the regime. As is noted, Russia has yet to overcome it's centuries' old problem of making things that the rest of the world would actually want to buy, rather than just chopping down trees, or pulling rocks and sludge from the ground.

As an aside, quite a few histories of Russia have noted that one of the goals of Russian/Soviet imperialism has often been to literally capture new markets for its subprime goods. The Russian conquest of Central Asia was driven in no small part by its mercantilist demands for cotton and needs for captive consumers of Russian goods. I have often thought that the Soviet bloc should be reinterpreted in the light of a massive economic subsidy for the Soviet Union. Soviet materials were swapped for East German, Czechoslovakian and Polish industrial products that the Soviets could never hope to produce or buy in an open market. One has only to look at how quickly Eastern European countries have stopped trading with Russia, other than to purcahse its gas and oil.

UPDATE: Rebuttal here.

Rethinking Asia's Rise

2009-06-29T18:59:00.003+05:00

Much has been made of Asia's spectacular economic growth in the past 20 to 30 years. Most major Asian economies seem to be faring well in the current global economic downturn. The praise for Asian revival has even led some to speculate about the future global cultural influence of the Asian giants.

However, I think that we shouldn't get too carried away. While major Asian economies, such as China and India, have experienced remarkable growth in the past decade, one can't but wonder whether we are walking down a path we have been before. Japan experienced decades of economic growth, and usually sits as number two or three on the list of biggest economies by GDP. However, it has undergone a lost decade of economic stagnation, and is currently experiencing rapid population aging and decline. Japan is affluent, and seems like a decent place to live, but it has harldy become the world power or universal economic and social model that pundits were predicting it to be.

China's economic and social development has been unique in history, and it has altered the world market in commodities and energy. However, China is beset by terrible ecological issues, and will soon see a rapid aging of its own population. Will China go the way of 1980's Japan? Some think so.

So Much for Change...

2009-06-24T18:43:00.001+05:00

Doesn't look like a good track record is developing for reducing executive power, or for making government more transparent...

A Statistician on Healthcare

2009-06-24T18:27:00.003+05:00

Here is a post worth reading from FiveThirtyEight, on the subject of healthcare reform. I have to admit that I am not such a policy junkie that I have been following the various proposals that have been floating around the halls of Congress lately.

Unfortunately, I feel that the healthcare reform debate has (yet again) been stymied by the extremists of the spectrum. Listening to the rhetoric, one feels that the choices on the table are either demanding no change (because our non-system is working so well), or change pushing us towards a British model of healthcare. Now, obviously none of the bills in Congress are that extreme, and most call for some hybrid public-private model. I think that the healthcare systems of Germany and Swtizerland (essentially, private markets for mandatory care where a public provider operates to varying degrees among private ones) should be more closely examined by Americans. Definitely the government subsidy for employer-based insurance needs to be eliminated, and costs need to be brought down (I refer to you Pace for more on those matters). And most importantly, the United States needs to find a way to institute such a plan without dramatically increasing an already-dramatically increasing deficit. Because any government plan will be expensive. All government programs need to be put on the table for review, including defense and entitlement.

An Internet 2.0 Company Can Actually Avoid Selling Out

2009-06-16T23:12:00.003+05:00

Not to sound like an old man, but I do have to have some respect for "the Twitter". They postponed a scheduled maintenance in order to not interfere with dissidents' communications in Iran.

If only other internet technology firms were more interested in promoting freedom, rather than supporting censorship (I'm of course thinking )of Google, Microsoft and Yahoo in China.

Quick Rant About Attitudes Towards Events in Iran...

2009-06-16T21:06:00.003+05:00

This post from Commentary correspondent Michael Totten sums up a lot of the frustration that I have been feeling towards certain quarters of the American commentariat (both professional and otherwise).

The argument by this segment runs along something of the following:

"Well, we don't know that the Iranian election was really fraudulent. Those people saying so are just pissed off because the more pro-Western candidate didn't win. The elections probably do represent the will of the Iranian people - they just want different things than Westerners do. All the people protesting are just spoiled rich kids. [Insert some comment about American imperialism and the hypocrisy of American foreign policy here]."

The argument from the other side runs along the lines of:

"Well, Iran never has free elections. It's just a theocratic dictatorship, as its been since 1979. It's just a matter of choosing one candidate vetted by the establishment over another. Besides, having regime change does not necessarily serve American strategic interests [Insert some comment about nuclear weapons and Israel here]."

The fallacy of both arguments is that they ignore the deep upsurge in political action by the Iranian people. What's happening there cannot be defined simply in terms of socioeconomic class, or anti-imperialism, or even pro-imperialism for that matter. Thousands, potentially millions of people are day-after-day acting in unison in direct contravenion to the authorities' commands and wishes. This could lead to something big. What happens will lie in the hands of the Iranian people and the reactions by the establishment (which is showing some signs of cracking).

American observers should be skeptical of unfiltered information coming out of the country, but they should not be so skeptical or self-centered, lest they be left on the sidelines of history.

Cyber-Assistance to Iranian Pro-Democracy Demonstrations

2009-06-16T18:23:00.000+05:00

If anyone is interested in helping the protesters in Iran, this seems to be a quick and relatively painless method. This blog has instructions on how you can allow your computer to be used as a proxy server to allow Iranians to work around web censorship and report on what is going on.

Needless to say, if you think anyone else would be interested, pass the link on.

Random Fact for the Day

2009-06-16T02:43:00.001+05:00

Apparently the last battle in the US Indian Wars was not Wounded Knee, but a battle in 1898 in Minnesota. The result was an Ojibway victory over the US army. Go figure.

Election in Iran

2009-06-14T09:16:00.003+05:00

Friday saw the conclusion of the first round of voting in Iran's presidential election. And for the time being, it looks like the last round: election authorities (after some conflicting signals) declared an overwhelming victory for the reactionary and millenial Mahmoud Ahmedinejad over the reformist Mir Hossein Moussavi.

The returns are highly suspicious, to say the least, and Iranians have taken to the streets in numbers not seen since the Shah's overthrow in 1979. It is hard to see how this will end: either the ruling elites will crack, or the military and Interior Ministry will crack down.

One can only hope and pray for the best for the people of Iran. I recommend seeing Andrew Sullivan's blog, as it has the most complete coverage of the uprising that I can find so far.

Free the Uighurs, ctd.

2009-06-12T20:14:00.002+05:00

In this latest update, apparently the British government is taking umbrage at Bermuda accepting the Uighurs without notifying the UK first. The result is a rare rocking of the colonial boat. The differing interpretations depend on whether you consider this a foreign relations matter, or an immigration matter.

For the record, I was also unaware that the Governor of Bermuda was assassinated in 1973 by black power nationalists. Oh, those 1970's...

Free the Uighurs

2009-06-11T18:42:00.003+05:00

The US government has offered the island state of Palau $200 million in aid if it agrees to resettle 17 Uighurs being held at Guantanamo Bay. Here are a couple links to some well-written articles on the matter.

As a quick background, these Uighurs (a Turkic Muslim people related to the Uzbeks inhabiting Xinjiang in Western China) were captured by bounty hunters in Afghanistan at the beginning of the so-called "War on Terror". They have been held in the prison camp at Guantanamo for the past seven years. All were cleared by the Bush administration of having any connection to terrorism, and they are not even labelled as "enemy combatants". A number of them were recently released and resettled in Albania, and the rest (the 17 in question) were ordered to be released into the US by a federal appeals court last year. Yet in prison they remain.

Much of the problem is due to the ignorance and fear mongering of American politicans. There was a massive outcry recently in Congress of resettling these "dangerous" individuals in the US, even though they have not been accused of any crime, and cannot return to China on fear of further torture and possible execution. Their crime in American eyes is to be Muslim, separatist, and potentially "radicalized" by their unjust prison experience. All this, even though the Uighur community in Northern Virginia has offered to take the men in and help them adjust to a normal life. As a result of these shortsighted, prejudiced, grandstanding actions by politicians concerned about whipping up a populist fear of the "threat" of Muslim foreigners, no European country will offer these men (or others at Guantanamo) asylum, and so they are being effectively exiled to a Pacific island.

As something of an international realist, I am just astounded by the base ignorance and stupidity of many of the supposed conservatives who oppose the Uighurs'. Very few of these politicians and pundits are friends of China (which they also fear). If conservative political leaders had something in the way of more brains, they would recognize a useful bargaining chip when they see it (remember all those "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan??) to check China's political influence, and to weaken control of the PRC's West. That, plus the fact that they used to support a president (Bush) who said a great deal about aiding peoples struggling against tyranny.

Apparently all that talk of freedom was yet another cynical ploy. These people just give in to the atavistic urges of ignorant, fear-mongering nativists. Too bad they still have such a corrosive influence on this country's government and its values.

UPDATE: Four of the Uighurs have just been released and are being transferred to Bermuda. Perhaps they can start a shell company there. The five sent to Albania in 2006 are still there, not pursuing criminal or terrorist activity.

Anti-Terror Laws and Moral Equivalency

2009-06-08T23:52:00.001+05:00

This post from the Washington Monthly, while perhaps not saying anything new, is a very nice summarization of all the problems with how "terrorism" is defined in the United States.

Big Mistake

2009-06-08T23:50:00.001+05:00

It looks like the al-Shabab in Somalia is seriously pushing for war with Sufis.

"They see Wahhabism as foreign and ultimately un-Islamic."

Talk about overplaying your hand...

Long Road to Recovery

2009-06-08T18:31:00.004+05:00

After a long search through various resources (as well as some number crunching of my own), I finally found some summarized figures on the effect of the economic transition on Post-Soviet states.

The above graph is based on numbers from the UN Statistics Division (admittedly the wiki-user didn't specify if GDP is in current or constant dollars, or is adjusted for PPP - and I'm not even sure how the UN calculated any GDP for the USSR, since I believe the Soviets did not keep such records). I'm a little suspicious of the late 1980's spurt in Soviet economic output - I thought that this period showed stagnation, followed by the chaos of perestroika. If Soviet GDP was more stagnant, then the change between 1990 and 1991 isn't so abrupt (which leads me to believe that these figures are in current prices after all). There are further IMF numbers in the sub-article that are also illuminating. Needless to say, things were bad.

In any case, it looks like in toto the former Soviet states only just reached their 1990 output levels in the past couple years. And considering that most of their recovery has been based on either resource extraction and/or foriegn-denominated loans, I'm sure the world recession is hurting them all quite badly. Apparently Russia's recession rivals its downturns in the early 90s and in 1998.

UPDATE: I double-checked and the GDP figures cited in the graph are indeed in current prices.

European Elections

2009-06-08T18:10:00.003+05:00

The results are in for the elections to the European Parliament.

The BBC has some neat flash infographics here. The obligatory wiki background here.

Admittedly, despite having actual academic training in the structures of the EU, I constantly find myself forgetting just what the Parliament does, besides moving between Brussels and Strasbourg twice a year. I'm sure most Europeans feel the same way, which is why turnout was so low.

The interesting thing to check out is the current results compared to past results. The political left seems to be significantly declining across much of Europe. In this election, it seems that the big winners are the Christian Dems, the conservative Euroskeptics and the far-right nationalists (who might try to reconstitute a new European party, after "Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty" collapsed in November 2007).

What interests me is that the Greens and the Liberals seem to have done quite well. Perhaps there is a bright European future for greens and quasi-libertarians?

Item

2009-06-04T05:42:00.008+05:00

I was tempted to start things off with an item about Death Camps in the American South, but how about something lighter?

Item: Russian intelligence "expert" predicts that the United States will collapse and be split up between competing foreign powers.

I think that if central government collapsed, the former United States would more likely split up into independent entities along regional lines, as above.

I forget what the exact publication was that inspired this map of American regions: it was published by the US Information Agency (a propaganda arm of the CIA that is legally forbidden to operate within the US...I found this in Peace Corps days). FYI the blue spots are urban areas that do not fit into any region. Independent city states, perhaps?

Oh, and the death camps are here.

Reborn!

2009-06-04T05:06:00.002+05:00

Welcome one and all!

The Notes from Underground blog, after a two year silence, has been resurrected. The format has been retooled and streamlined somewhat. It pains me to remove the Russian language labels, but I assume that they have been utterly incomprehensible to most readers, and I aim to improve accessibility.

The focus of this blog will also shift somewhat from its earlier incarnation. While I will post on whatever random thoughts cross my mind, or whatever tidbits of information pass before my eyes, the goal of this blog will be to initiate, facilitate and accommodate more general discussions. To this end, open threads will be thrown out on a regular basis to the readership.

Welcome back, and enjoy!

China and Free Trade

2007-06-11T08:02:00.000+05:00

Sorry, I guess I'm on a free-trade kick this evening:

The BBC mentions the following report on Chinese labor standards published today by the campaigning alliance Playfair. I must say that one should be a little skeptical of an alleged research organization that is actually funded by a confederation of trade unions under the "fair trade" banner.

I notice that these Western organizations only find time for "awareness" when the working conditions are in factories producing Olympics merchandise. I also find it interesting that there are no voices of Chinese workers calling addressing workplace law violation: only Western campaigners speaking on their behalf. Much like how the Chinese Communist Party speaks for the workers' interests...

I am sure work in a Chinese factory is intense, with long hours, forced overtime, and perhaps even labor with children as young as 12. But as James Fallows points out in his excellent piece on Chinese industry in Shenzhen, Chinese peasants willingly leave their families and drudging agricultural toil behind to work in such jobs. They save money for a few years and then often return home in the hope of starting businesses. This is a hard life, but its the life of millions of people striving for and building a richer future through industrial revolution, just has America and the West did a century and a half ago. Fallows also mentions that Western campaigners have a tendency to misinterpret Chinese labor conditions, like when campaigners see computer assemblywomen grounded with wires to prevent static electricity buildups and think that they are chained to their stations as slave labor. Nor do these same campaigners seem to have much to say about non-export industries, like when 33 workers were incinerated at a government steel plant because of faulty equipment.

Those concerned about working conditions in China would better spend their energies supporting the Chinese themselves in building a society and legal system that better protects property and civil rights. If Chinese workers were free to organize for themselves outside of the Communist Party structure, they certainly would not need meddling foreigners deciding which of their workplaces were bad for them.

"A Reply from Your Congressman"

2007-06-11T07:15:00.001+05:00

I got this junk mail in my inbox this week:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding H.R. 891, the Dog and Cat Fur Prohibition Enforcement Act. I always appreciate hearing from my constituents, and I share your concern on this important issue. I hope you will be pleased to know that I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 891.

As with any consumer product, the buyer has a right to know what they are purchasing. The inhumane practices exercised on animals in foreign countries for consumer products must be stopped and the United States government has the responsibility to do whatever possible to prevent the manufacture and sale of this animal fur. As you may know, I was a supporter and co-sponsor of the Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000, prohibiting the imports or exports of products containing dog or cat fur into or out of the United States.

The Dog and Cat Fur Prohibition Enforcement Act will expand upon the Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000 and effectively ban the import, export, and manufacture of raccoon dog fur in the United States. H.R. 891 will also require the labeling of all fur products. This will protect the raccoon dog species, as well as protect consumers from purchasing unlabeled or misidentified animal fur products. It is for these reasons that I am a co-sponsor of this bill. Please be assured that I will continue to support this bill, as well as any future legislative initiatives to promote animal welfare and prevent inhumane treatment of all animals.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. Please feel free to contact my office if I may be of assistance to you in the future. Sincerely, Michael E. Capuano Member of Congress

Here is my emailed response:

Dear Rep. Capuano,

While I thank you for your correspondence, I feel I must clarify that I never contacted your office regarding H.R. 891. I am worried that someone is misrepresenting me to you in regards to official correspondence.

While I am an animal lover and ardent naturalist, I question the need for bill H.R. 891 (the Dog and Cat Fur Prohibition Enforcement Act). The Raccoon dog is not an endangered species, nor is it even a true dog. While I would hope that its fur is harvested in as humane a manner as possible, I do not feel that it is the place of the House of Representatives based on these concerns to limit this fur trade with other nations in possible violation of the United States' commitments as a member of the World Trade Organization. I believe that you and other US representatives should seriously consider the arguments that the raccoon dog fur trade increases habitat conservation, limits illegal poaching, and supports native Siberian peoples such as the Evenk who engage in fur farming.

If the House of Representatives is concerned about endangered species conservation, I would advise them to research strengthening CITES and international agreements regulating the sale of endangered animal products. I would also urge the House to consider promoting market tools as a means of protecting endangered species, rather than banning the market outright.

Finally, I would heartily urge you as my Representative in Congress to pressure other members of the House into focusing on more worthwhile projects: instituting a federal cap-and-trade system of carbon emissions, thoroughly investigating the curtailment and abuse of civil and human rights in the "Global War on Terror", curbing the practice of earmarking and Congressional pork-barrel legislation, balancing the federal budget and reducing the deficit, establishing independent congressional districting commissions to end the gerrymandering of Congressional districts, extending the Presidential "fast-track" authority in negotiating free-trade agreements and urging the current administration to commit itself to a comprehensive world trade agreement as initiated in the Doha Round.

Thank you for welcoming the thoughts and concerns of one of your constituents.

(Signed, the Editors at The Economist...)

No Place Like America II

2007-06-11T07:06:00.000+05:00

At least some people in this country will come to their senses. I found the most interesting remark on the Paris Hilton jail scandal on a BBC forum from a Nigerian man. He mentioned that in his part of the world, children of the rich and powerful scamming their way out of jail sentences is just part of the justice system. That's rough when our legal system gets realistically compared to that of a failed oil-state in sub-Saharan Africa.

At least someone finally sent her back to jail for her "learning experience". Luckily for all of us, Paris has replaced the Supreme Court and the Constitution and has self-arbritrated on the legitimacy of the sentence. Too bad she is kept in luxurious facilities separated from the general population. Also too bad she isn't at a hard labor camp in a country that wouldn't even care who she was.

No Place Like America

2007-06-11T06:25:00.001+05:00

I'll try not to get too depressing, but you really have to admit that sometimes the news from this country is just baffling and shocking.

The overall trend in firearm fatalities has been declining in this country in recent history (see chart). Nonetheless, it appears that in recent months there is some spectacular countervailing anecdotal evidence. There was April's terrible shootings at Virginia Tech (did they ever fully straighten out the chain of events in that episode?). A month later there was a multiple-fatality sniper attack in Idaho. And now recently there has been another serial shooting in Wisconsin. One must admit, there seems to be something of an upsurge in this kind of violence these days. Boston last year saw quite a bit of gun and gang-related violence. But these incidents seem to involve many fatalities coming from one shooter, and seem to occur in suburban or rural areas.

Now, I am not going into the details of the gun debate, except to say that European friends that I have spoken with cannot comprehend how guns exist at all in common American society. I am not as opposed to guns as all that, although I think some restrictions cannot hurt, as long as sporting and hunting needs can be met. Likewise I think that some of the gun lobby's arguments for guns are a little flimsy at best. An armed populace will never really stand up to a tyrannical government, especially as that government has more of the guns. The average Iraqi household has several machine guns in the residence. This neither stopped Saddam Hussein from using his greater firepower to rule the country, nor did it stop civil chaos and crime from running rampant after his fall. Also, I have a feeling that many of those who have guns for "self-defense" are probably a greater danger than the criminals that it is meant to deter.

At the same time, Washington DC' s gun ban was obviously a joke. So is the mess of gun legislation in both the federal and state levels of government. Arkansas forbids guns in church. Alaska allows free purchase and carrying of weapons. Florida forbids carrying of guns except when concealed. Massachusetts requires background checks, official safety training, a purchase permit, and has four separate levels of ownership permits, as well as disallowing anyone from other states to transport guns through the state. On top of that, different states recognize different licenses. And then there are federal laws, of varying levels of usefulness (it is illegal for illegal immigrants to own firearms ... how helpful). Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would bother with this hassle to even legally carry a gun.

Some honest discussion of gun regulation would probably be useful, but then so would honest discussion about many issues in this country. Frankly, I think in terms of mass-shootings we need to look past gun issues and address the reasons why people are driven to these acts of destruction. It seems that mental health care in this country just isn't at the standard it should be, and is not reaching people who sorely need it the most. Likewise, sometimes one wonders if this the dark side to the suburban culture. Young and/or disturbed people who live closeted lives in artificial communities, and who live through consumerism and media products seem to be prone to some wild and dangerous behavior. And I'm not talking just about America. Take a look at Japan and its suicide obsession.

(Charts by Economist.com)

The Latest News From the Steppe

2007-06-09T07:57:00.000+05:00

I must say - for a country that is so unknown to the West (or at least to Britain and America) that Sacha Cohen's Borat stunts can be passed for real, Kazakhstan has been figuring pretty highly in the news these days.

First, the First President of the Republic of Kazakhstan (as he is officially commemorated in state museums, despite him remaining the only president) has been elected as President for Life. I wasn't aware that heads of state were still offered this title, besides Castro. And look where that got him.

Still, life is complex. There are some decent reforms that were proposed in this package of legislation, like restricting the constitutional amendment process and streamlining elections. Unfortunately, theory is different from reality in the former Soviet Union. But then this is true for the other side of the ideological spectrum: Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are even more brutal regimes than Kazakhstan's, but I am not sure that any are exactly "totalitarian", however true dissidents' criticisms of them may be. As for Nazarbayev himself, I believe (and have heard to this effect) that his true role model is Lee Yuan Kew of Singapore.

Second, and in related news to the first item: the president's son-in-law has been arrested. This is related to murky clan struggles among the power elite. In true post-communist fashion, the President's son-in-law was Ambassador to Austria and the OSCE, owner of the country's largest newspaper and television station, and director of one of the country's biggest bank. He is accused of abducting and beating two other bank directors, one of whom remains missing. Talk about the convoluted world of the new post-Soviet elite! His quote on BBC (unfortunately for Anglophones in Russian) is priceless:

"As the Republic's ambassador to Austria, I represent the interests of my government, president and my country. I think that the first president of Kazakhstan has done very much for the country ... But as a private citizen, I have my own vision for the development of Kazakhstan."

(I believe that this is called a "conflict of interest")

Third, Russia is apparently getting keen on its Central Asian neighbors, and has been in a frenzy of investment in Kazakhstan, as well as other portions of Central Asia. Putin last month snatched a pipeline deal with Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan that upset Western plans, and apparently also is looking for uranium from Kazakhstan. The Great Game continues.

The former Soviet Union never ceases to surprise (as well as to frustrate). Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan have had revolutions in the past four years, as well as more democracy - or instability, depending on how you look at it. Georgia has been blockaded by Russia and ethnic Georgians expelled from Moscow, Ukraine's President and Prime Minister are refusing to recognize each other's existence and are arraying their loyalists, and Kyrgyzstan's Prime Minister was poisoned.

Meanwhile, Russia is getting more assertive with it's Cold War lite - witness Putin's mini-Reykjavik moment of cooperation today, now that Bush offers to treat him like Reagan did Gorbachev.

But still, times have changed - Russia's enemies are not the Americans (so much), or even West Europeans, but their own near abroad. Russians seem to have collectively always been xenophobic, but now it strikes closer to home. A recent survey found that the following percentages of respondents considered these countries among Russia's enemies:

60% - Estonia, 46% - Georgia, 36% - Latvia, 35% - USA, 32% - Lithuania, 23% - Ukraine.

Countries considered among Russia's friends?

38% said Belarus, and 39% said Kazakhstan.

Waterways of East Cambridge

2007-06-09T07:11:00.000+05:00

I'm not going to lie: my obsession with geography means I also have a big interest in waterways of various kinds. Here are some pictures from two afternoon walks on Wednesday. Consider it your walking tour:The Zakim Bridge from outside my office. Looking through a chain-link fence and over the superb North Point Park, complete with playground, skating park, open green space, and beds of different species of flowers that have been combined so that their combined blooms have lasted over three months now. This being Boston, local bureaucracies are fighting over the park's liability and it remains closed to the public.

Broad Canal, looking towards Kendall Square

America will never fail to amaze at the number of times its people have completely reinvented their society and economy, despite their short history. True, Cambridge has always had Harvard. But 200 years ago it was also a bustling seaport, as canals such as Broad Canal stretched through the salt marshes up towards Central Square, and wharves lined the waterfront laden with agricultural goods. Broad Canal is still there, although nowadays it does not quite reach Kendall Square. The wharves have been replaced with M.I.T. properties and such biotech firms as Siemens and Genzyme.

Cambridge Athenaeum

The deity herself watches over Memorial Drive.

A relic of the industrial age.

View towards Boston down the Lechmere Canal.

This piece of canal waterfront is now home to condos, sightseeing boats, lunching workers and that center of modern American society - the mall (Cambridgeside Galleria, to be precise).

Millers River

Once this river flowed from Union Square in Somerville into Boston Harbor, and divided Charlestown from Cambridge. Now, it has been mostly filled in. What remains survives (with the last vestiges of Boston's precolonial saltmarshes) underneath the Zakim Bridge's US Interstate 93. I guess Boston is a bit like Tokyo. The numbers, by the way, mark the harbor depth at those spots when surveyed in 1801.

Little slivers of East Cambridge's past survive amongst great development: new biotech firms and their properties seem to be sprouting up all over the place. Harvard Square is so passe: what do those people ever do for anyone, except spend other people's money? This part of Cambridge seems to be the Biotech Silicon Valley of the East Coast. Some "money" shots:

Genzyme

North American HQ of my Dear Employer
(note the Condos sign - so much for affordable housing!)

And last but not least:

A monument - to potatoes?

Of Blogs, Souls and Politics...

2007-06-05T08:43:00.000+05:00

I just finished reading a book called The Conservative Soul: How We Lost it, How to Get it Back, by Andrew Sullivan. The book left a significant enough reaction on me that I have a review for it.

I first became acquainted with the work of Andrew Sullivan through the Atlantic Monthly's website, which links to his blog, The Daily Dish. For those more removed from the Beltway, Sullivan was/is one of the premier political bloggers, and his blog was once among the most-influential in DC. He was an ardent supporter of Bush in the 2001-2003 years, allegedly becoming required reading for the White House staff. Beginning in 2004 he had a major falling-out with The Bush Administration (hereafter referred to as TBA) and has taken up blogger arms ever since then. I find his blog worth a quick view - he also tries to keep things interesting with YouTube clips of all sorts.

Anyways, with that background, I decided to read his book (free from the library, of course). And I must say that I have a very mixed reaction, perhaps inspired by my readings of reviews by his friend David Brooks and by the New York Review of Books.

Sullivan is a mixed bag, and while I will leave it to the above reviews to flesh out his story, here he is in a nutshell. He is a child of Irish immigrants to England, selected for a scholarship to Oxford, a doctoral student of philosophy, Tory activist, immigrant to America, youngest editor of The New Republic, openly gay and HIV positive, and a practicing Catholic, as well as being the blogger personality. This makes his life experiences and viewpoints eclectic, to say the least. This book was his attempt to make clear what a conservative is in his understanding, being himself a self-professed conservative.

His argument is as follows: a conservative is a person who sees the world through the lenses of skepticism and doubt, always questioning and listening to his conscience, and never believing in an ideology or any concept a priori. The conservative embodies the ideals of 16th century French philosopher Montaigne and 20th century British philosopher Oakeshott, and sees the world as a never-ending game of pool: one must consider play based on where the balls are placed, and one can never really control the consequences. The conservative above all values freedom and the strong but limited government that allows him the space to muse his lonely, sublime existence and to express himself as needs be.

The conservative is therefore threatened by the fundamentalist. Sullivan defines the fundamentalist as anyone who excepts some external set of values as a revealed truth, and who tries to bend himself and his world to fit into this truth. Such a person cannot tolerate other ways of thinking, and must either convert or destroy anyone who does not share his revelation. The fundamentalist is forever reaching back to that one moment of his conversion, and is governed by fear of sin, defeat, and by thoughts of the end-times.

All well and good, and at this point I'd like to say that I share many of Sullivan's more compelling philosophical thoughts, such as the inability of God to be defined by human presumption and the dichotomy between knowledge (and its limits) and (false) certainty - although Jacob Bronowski's discussion of the latter topic in his Ascent of Man is far better. Sullivan also provides some great philosophical arguments against those who would invoke "natural law" or the "culture of death" to colour debates about human biology, birth and death.

However, as Sullivan's colourful past can show, he has more than a few axes to grind, and when grinding them the quality of his writing slips. As the above reviewers observe, his book is high on philosophy and low on journalism. He doesn't really bother to get to know the fundamentalists in any meaningful manner. Christian fundamentalists are a series of Falwell quotes, references to American mega-churches and the "Left Behind" series, and rehashed research from fellow gay anti-fundamentalist provocateur Bruce Bawer. His knowledge of Islam and political Islamism is far worse, and one can see why his views on it were once so popular among neoconservative Republicans. In his mind, the Taliban, Iran and Saudi Arabia are all the same, where women are "domestic slaves" and gays have walls dropped on them - sadly true in instances, but ignoring the deeper complexities that make these or any non-Western society a real, rather than a rhetorical point. Likewise, he manages to conflate "fundamentalism" to mean anyone motivated to change the world by ideals, be it "Islamofascists" real fascists, communists, Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, Christianists, Socialists, liberals, internationalists, international realists, Whigs...the list goes on. As David Brooks notes, this would seem to include the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Civil Rights movement leaders in its logical conclusion, as well as anyone motivated by faith to perform works of good in the world. Brooks points out that poetry and philosophical skepticism are all well and good, but hardly make for a coherent and successful political movement.

But this is precisely the point. For all of Sullivan's personal philosophy, and in direct contradiction to the book's title, we never see what a conservative is, merely what this conservative does. We can very clearly substitute "conservative" for "Andrew Sullivan" and read his referral to himself in the manner of Caesar, and we would not be too far off the mark.

For clearly he sees himself in his actions as the embodiment of this "conservativeness" (never an -ism, please!). Him and his worthy pantheon: Jesus (naturally), Oakeshott (Sullivan's personal friend and the subject of his doctoral thesis), the equally obscure Montaigne (I have studied both philosophy and political science and blissfully never heard of these two before), and the larger-than-history Lincoln, Churchill, Reagan and Thatcher. History is not his strong point, and where Sullivan carefully reads the philosophy of his foes he botches the history of his heroes. Sorry, but the US military did not liberate eastern Europe from communism, not even with those Pershing missiles. But no mention of Gorbachev is even made in this book - Reagan just apparently won the Cold War in Reykjavik by himself. Churchill presciently warned about a mobilized postwar Britain being turned to - evil! - a social welfare state, one that only Thatcher could disspell: but Churchill himself was reelected as Prime Minister of this social democracy in the 1950s. Sullivan often twists history against itself: Jefferson is quoted both negatively and positively compared to Sullivan's viewpoints.

And perhaps here is the meat of the issue. This book is in large part an exercise in both the egoism of an elite thinker and convoluted mea cupla for why such a thinker played willing attack dog against war skeptics in the lead up to the 2003 Iraq invasion. Sullivan's most telling line on the subject:

"I can see the comedy and tragedy of an entire debate almost all of which was premised on what turned out to be a falsehood.... This falsehood was taken as fact by every major intelligence agency and by both supporters and opponents of a war to depose Saddam. We were all wrong."

Because, of course, we were all suckered, just like him. Unfortunately, I wasn't and I don't buy this attempt at an apology. He supported Bush when there was the need to question Bush, and it does no good now to say that, in fact, Bush isn't a real conservative but in fact the enemy of the conservatives. Sullivan is correct that TBA's executive power and willingness to torture are serious erosions of all our liberties. But most-favoured bloggers *ahem* calling in to question the patriotism and loyalty of those arguing against war in 2003 helped to get us there.

Furthermore, as the NYRB review notes, there is something of an Oxford-elitist tinge to his dislikes: he favors the familiar rituals in the village Catholic church for their own sake and unconnected to doctrine to the American megachurches and shopping malls. Fair enough, but the former seems to be something for Sullivan like what yoga has become - ancient rituals performed for a mind-clearing exercise by the urbane and educated rejecting any unpleasant or "unnecessary" cultural or doctrinal baggage. All you need to know is that this thinker is right and everyone else is wrong. Ironically, Sullivan himself often shows the zeal of the converted in his viewpoints.

Sullivan only cuts short his musings in the last ten pages, where he attempts to squeeze in that in addition to being a musing philosophy professor, the true conservative also supports free markets, the flat tax, gay marriage, marijuana legalization, preemptive war (but with a large international coalition), kite-flying, beer drinking, and of course blogging.

This book left me pondering the meaning and limitations of my existence, almost fainting trying to comprehend my own mortality. And it also served to show me why I should avoid political blogging where possible.

It Lives!

2007-06-05T08:37:00.000+05:00

I realize that it has been quite some time since I posted, and at least one of the more devoted fans asked for some updates. It's been a busy couple of months or so, but I will try to keep things interesting.

I am seriously considering a shift or remake or whatever the blogger terminology is for revamping a blog. I know that the small readership that I have appreciates the rants that I have posted concerning politics, religion and history. But then again, let's lighten things up. And also I'd like to actually put myself into this blog a little more.

Check back from time to time for some changes.

Banning Offensive Language

2007-03-02T10:05:00.000+05:00

I was reading on BBC not too long ago that New York has decided to continue it's legislative activism. Apparently attempts to mold New York into a well-behaved American Singapore does not stop with the outlawing of smoking or of consuming trans-fats, but will now include a legal ban on the use of a certain perjorative term for African Americans.

While I agree that the use of such terms in youth culture is ironic, to say the least, as well as unfortunate from an historical perspective, I see what little good unenforceable city council resolutions do. I would be better if the New York City Council worried about fixing potholes and promoting racial harmony in schools than passing headline-grabbing motions such as this.

But my real indignation lies with an editorial that the BBC website published on the subject, written by BBC correspondent Kari Browne. I urge you to read this editorial, or at least the "Different Perceptions" conclusion at the bottom. I agree with her general thesis, but the fact that she tries to butcher etymology of the word "cracker" in order to claim that the persistence of this word - and the fact that many Southern whites willfully identify with this term - literally originates with the cracks of whips on the backs of slaves is quite frankly grotesque. It is exactly this twisting of history that gives otherwise worthy politically liberal viewpoints a bad name.

I wrote the following as a response to the BBC:

"Regarding Kari Browne's "Should Racist Word be Rehabilitated?", while I do agree with her main argument that words such as the "n-word" have a hurtful past that younger generations do not understand, I am not convinced by her etymology for the word "cracker". I am not one to question her great-grandmother, but as I understand it the term comes from an Elizabethan word "to crack", meaning to boast or brag - much as we "crack" jokes today. The term was applied in the 1700s to the Scots-Irish settlers of the upland South, who lived beyond the law and were considered "rascals" and "boasters" by the colonial governments and gentry. The term has also been explained as deriving from these settlers' habits of cracking corn and pecans, as well as whips when herding cattle. While these Southern whites did own some slaves, they were not the plantation slaveowning class of the South, and I think it is a bit of a stretch to connect the name "cracker" with lowland Southern slaveowners, or insinuate that the term implies dominance over another race."

I am sure that this response will never be read, let alone published or responded to. I am sure that in such circles I would be denounced for taking such a stand (how can I question her relative, the eyewitness to oppression, because this type of pseudohistory relies heavily on the personal and the anecdotal). But I feel that for all the blood and tears spilt over race relations in American history, the goal of coming to true harmony and equality between all the peoples and individuals of this country will not be helped but will be hindered by the invention of false oppressions, which will only serve to obfuscate and discredit the true injustices. Think "herstory" and "womyn" and you see where I am going with this.

I urge everyone to write a little note to the BBC to set them straight on their word history.

Fun with Numbers

2007-01-28T21:25:00.000+05:00

Well, it has been something of a slow news cycle. Apparently no one is interested in making much international or political news in the dead of winter (or Australian summer). Strikes in Lebanon and Guinea, State of the Union address by President Bush, it's all pretty much more of the same.

But the CIA has just put out their 2007 World Factbook. Understandably, their information is somewhat flawed and often at odds with other information and intelligence agencies (no I will not get into any political discussions here). With the Factbook this is largely due to them relying on local censuses and official statistics to fill out their information on every independent state and dependency. But their information is still a very useful rough guide, and seems to immediately and directly flow into Wikipedia. And of course once wikified, information is gospel truth.

So here is one of my latest graphics, showing the population and religion of every African country. This was just something I was thinking about, and slapped together. For the record, the population total for that continent is somewhere around 909,000,000 to put things in pespective.

Obviously it is a little difficult to read this graphic...it looks much better as a spreadsheet than as a cut-and-pasted picture, for that I apologize. The countries are in alpabetical order. This is a work in progress - welcome to the internet, ladies and gentlemen.

Anyway, one reason why I say that this is a work in progress is because this graph has been a little lesson for myself in using OpenOffice, a suite of open-source programs offered by Sun Microsystems. OpenOffice operates more or less like Microsoft Office, but the coding is open source and it is offered to all for free. I recommend everyone give it a try.

Political and Civil Freedoms Across the World

2007-01-19T12:40:00.000+05:00

With the January news cycle being relatively slow, it is time for the talking heads and thinking bodies to create some buzz.

Perhaps one of the more interesting and relevant reports to come out this week has been the 2007 update of "Freedom in the World", released annually by the think-tank Freedomhouse. They have been gathering information on political and civil freedoms across the world since 1972. The following is a self-made map cataloguing the status of freedom this year (Green covers the "Free" states, Yellow "Partly Free" and Red "Not Free").

A major theme this year is how the number of countries in each status has remained approximately the same in the past 15 years or so (although the number of free countries is much higher than, say, in 1981, largely owing to political developments in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Southern Africa and East Asia).

You can check out the report for an explanation of their methodology and scores. Their compiled comparative data can be seen here. I confess that playing with this information was a passtime of mine in whiling away the long hours in Peace Corps.

It is interesting to compare the scores with the Economist Intelligence Unit's new Democracy Index Survey. Their ratings of countries is a bit more graded, and as a result a great deal fewer countries get to stand next to Sweden and FInland near the top. Here is a self-made map of their results (Dark green for Full Democracy, Light Green for Flawed Democracy, Yellow for Hybrid Regime and Red for Authoritarian Regime).

Some similarities, some differences. Nevertheless, one can see that, as mentioned above, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Southern (and parts of Western) Africa, and parts of East Asia are seeing some political gains. Much of the rest of the world is not, or is in some sort of quasi-authoritarian limbo (but much less of it ruled by military regimes or one party states than before 1991). And, despite all the best efforts of its populace and leaders to the contrary, North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australasia still rank at the top of the list. As they say, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Maybe that is the scariest lesson!

Rule of Law in Iraq

2007-01-15T20:07:00.000+05:00

I was hoping to avoid comment on the issue of Saddam's execution, as it occured over the holidays when I was absent from this blog, but the bizarre executions of Barzan Ibrahim and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, two of Saddam's aides and relatives, brings me to comment.

The Iraqi government apparently released footage today showing the execution by hanging, resulting in the decapitation of Barzan. I cannot say I am an expert on human anatomy, nor on execution, but I find this a rather unusual and ghastly event.

It is, in a larger sense, a sort of microcosm surrounding the whole trial and execution of Saddam and the top leaders in his regime. Granted, they were bloodthirsty and brutal rulers whose rise to power resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands and the torture or rape of a goodly number more. But both Saddam and his aides were tried and executed for the killing of some 148 Shias
in 1982. The Iraqi courts have even gone to far as to drop all charges against Saddam posthumously for his role in the 1988 Anfal campaign against the Kurds, which resulted in ethnic cleansing, gassing of civilian populations and arguable genocide. Furthermore, the details of Saddam's execution (that the Iraqi government sought to suppress) show that it resembled something more of a lynching, with Saddam being the one showing fortitude while he is taunted and the names of Shia firebrand Moqtada al-Sadr and his father are chanted by the entirely Shia audience. These latest executions seem to also have at best a tinge of incompetence, at worst a feeling of Shia revenge in a style of Mesopotamian justice that seems little far removed from Hammurabi and the Assyrian Empire.

Saddam and his top circle are clearly guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It must also be said that at the very least some semblance of an impartial court was attempted in their trial. However, quite frankly at the end of the day these figures have not been held accountable for their most heinous misdeeds, and their killings promise something more of martyrdom and sectarian violence. One wonders if a greater punishment would have been to leave Saddam, abandoned by his wife and with his sons dead, sitting in a cell, far from the centres of power and the palaces he once enjoyed. The trial and execution also seem like a duck of responsibility on the part of the Americans, who (regardless of political affiliation) say that this justice "is the business of the Iraqis", and yet also say in almost the same breath that the Iraqis are doing a good job of murdering each other in civil war.

All in all, these executions show to me that perhaps Saddam was not so unusual after all. It seems to be Mesopotamian tradition to dispatch of one's enemies in as gruesome a method as possible. So much for the hope of a new dawn in Iraqi political tradition.

France a la Anglais? Non!

2007-01-15T09:08:00.000+05:00

I found this article on the BBC amusing. Apparently historical documents have come to light showing that in 1956 then-French Prime Minister Guy Mollet proposed to his British counterparts some form of "union" with Great Britain. His second proposal was that if a union was unacceptable, then France would join the British Commonwealth (which meant accepting Queen Elizabeth II as the titular head of that body).

The idea apparently went nowhere, but French pundits and historians are apparently tripping over themselves to denounce Mollet and state that were he alive today and he proposed such a plan, he would be tried for treason. It is too bad that the French political elite have such a hatred towards Great Britain and any thought of unity with them - they seem to have accepted Mollet's third-best plan of a European community centred on partnership with Germany rather well. This is despite the shared history and - yes - culture and language between France and Britain. I suppose the Hundred Years War still leaves a bad taste in the collective mouth of the French establishment.

In my opinion a French - British union would be in many ways a natural and strong partnership...but there would be huge political obstacles to overcome. The French approach to the state has gone in a much different direction from the English since, well, since the Hundred Years War.

Tackling the Middle East

2007-01-13T23:35:00.000+05:00

I would like to point out that I am going to write on this issue once, and once only.

I noticed in my time at university that a cause celebre among politically-active young people (especially in the years 2000-2004) was their stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jewish students and Arab/Muslim students would frequently engage in debates, demonstrations, protests, and performance art (which I promise I will allude to in a later entry) on this issue, as if handing out flyers at Georgetown or Harvard Yard was the final remaining key in solving some 70 years of ethnic, religious and communal conflict. I cannot tell you how many times I was subjected to polemics and speeches on censuses from the 1930s, individuals from this or that side that met untimely (yet symbolic) ends, this and that injustice committed, etc. American students would often side with a group based on their political affiliations, roughly speaking conservatives being pro-Israel, liberals being pro-Palestinian (and with the politically active yet irrelevant often taking the most detailed positions). Nevermind that most American Jews are Democrats, and most Palestinian Arabs live in a socially conservative culture that would make your average college student cringe: these are just some of a litany ironies that surround this sad struggle.

In any case, I mention all this as the Economist has published what I think is a fine and succinct editorial and article on the subject of Israel's international image, especially among the Jewish diaspora. The article correctly points out that too often groups that are organized to support and promote Israel in other countries (such as in the US) often wind up masking the great social and political debates actually occurring in Israel in favor of touting the rhetoric of Israel's political right, and lazily accusing any dissenters from this ideology of being anti-Semitic. As the editorial notes, "Helping Israel should no longer mean defending it uncritically. Israel is strong enough to cope with harsh words from its friends." Especially in America, the relationship with Israel is distorted by the existence of AIPAC, a large lobbying group, and Christian evangelicals, who (in another ironic yet to me repugnant relationship) support Israeli hawks and settler groups in the believe that their reconquest of Zion will bring about the Second Coming, and of course actually causing all the Jews to either convert to Christianity or perish in flames. Talk about Israeli Jews bedding with the Devil! And I wonder why these strident Christians are not a little more concerned over the fate of Palestinian Christians...but once again the ironies abound. The end result on the American end is that we support Israeli politicians in some of their occasionally less-than-sensible ventures, and lose all credibility as an impartial arbiter.

At the same time, America has acquired a most unusual ally (and a non-official ally at that - there are no treaty obligations defining either party's rights or responsibilities). Despite its size, it seems that Israel calls the shots in this relationship in a way Americans would allow no other country of 5 million to do. Israel acts, and America responds. American criticism is very light towards Israeli disacknowledgement of its nuclear program, or military incursions to densely-populated Palestinian areas resulting in heavy civilian casualties, or the issue of the wall being built through the West Bank, and this is while the American government heavily subsidizes the Israeli military. Even more bizarre, America finds itself subject to occasional espionage by its smaller ally: witness the 2006 guilty plea of Col. Lawrence Franklin and the 1987 plea of Jonathan Pollard to passing classified information to Israeli officials. Such scandals should be the stuff of conflict between America and Russia or China, not the means to build a strategic friendship between a large power and a small recipient of aid. No staunch ally of anyone's should engage in such behavior.

However, I do agree with the pro-Israel side that often too much is played up over Israel's shortcomings while the Arab side's shortcomings are played down. Groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are pledged to destroy a Jewish state and use methods that attack civilians (which constitute acts of terrorism, but once again a discussion of that politically-charged term is best left for another time) , and I will not bother to get into Iranian President Ahmadinejad's antics. Nor shall I go into the details about how anti-Zionism is used by Middle Eastern governments as a political safety valve for their crushing of internal political debate.

Furthermore, I would like at this juncture to point out that I feel that Israel is a necessary good for the world. I think history has proven that the Jewish people need a separate state of their own in which to live freely, and that this state might as well be in their ancestral and holy lands (rather than Uganda, Madagascar or Paraguay, as some Zionists a century ago tried). One could argue "why are the Jews so special?", to which the proper response is that they have directly and indirectly shaped the morals and moral history of the world's Abrahamic religions, to which in various guises a majority of the world's population adheres. As Thomas Friedman pointed out in From Beirut to Jerusalem, one reason why Israel envinces so much international criticism is precisely because the Jews helped to invent the concept of universal justice. And as for why should they get their own country, well, it is an idea that they made a fact and have kept so for almost a century. If all the Gypsies moved to Voivodina and declared it an independent country for their people's defense, the world could not argue with that. But the fact is that the "wandering" Jews actually succeeded where other international minorities have not. They should not be penalized as a result.

But at the same time, the Palestinian Arabs deserve some sympathy, as they have been likewise turned into a stateless people, and in their homelands are deprived of life, liberty and property, and are subject to a great deal of social disorder and violence (some of their own making, some the making of the opposing side). They likewise have expressed a desire for an independent state, and should be allowed to achieve so, free from oppression and violence. The world should not wait for them to magically become an enlightened, peaceful democracy before granting them a state, as their current chaos, self-tyranny and ghetto-like rule is intricately connected with the conflict at hand.

I agree with the Economist and moderates on both sides, in that a lasting peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians is actually quite straightforward: a shared capital of Jerusalem, a Palestinian state roughly following the pre-1967 "Green Line" (but one that leaves the biggest Jewish settlements in Israel in return for land elsewhere), no "right of return" for Palestinian refugees to Israel, no claims on Judaea or Samaria by Israel on Palestine. To this a mix of reparations payments could be added, potentially a demilitarization and an economic union (another good idea proposed by Thomas Friedman in the above-mentioned book, written at a time when he was still a serious writer). The only problem with this peace plan is actually going through the torturous political landscape needed to make it a reality. It seems at times that the political (and military) fight is at its bitterest when it is Israelis vs. Israelis or Palestinians vs. Palestinians.

This seems to actually be a common factor in war: a warring people are more concerned with fighting their enemies at home than in effecting a decisive victory against the stated enemy. Witness the whole "surge" debate among Americans. In any case, there will be a lot of rough dealing with extremists in Israel and among Palestinians in order to achieve peace, and apparently such courage is at the moment lacking.

And finally, I must admit that until Israeli and Palestinian leaders can summon that political courage, I have found myself largely washing my hands of this conflict. I am not a Palestinian Arab, nor a Jew, and the endless arguments and bitter conflict seem typical of an internal family feud (which this arguably is, between the children of Isaac and his half-brother Ishmael). Both nationalities are very cosmopolitan, very well-educated and have a collective historical memory of legalism and trade, as well as a hard habit of forgetting injustices. This does make for one difficult and protracted conflict. Another familiy's problems are sometimes best left to the relatives to sort out, without taking sides in the affair. Furthermore, although Jerusalem is for many the spiritual center of the world, one must put this conflict in perspective: a grand total of 6,385 people have been killed to date in 20 years of Israeli-Palestinian conflict (including 1322 in the first Intifada). Although this leaves out the six other Arab-Israeli wars, this is still small potatoes when considering some 300,000 killed in Darfur since 2003, or the 4,000,000 killed recently in Congo in the most destructive war since World War II. These conflicts get no space in the international mind, while UN resolutions, hilltop settlements, rights of return, uses of the River Jordan's water etc. abound ad nauseam.

In any case, I hope for peace, hope for a more open and constructive dialogue between America and its Israeli allies, and steadfastly avoid college demonstrations and students with flyers.

Women Problems for China

2007-01-13T08:46:00.000+05:00

I must confess that I enjoy the Pocket World in Figures that the Economist gave me as part of my subscription offer: I love information comparing the nations of the world on a wide variety of subjects. One which the book lists is the male - female ratio in countries across the world.

I note this because a recent BBC article suggests that China will face a shortage of tens of millions of women within a generation. All this while the over-60 population will rapidly increase to around a third of the population, and while the overall population increases another 200,000,000 to around 1,500,000,000 in the next quarter century. To put things in perspective, the Chinese population is expected to increase by a number almost equalling the sum of all Americans. And to put things in greater perspective, this is a phenomenal increase considering that the Chinese population when Mao assumed power was a mere 400,000,000 (closer to our projected population by this midcentury). Ironically, the one child population and a preference for boys is to blame for the overrepresentation of males and seniors in Chinese society, and yet seems to have only gone so far towards slowing population growth there. It is truly beyond my comprehension how so many people can live sustainably in that country.

But I digress from the main point of this post: male female ratios. Here are some countries' breakdowns (number of men for every 100 women), courtesy the boffins at the Economist:

UAE - 214 (!!!)
Saudi Arabia -117
China, Pakistan - 106 (already pretty high)
India - 105
Bangladesh, Taiwan - 104
Cote d'Ivoire, Iran, Malaysia - 103
Algeria, Nigeria, Turkey - 102
Egypt, Peru, Phillipines, Singapore, South Korea, Venezuela - 101
World (average) - 101
Indonesia, Kenya - 100
Canada, Chile, Israel - 98
Brazil, USA - 97
Japan, EU (average), Mexico, South Africa, Thailand - 96
Switzerland - 94
Kazakhstan (CIA Factbook) - 93
Hong Kong - 89
Lithuania, Russia - 87
Estonia, Ukraine - 85
Latvia - 84

So what can we learn from this breakdown? We of course should always be wary of statistics, but nevertheless a few things become clear to me. First, a large majority of the world's countries have ratios somewhere between 100 (or a man for every woman) and 95 or so (a few women extra). Anything beyond this range seems like a recipe for trouble and turmoil. There are some exceptions: South Korea has more men than women (but has one of the highest population percentages on the internet ... perhaps a necessity for the extra men?). However, by and large, you can see that countries with an excess of men either have problems or are out looking for them. Likewise for countries that have a dearth of men - these are mostly former Soviet republics, the lack of men there having to do with their smoking, drinking and killing one another (the average Russian man lives to 60, the average Russian woman to 75). And also, now you can see why women from the former Soviet republics are so interested in meeting some nice, sober Western guys. If you have the means, I highly recommend it.

As for the extra Chinese, Indian and Saudi men, well, I leave that to the reader...any suggestions?

Somali Strikes

2007-01-12T07:03:00.000+05:00

I suppose my mention of Black Hawk Down was a little ironic, because probably the most interesting news these days (in an otherwise boring news patch of the month for those of us not interested in Rosie O'Donnell) has been this week's American airstrikes on targets in southern Somalia. The targets were three suspects thought to be the masterminds behind the 1998 East African Embassy bombings. Reports have been all over the place in the past week: originally it was claimed that al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri was among the targets (quite a feat considering that Predator drones were attempting to target him in a village in northern Pakistan this time last year). Now reports are saying that none of the suspects were actually hit.

The airstikes have brought the usual international criticism. Let us look past any resurrected, tired rhetoric to analyse what is occuring. One the one hand, these strikes can be seen as a potential success: as in Afghanistan, they are providing strong air support to local ground forces pursuing targets of the American national interest. In this sense, it is a good example of well-applied force for national gain (on America's part). It also provides useful support to the Somali Transitional Government that the American government wishes to succeed.

Speaking for myself, however, I question the value of this intervention. One, the current administration is appearing to fall for its same traps all over again as in Afghanistan. When Bush made it clear so many years ago that hunting individual terrorist masterminds (like Bin Laden, or OBL once you get your security clearance) is a waste of military resources, why then go at it all over again, with potentially the same limited results? With all this talk of a decisive troop surge in Iraq, do we need naval and air forces committed to Somalia (they could surely provide our troops on the ground with some strong support in the upcoming weeks in Baghdad).

Foremost, as I have questioned time and again concerning the Iraq strategy, what exactly is the intended end result? The Islamic Courts Union has been routed from Mogadishu, and in its place the local warlords have returned to their bad old ways, complete with a resurgence of the qat narcotic (Afghanistan, anyone?). An allegedly democratic and secular, UN-recognized government now sits in Mogadishu, but these descriptive terms are essentially just promises invoked in hope of expected international aid. The writ of this government doesn't extend far beyond the capital (Puntland is a self-governing region, and Somaliland is a fully functioning - if unrecognized - independent country). Unlike Afghanistan, the new government exists almost solely through the military efforts of Ethiopia, a veteran of bloody conflict against Somalis. This is more akin to the US supporting Russian troops in taking Kabul from the Taliban. One look at some of the images of Ethiopia's armed forces should show that this regional power isn't at a Russian level of professionalism (the troops more closely resemble day-laborers armed with 50 caliber machine guns). Furthermore, there appears evidence that Somalia is being used as a proxy conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia, while Ethiopia's own local civil wars are mixing into Somalia as Somalis in Ogaden attack the Ethiopian military, and the Ethiopian military rounds up Oromos (a long-fighting and oppressed plurality ethnic group in Ethiopia) in Mogadishu. Anyone the least bit familiar with armed conflict in Africa knows that this chaotic maelstrom is par for the course.

Despite an American desire, (from the American right as well as left) to see all Islamists as one global enemy, I am not sure what is to be gained by encouraging the current situation in Somalia. The US is ill-equipped to undertake another nation-building task, and as far as I can tell not likely to convince any capable power to undertake such a feat. I can quickly foresee the Somalis tiring of Ethiopian rule and giving greater and greater aid to an ICU insurgency against the foreign invader, especially more so to one now openly backed by the US (we have not been so popular in Mogadishu since 1993). More to the point, this is exactly what ICU leaders have planned from even before their "defeat" (and what many Somalis worldwide expect). Ethiopia itself is a less-than ideal partner in this endeavor, as beyond the traditional hostility to it in Somalia it is an autocratic country accused of fixing elections, massacring demonstrators and sending political opponents to labor camps (but for whatever reason is a darling of international donors, as well as the headquarters of the African Union, and therefore apparently beyond reproach). The region, furthermore, is terribly environmentally degraded and overpopulated, which makes it an even worse ticking bomb to tinker with. This seems like another mess that the US has gotten involved in with little clear idea of what is at stake, or what a desired yet realistic outcome would be. I thought we learned enough of that in 1993.

In any case, the picture above is of a Lockheed AC-130, used to target enemy ground forces with massive amounts of fire power, and supposedly used in the strikes in Somalia. There are 21 in active service, mostly used by the US Air Force Special Operations Command. It was first brought into service over Nha Trang, Viet Nam in 1967. They can provide one hell of a suppressive firepower, but admittedly their usage would seem limited when trying to specifically find and target three suspects in mangrove swamps. Ironically, one of two AC-130s lost in service exploded over Somalia in 1994 (the other was shot down in 1991 in Iraq...).

fg

And Now For Something Completely Different...

2007-01-11T08:45:00.000+05:00

Following in Tim's footsteps, some pictures from New Year's in Washington, DC. These are all from the National Zoo:

Giant Panda in a Tree

Golden Tamarin Monkeys

Is that an Ewok? Just a Sloth eating lunch...

One of the Zoo's Sumatran Tigers out for a walk...

...and a Mexican wolf out for a swim.

A view up to the roof through the indoor rainforest in the Amazonia exhibit. It was a pleasant 35 degrees C in here, with plenty of humidity. Much like how I remember Southeast Asia when I was there.

A Book Review for Half a Book

2007-01-11T08:25:00.000+05:00

I recently have been reading my way through a book called The Long Walk, by Slavomir Rawicz. It is a gripping story of seven Polish and Eastern European Prisoners of War who escape from a Siberian gulag in 1941 and walk through Mongolia, China and Tibet to reach British India.

Why do I say this is a review of half a book? Because halfway through the book I read about Slavomir Rawicz on Wikipedia and BBC News, and was more than a little stunned by the news: the story is not true! He was actually released from a camp in 1942 and sent to Iran, eventually making his way with other Polish emigres to England, but even there not performing the military role he claimed to have done.

I must say that I am more than a little disappointed by this news. The story is a fantastic story...although with the benefit of hindsight perhaps too fantastic (can seven overworked and undernourished men really escape from a Gulag and walk through metre-deep snow for six weeks going 30 miles a day on starvation rations?). The story also includes sightings of Yeti in the Himalayas, but alas apparently even that was added by the British ghost-writer who sought to validate their existence (I believe that they could exist, but like Mulder or Houdini on their personal quests the blatantly falsified information angers me all the more for the bad reputation it gives to such a search).

I am also more than a little disappointed because I would very much like to read an account that describes Stalinist Russia and its gulags as Elie Wiesel's "Night" describes Auschwitz. It is ironic that the Holocaust is such a well-documented and (despite the rantings of some such people as I described in my EuroParliament post) reasonably well-understood and well-studied event, while the Stalinist atrocities going on literally right next door are so poorly understood. Even the numbers are debated. There seems to be pitifully few accessible works in English for us Westerners to read on Gulags, and even less that is not written by those with political axes to grind (Soviet emigres and all varieties of Eastern Europeans at differing stages of war with the Soviet Union). I guess my search continues.

And I shall hopefully finish this work of fiction I set out reading as a piece of history. Churchill was right: Russia continues to be a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

At the Movies Again...

2007-01-11T07:49:00.000+05:00

...Or more correctly, watching DVDs from the library. This time it was "The Prince and Me", starring Julia Stiles, a film about a young woman who is preparing for medical school but instead falls in love with a prince from a fictive royal family of Denmark. In the tradition of Hollywood movies copying plots I believe that this film was already made as "The Princess Diaries" (yes, I watched that one with my little sister because I'm a good older brother). Well, this one was terrible. The plot was all over the place, not terribly romantic (or comedic), sort of set at the University of Wisconsin, sort of set in Copenhagen (which from a little checking on the internet appears to be a beautiful Prague in springtime). The acting was subpar. And, humourously, the entire constitution and society of Denmark has been reinterpreted for the silver screen. First (obviously), Danes speak English as their first language, even the royal family at home. Second, enough with all this nonsense about Queen Margaret - Denmark is ruled by a King whose wife seems to resemble Zsa Zsa Gabor. Also, the Crown Prince is a Prince William type playboy with a 12 year old sister... so much for the two real princes in their 30s (who married an Australian and Hong Kong woman, respectively, not Americans...). I (and probably the people of Denmark) was also unaware that the monarchs of Denmark personally convened and chaired Cabinet meetings. What a load of crap.

Long and short, if anyone has Black Hawk Down, let me please borrow it and watch it. It may be a depressing film, but at least its somewhat based on reality. That plus there comes a time when I can't take any more romantic comedies...it's time for something to cleanse the filmgoer's palate of all that artificial movie saccharine.

Surge

2007-01-11T07:27:00.000+05:00

That blog entry before this was the first in almost a month, so I feel it was a little messy and rambling, but I needed to get something out there (Talk amongst ya'selves..). I promise to keep the next batch short and to the point, with some taut prose.

So I just watched the Bush speech, like I'm sure many political junkies and foreign affairs fans have done. I found it interesting. To the point, and actually rather well-spoken (a point journalist James Fallows has raised is that Bush seems to mis-speak more often when talking to his "Base" than when seriously dealing with a bipartisan audience). He was correct that whatever happens, there will be more violence in Iraq, and so people need to be prepared to deal with that. He also mentioned that America cannot afford to appear to lose in this conflict there: I would agree with him on that point too. As Paul Kennedy pointed out in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, that is the bitter irony of power: once a committment has been made, there is no way to withdraw from that committment without losing relative power. However, often these committments are expensive in terms of blood and treasure, and can likewise diminish power (talk about a prisoner's dilemma). As I have said before, this is why the debate on invading Iraq in the first place should have been taken more seriously - now it is far too late for the politicians to be squabbling on when and how to minimize an American presence there.

But on to this "surge", the new buzzword for 2007. Ultimately, it is a slight of hand and seems to be done for political reasons. The extra troops are troops already stationed in the Middle East - timetables have just been fiddled with. The whole debate over troop levels seems to be too much of an inside-the-Beltway game at the moment. Strategists need to seriously discuss the best means to secure a victory, or at least a stable situation, rather than the political horsetrading occuring at the moment.

Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty

2007-01-11T04:24:00.000+05:00

The new year has brought the European Union two new members, Bulgaria and Romania. These two countries are the latest intakes in the EU's expansion this decade, and their presence could point to future difficulties in the European project.

For all the techno-jargon about "absorbtion capacity" and whatnot, the fact of the matter is that the two newest members are much poorer, have poorer infrastructure and a more corrupt society than the EU's more venerable members. Romania and Bulgaria are in quite a different world than, say, Ireland, Sweden or the UK, let alone Germany, or even Poland or Slovakia. The promise of EU membership has forced these countries to undergo reforms, but it is far from a finished project.

I mention Bulgaria and Romania because their addition has caused a small stir in the European Parliament (and it obviously takes something unusual to bring notice to the EUP). European Members of Parliament now include representatives from Romania's Greater Romania Party and Bulgaria's National Attack Party. In the world of EU politics, these two parties are considered rather unsavoury, what with their anti-minority, nationalist overtones. Their membership has allowed the formation of a new Pan-European political group: Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty, which will include Le Pen's French National Party, the Freedom Party of Austria (formerly led by Joerg Haider, until he tried to reinvent his political career), the Flemish Nationalist (and anti-immigrant) Vlaams Belang, and various far-right politicians from Italy, including Alessandra Mussolini, the granddaughter of Il Duce and niece of Sophia Loren (for details on her career as a topless model please consult, as always, wikipedia). No word yet on any support coming from the Danish People's Party or any of the late Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn's followers. These parties share a common distrust of the EU, especially regarding attempts to write an EU constitution, support stricter anti-crime measures in their home countries, oppose any EU membership for Turkey, and generally oppose immigration into the EU. Opponents can point to antisemitic histories of some politicians in this group, as well as a few national irredentists (just let the name "Greater Romania" sink in for a minute ... sadly I'm not sure how great it would be).

Quite a few have had some electoral successes in years of late, and a number have participated in or supported national Cabinets in their home countries. To traditional supporters of liberal democracy, such politicians are fascists, pure and simple. I remember a Professor of mine, a former high level State Department employee, remarking to my class that of course the EU must shun Austria and force it to change its government if its government included Joerg Haider! Such people must not be tolerated!

And there in lies the secret of such parties. European politics especially are dominated by something of a political elite...something that might seem quite familiar to the US State Department. All members of this "elite", despite their rhetoric or hairsplittting campaign promises, largely offer the same thing: parliamentary democracy with the same social democratic economics and values. So well and good if people want it, but if they are looking for something different then there is precious little on offer in the mainstream. As a result, these parties appeal to certain needs and fears felt by European voters. Attempts to exclude them only seem to prove that the system is rigged (and it is true that supporters of liberal democracy, whether Republican neoconservatives or UN-minded liberal internationalists, seem to expect a pretty narrow range of acceptable results from democracy despite the world's great variety of cultures, historical experiences and problems - one can see this in calls for Palestinian democracy followed by an international boycott once Palestinians elected a hardline Hamas government). The growing popularity in Europe has led mainstream politicians, such as Sarkozy in France, to address some of their voters' concerns about immigration and crime.

Socialists and communists seem to fit in to democracies and even have a hard left organization in the European parliament - the Party of the European Left, which includes as observers the unreconstructed members of some former Eastern European Communist regimes. It seems that "establishment" opinion seems more tolerable of them than of suspected fascists. In a true democracy, it is better to give everyone a voice ... usually the better to debate them and let them show their own failings (the European far right is an especially fractious lot).

So I say good luck to the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty Party. I disagree with what you say, but defend your right to say it. Just please do not try to deprive people of fundamental civil and political rights, or try to overthrow your governments and carry out genocide (admittedly, I am not too worried about the latter - professional politicians seem much more harmless than professional militaries, intelligence services and secret police forces that dabble in politics). Ultimately, all politics really is is a means to for the rest of us to humour the politically insane.

As a final warning, I would point to our far right European politican associates that the attempt to organize a Fascist International in the 1930s was a dismal failure (so much so I cannot even find reference to it on Wikipedia). Strident nationalists ultimately do not seem to get along with other strident nationalists ... especially when they are trying to deport each other's populations and control each other's territories. The only common enemies they gather are people favoring democracy... and eventually everyone gets a little tired and wants to throw the old bums out. So the Far Right bums beware of their antics, because they too will meet the same fate.

Some (Further) Oppression in Kazakhstan

2006-12-12T09:11:00.000+05:00

I must admit that I am not a terribly great fan of Hare Krishna adherents, but I view them much as Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy rates Earth: Mostly Harmless. I do remember them being a visible community in Almaty, but they certainly never got in anyone's way.

Therefore I find it somewhat shocking to read this latest news of a literal attack and destruction on a Hare Krishna community by local authorities in Kazakhstan. As this article points out, this heinous action seems to belie the Nazarbayev regime's claim that it is a religiously tolerant and diverse nation. Apparently some religions are to be better tolerated than others.

It reminds me very much of a sad discussion I had with a Kazakh student two years ago, upon my first arriving in my city where I worked. This woman was an ethnic Kazakh, with a very good command of English and who has since become a teacher in that town. We were talking about religion, and she stated that she considered herself non-religious, and that Kazakhstan should be tolerant of many religions. But she then followed this statement with a strong condemnation of the city of Uralsk, not far from us. The reason? Uralsk has a Russian Orthodox church in its city center, and Kazakhstan is supposed to be the nation of Kazakhs, and Kazakhs must be Muslim. Despite my protestations, she apparently did not get the complete contradiction in her viewpoints. And this was a member of the educated youth!

I am not trying to slam the people of Kazakhstan. Probably all nations grapple with issues of religious freedom. Nor, to press the point home again, will I say that I am a great friend of those who seek to publicly push their religion on others, especially through missionary activity (and, although I am probably by their own definition no longer Catholic, I still take some comfort that my religion of origin has turned from pure missionary work to social justice programs and inculturation). To be honest, one wonders how much politics have to do with this act. Pentecostal missionaries are much more widespread - and obnoxious - than Hare Krishnas, but undoubtedly Kazakhstani authorities realize that an attack on them would mobilize religious zealots not least in the United States.

However, at the end of the day, it is not the business of a government to act more violent and obnoxious than this religious groups. If the groups are behaving peacefully, and not attempting to undermine the society that they live in, then the state should allow them to openly live their lives and speak their piece. Debate and cohabitation is the best possible test for the rest of us and our beliefs.

The rightness or wrongness (on a religious level) of their acts is not for political authorities to decide or to punish. And this oppression does not just extend to persecution, but to legal restrictions on the voicing of religious opinions. Kazakhstan, much like other countries in the Middle East and its environs, places strong restrictions on any political organizations advocating a religious or ethnocentric point of view. While this may seem necessary for cohesion in a young and fragile state, the suppression of any such sentiments will only make them come back in worse versions (just ask Algeria and Egypt). The government of Kazakhstan would do well to stop meddling one way or another with religion and with Hindu converts and get about their sorely-neglected business of attempting to improve their people's lives.

Another 20th Century Figure Passes from the Scene

2006-12-11T04:57:00.000+05:00

Whatever your opinion of Augusto Pinochet, it must be admitted that the nation of Chile, and perhaps the world, has turned a small historical corner with his passing at the age of 91. As the Economist relates, even those on the political spectrum inclined to agree with Pinochet and to appreciate his policies had come to see the General as something of an anachronism.

This appears to be a new problem of our age. With ever better health care and ever better scientific understanding, lifespans have increased dramatically. This has meant that a large number of world leaders (mostly from the World War II and post War generations) have remained on the scene long after their careers had either formally or effectively ended. Think of Ariel Sharon, Yasir Arafat, Ronald Reagan, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates, and these deaths have all been in the past couple years. Fidel Castro is also fading from the scene (with his slightly younger brother Raul waiting in the wings).

Old leaders from a previous era seem to have a habit of hanging around longer than, perhaps, for the good of any. Italian politics is especially noted for its gerontocracy. When one starts playing hisotrical games, however, one begins to wonder if history is slowing down these days, despite all the claims of the world speeding up. One often hears the lament that World War II vets are dying out every day, but who was lamenting the demise of Mexican War veterans in Theodore Roosevelt's years? John Kerry's and George W. Bush's Vietnam records were hotly debated in the 2004 election, but a century ago Civil War veterans had already faded from the Presidency (McKinley was an enlisted man, and the last Civil War officer-turned-President was Benjamin Harrison). Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were children in the 1860's, but where are the Presidential contenders today who were mere children in the 1960's (I know Barack Obama meets these age requirements, but I am wondering where the more heavy hitting statesman of such an age are).

Granted, our lifespans have increased, but has our wait to a mature age also increased? Our lives seem faster these days, and our politics seem influenced by minute-by-minute changes on 24 hour news channels. Yet we still debate the 1960's and Vietnam, and glorify the living veterans of a war that ended almost 2/3 of a century ago. We seem to forget so much of our history, but at the same time it seems like we have trouble letting our history go.

With the passing of Pinochet in Chile, it seems that hopefully everyone in that country can be relieved that more than a little of their history has left them.

Energy Efficiient?

2006-12-11T04:40:00.000+05:00

Today was bill-paying day for me, which is an unpleasant yet necessary act for all of us without capital liquidity. In any case, I was on the NStar website paying my electricity bill, and I found this little nifty graph, displaying the energy consumption in my apartment over the past year. We moved into our place in September, and from what I gather the apartment was more or less vacant over the summer for renovations. You can see an obvious difference in the electricity consumption before the summer and after September, almost by a factor of three!!!

Considering that this is the same base apartment, with presumeably the same number of people and the same appliances (which from what I can tell are not rated as anything specifically energy-efficient), this seems like an interesting experiment. What on Earth were these people doing that their energy consumption was three times as high? We watch television, use the computer and cook and wash our clothes. But we turn things off when we do not use them. Maybe someone can explain just how we manage to be more energy efficient than the average American, and why more people cannot achieve this.

Another Grand Design

2006-12-10T10:23:00.000+05:00

My recent posts seem to have focused on the grandiose, dare I say baroque and extravagant, plans of world leaders. This latest one comes from my adopted second home, Kazakhstan. President Nursultan Nazabayev has decided to build a domed city in his pet project, the capital city Astana. Ironically, this is an idea that I had proposed to people during my time there (perhaps under an inebriated state). The climate of Astana faces 80 degree C swings over the course of the average year, and so I had thought that if possible one might as well just dome the entire capital. Apparently the Kazakhstani President will settle for a luxury neighborhood.

However, this idea, I must point out, is purely a stupid one. While building model cities is all well and good, at its very heart Astana is a Stalinist dream. The difference between it and Dubai is that Dubai actually accords some space to efficiently-run private business (Emirates Airlines and Dubai World come to mind), while Astana is President Nazarbayev's personal whim financed by state oil revenues dished out to contracters in a very post-Soviet fashion of corruption. Furthermore, the President believes that he can bully and cajole foreigners and locals alike into making his dream a reality, ie that Astana will be the "true" center of Kazakhstan, ie the national capital, largest city and business center ("not like Canberra", Nazarbayev's advisers have stated). This strategy has extended into even the attempt last year to force international airlines to fly into Astana rather than Kazakhstan's actual largest city, Almaty.

Like the steppe empires of Attila and Chingis Khan before him, I believe that this city of Nazabayev's, with all of its wonders, is nothing more than a modern Xanadu, that will vanish with his passing from power. Meanwhile, despite - or perhaps because of - all this oil wealth, Kazakhstan's teachers and doctors are among the nation's lowest paid professionals. Recently scores of children in the southern city of Shymkent were infected with HIV by incompetent healthcare providers. The education system is a disaster, lacking even a proper grading system (the Soviet grading system of 2,3,4,5 remains, but no one receives 2's - the worst - and bribes are paid for 4's and 5's). The cities of Kazakhstan are filled with banks and casinos, but few independent businesses, indicating to me that there is a lot of money sloshing around this economy but with no real purpose. Better to invest this money in strengthening Kazakhstan's future potential economy than to waste it on such unnecessary luxuries.

Lunar Plans

2006-12-05T16:18:00.000+05:00

No sooner do I write about the building of British nuclear weapons as a wasteful prestige project, then news comes from NASA of their firmed-up plans to build a moonbase by 2020. This seems to more or less follow the plan for a permanent presence on the Moon and manned exploration to Maras as laid down by President Bush in his "vision" speech of 2004. No cost has been stated, but expect something in the tens of billions.

I will state my reservations about such an enterprise. This project will be costly, and of dubious scientific value. Further, the expenditure of such funds will likely stifle the attention needed by more useful yet small-scale projects. A government-agency mission to the moon seems overly inefficient and old-fashioned, and raises potential fears of the weaponization of space.

Yet when all is said and done, I would still rather oppose this project and see it go ahead anyway. At some point humanity must begin to explore and inhabit its solar system on something of a more permanent basis. The fact that to date no human has left the immediate orbit of earth for anything more than a few hours, despite the thousands of pages written and thousands of hours filmed on the subject (both fiction and non-fiction) indicates to me that a permanent settlement on the moon in itself would possess some scientific value. Just how will the human body adapt to life on another heavenly sphere? Surely a moonbase has more lasting value to science and humanity (by capturing the imagination and providing facilities for experiments as yet unplanned) than the obsolete International Space Station and space shuttles, two super-expensive Cold War relics.

I say good job to NASA for finally scrapping the shuttle with plans for a new bold step forward. And I wish even more luck to Virgin Galactic. Carl Sagan once stated that he considered the hybrid government-private business model of the Dutch and English East Indies Companies to be the prime means to further space exploration. I cannot urge the greater participation of business in space travel more strongly.

A Modern Pharaoh and his Pyramids?

2006-12-05T06:37:00.000+05:00

Although he may be ideologically closer to Clinton, Tony Blair has shown himself to be a true soulmate of George W. Bush in a number of ways, one being his governmental tendency to throw good money after bad. His latest demonstration of this has been his latest proposal to spend 20 billion pounds (at the current moment something in the range of $40,000,000,000) to upgrade Britain's ageing nuclear deterrent. This money will go to building a new class of ICBM-armed submarines to replace the Trident system in about 17 years' time. The system is deemed necessary owing to such threats to nuclear nonproliferation as the North Korean atomic programme (in a poverty-stricken country whose ballistic missiles, if not exploding on launch, could currently barely reach Alaska), and the potential for state-sponsored nuclear terrorism (a fear whose basis in reality some specialists are beginning to question). Apparently money spent on such prestige projects is a better line of defense than money spent on conventional forces (Britain's are already stretched to the limit, as its top officers are stating) or better intelligence.

But what is ironic is how questionable the use for a nuclear-armed Britain has ever been. As a member of NATO, the UK has been under the American nuclear umbrella for over 50 years. Even during that time, a country with something like 2% of the world's population faced guaranteed nuclear annihilation at the hands of the Soviet Union (with over four times the population and many more times the area), and could at best incinerate a handful of Soviet cities. Since the Cold War the very need for a nuclear umbrella struggles to be proven.

Yet much like the American Anti-Ballistic Missile defence system, such anachronisms continue to be built. In my opinion the singular failure of Donald Rumsfeld was his inability to hold to his promise to end Cold War-era money pit projects and streamline and modernise the American military. Blair seems to have taken note of Rumsfeld's failure. As some MPs have pointed out, this very proposal is being rushed, perhaps in an attempt to build a nuclear Blair legacy.

Whatever the value of nuclear weapons, it seems redundant for such a country as the United Kingdom to spend billions on their maintenance and updating. Blair has shown some political courage in attempting to address unorthodox yet pressing problems of our time, such as Global Warming, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and societal collapse in Africa. It is a shame that as his time draws to an end, he too has decided to throw some military pork into the works in the name of a political legacy.

Another Movie Review

2006-11-27T09:55:00.000+05:00

Not so many years ago I had a dislike ofBrad Pitt. It was one of those irrational dislikes. I considered him a bad actor in bad movies. However, after I began to view his films the "exceptions" (Interview with a Vampire, Se7en, Fight Club, Snatch, 12 Monkeys) began to be the rule. Now I will not hesitate to say that he is generally a good actor in good movies.

I have come to the reverse conclusion about Nicolas Cage. For some reason I always gave him the benefit of a doubt, but especially after seeing such garbage as Wicker Man I realise that he is generally a terrible actor in terrible films. This newfound opinion of mine has been justified by my recent viewing of Lord of War.

Although that last film came out a year ago, I wish to review it, as it connects to international politics and other topics often addressed in this blog. This film was produced by and stars Cage, and was directed by Andrew Niccols of Gattaca. It is a film purportedly "based on actual events" that follows the life of Yuri Orlov, a Ukrainian immigrant to America who enters the international small arms trade. Long and short, he gets into the business with his brother, they prosper (most notably in the former USSR and Liberia) despite the dubious morality of their business, and then the dream falls apart with Yuri losing almost everything (including his family) before being bailed out by the US government to continue their dirty business. This is a movie with a moral to tell, and a strong agenda.

And in my opinion, it's absolute garbage. It fails to make a convincing sell: is it supposed to be a factual account? If so, then why does it take such egregious liberties with reality? The most outstanding of such errors involve such things as Interpol. Ethan Hawke plays an Interpol agent who is Cage's nemesis, pursuing him and attempting to bring him to justice. First of all, small arms dealing is hardly a criminal offence, but to push home the fact that the director thinks it is, we see an Interpol armed with the powers of search, seizure and arrest, not to mention warships and jet fighters!!!!! And silly me for thinking it was a database and information-sharing program. Apparently the audience is to believe that our hope and salvation relies on some sort of World Police to protect us from such horrors as arms trafficking. Further, large liberties are taken with Liberian history, geography, and reality. Why even mention the country if it is to be given a fictitious president, complete with a rapper-wannabe son and a Monrovia so rundown that even Cage's character, a guest and friend of the president, stays in a two-star prostitute-infested roach motel? Surely this has more to do with Americans' perceptions of Africa more than anything else, but more on that later.

Besides not being sure whether the film is fact or fiction, it is not sure whether to be a drama or a documentary. We are forced to sit through the pointlessness of Cage's character's family struggles, namely with the screwup younger brother with the heart of gold, and the beautiful wife who (somehow) doesn't know Yuri's true business and whose parents were killed in a violent crime with an illegally-purchased gun (liberals, high five!). Yet at the same time Cage narrates the entire film with lots of "did you know" facts that bore us and don't weave together a bigger picture (and the last shot's statement that the five biggest arms sellers are the five UN Security Council members is flat-out wrong, but presumeably numbers five and six, Germany and Canada, are too ideologically close to Hollywood to merit finger-pointing).

But finally, I disliked the film's message. The movie basically goes beyond a simple "guns are bad" and reaches a Michael Moore-ish "the American military industrial complex makes wars to sell guns and kill people". Hawke's character even goes on a tiresome rant about how even detaining Cage for one day will save countless lives in Africa, because of course Africans do not fight wars with each other unless white people tell them to, and are unable to acquire guns or other weapons from other sources (the movie never points out that the AK-47 has been officially copied and produced in 11 developing countries, and unofficially produced in many more). The film takes a very patronizing attitude towards Africa and the developing world: those people are beasts when armed, and its up to the enlightened members of the developed world to keep capitalists from manipulating these otherwise innocent children for evil.

There are other pointless political jabs - Cage's literally shadowy guardian angel is a Col. Oliver Southern (har har), and the otherwise admirable Ian Holm (Bilbo Baggins) wastes a role by being an arms trader different from Cage because he"chooses sides" and cares about outcomes - without ever explaining what this means, much unlike a similar but better debate in Spy Games (there is Brad Pitt again), and is promptly shot in the head. During a brief respite, when Yuri goes legitimate selling African timber and minerals, he makes a dig about being able to "legally exploit developing countries". Likewise, there's something about Cage doing drugs and having unprotected sex with prostitutes in Africa that is obviously supposed to lead to him contracting HIV, but apparently the director forgot to film that last scene.

Long and short, this film tries to do everything, and falls far flat. The strongest attempt at a moral decision it takes is when Yuri's wife calls for him to quit his work. Yuri responds "but someone will just fill my place anyway", to which his wife's response is "yes but you won't be doing it". So if we can't save the world, we should just wash our hands of it? That sounds like a message hearkening on left-leaning European international relations! This film draws on stereotypes and cliches, as well as pure unrealities (the Sierra Leonian RUF apparently operates in the desert, and has all its intended victims kept in a refugee camp right next to the purchase point for the machine guns to kill them with - how convenient! too bad the RUF operated in a jungle and used machetes in real life...) in order to make America feel guilty for being evil. And admittedly, most of today's weapons come from North America. But this is the real world, and arms sales is a real business (and is often in the realm of international relations and not at all being as clearly an evil as this movie would have us believe), and as even Cage points out, if we don't arm these militaries, it is not like someone else will.

A Modest Proposal

2006-11-26T21:28:00.000+05:00

This is just me thinking out loud on this one...

On Friday I had the dubious honor of dropping my wife off at her sales job...at five in the morning. Her place of work was already swarming with eager shoppers, and was such a notable event that the television camera crews were already filming it for the evening news. Thus began "Black Friday", the day of frenzied shopping resembling ever so much a school of sharks around fresh meat. Economic sources indicate that this day of mayhem is likely to be matched in sales on "Cyber Monday" (when apparently millions of slackers use their companies' internet connections to purchase Christmas presents) and the last Saturday before Christmas (which is generally when slackers like me - men? - go shopping).

All this leads me to wonder: are people overdoing this Christmas (sorry, Holiday) shopping/giftgiving thing? I wonder because the fact that everyone does it at the same time makes me feel like ultimately it is a meaningless gesture. Everyone gets so many purchased presents from everyone else that they know that I think it's lost all point. I long ago stopped telling people "what I want for Christmas".

Here is my modest proposal: people should get back to enjoying Christmas, or whichever other Solstice-themed religious holiday will stand in. Feast and be merry. If you want to give people presents, give your family and friends gifts in January or February, which is the bleaker, more un-festive part of winter that needs some cheer. And the after-Christmas sales of surplus mean that the shopping will be cheaper. Or you could *gasp* make something special for your loved ones, rather than purchase various goods made in factories in China as a means to symbolize your love and generousity. Of course, some people would be offended that you are not giving them presents specifically ON Christmas, but if so those people obviously aren't that close to you and do not deserve presents anyway.

I would like to put this modest proposal into practice, but something tells me I will give in to the herd mentality, like everyone else.

Congressional "Draft Picks"

2006-11-25T19:36:00.000+05:00

It is something of old stale news in the blogosphere, but I thought I would comment on Representative Charles Rangel's motion to reinstate the draft. This motion is interesting as it in some ways acts as a microcosm on the debates and politics of the day.

First of all, as blogger-journalist Howard Kurtz notes, this motion and the speed with which other Democratic congressional leaders have distanced themselves from it is somewhat indicative of the larger lack of direction or unity among Democrats. The fact that any such motion would be soundly voted down by members of both parties also points to how much reinstating a military draft would be like voting on Social Security. Another interesting relfection on modern politics is how, from what I can gather, Rangel's draft motion is not really a serious idea anyway, but either some attempt at political showmanship or some vague poetic justice That Congressmen wouldn't vote for wars if their children had to serve, although a.) this did not stop them from approving World War II and Vietnam and b.) it's a bit of an open question how many Congressmen have draft-age children anyway, and ignores that draft or no draft being a Congressman's son or daughter means you're never going to a foxhole unless you want to.

That fellow Democrat Rahm Emanuel has countered with a plan for compulsory national service (whether in the military or some - mandatory?- volunteer duties) shows that this debate is more about some sense of "values" and might lead to a political compromise similar to Germany's conscription: one year of compulsory military service that can be earned in volunteer charity work. I met a German student once who fulfilled this requirement by working in a nursing home. Should I point out that Germany has a large problem even mounting peacekeeping operations? Such "national service" seems like a bigger waste of time and energy than just a straightforward military draft.

Kurtz's survery of internet opinion also shows that the draft is a concept now completely foreign to large portions of American society. Some decry it as two years of slavery, a writer from the National Review opposes it on the notion that the volunteer army does not need it. All, bloggers, journalists and politicians, overlook the fact that the United States technically does have a draft, called the Selective Service that is there to be mobilized after the full-time units, individual and unit reserves and National Guard have been mobilized. But, let's be honest, Selective Service is something of a joke at best, and will never seriously contribute to military command. Also, in theory, is the US military supposed to be manned and equipped to fight two medium conventional wars at once, but this also seems to be something of pie in the sky. So much for objectives, and the political will to meet those objectives without meddling in micromanaging the details.

Jim Webb, Senator-elect from Virginia, wrote an article on why reinstating the draft would be a good idea. It can be found freely viewable here, and I should point out it was written in 1980, before he was even Secretary of the Navy. If he still believes half of the things he writes here (such as women being unfit for combat duty, the silliness of a volunteer army's advertising and "seducing" of potential volunteers, the ease that volunteers can quit and the downright necessity for strengthening military discipline), then he cannot be too popular with Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean. But nevertheless his views seem even more relevant today, and it is a hopeful thought that he could sway more people from his party. Perhaps the military does not need a draft, but Webb seems right that American society could use one.

I sincerely hope that we will have more political leaders like Webb and like McCain (who broke political protocol by stating things like they are - that troops levels need to be raised in Iraq before anything else, as requested by Gen. Abizaid among others). These Navy vet senators seem to have a better grasp on ideas and the relative importance of what needs to be done.

Influential Americans

2006-11-23T07:37:00.000+05:00

No magazine, it seems, can resist putting out a "greatest 100" list. You might remember an excess of these from the build-up to the year 2000 (how long ago that seems!).

In any case, the Atlantic Monthly has put out its own 100 list, and admits openly that it is an attempt to work up historical discussion more than anything else. They polled noted American historians on who has had the greatest influence or impact on American history, and the top 100 figures (ie, those receiving the most votes) are included on the list here. The list can be viewed without a login and password, and the analysis here (which requires a login...you can ask me for it).

The editors note that the list is interesting in that it is very traditional: Founding Fathers, Captains of Industry and Great Inventors rank high, and the overwhelming majority of figures are native-born Northeastern men of European ancestry involved in law or politics. Also, there is a lack of collaborators in favor of singular figures. There are, of course, exceptions to these tendencies (eg. Martin Luther King at 8, Susan B. Anthony and Rachel Carson at 38 and 39). A prejudice is made against the contemporary, for who knows how their achievements will stand over time, as well as those who are popular or are celebrities (fame is fleeting). A bias is made in favor of the fundamental and those who have the widest impact (as opposed to being on the list to just represent a special interest). But still, the argument is raised: is Walt Disney really that important? Have no American Indians influenced American history? The article points out that the list gets more interesting after the first 100, where such figures appear as George Lucas, Julia Child, Nikola Tesla and Willis Carrier, inventor of the air-conditioner, without which the Southern half of the United States would be an underpopulated, hot and humid backwater.

An interesting and worthy topic for debate, in any case. Feel free to read the list and use it for conversation topics this Thanksgiving weekend.

While I've Been Away...

2006-11-20T09:21:00.000+05:00

I was once told by a professor of mine that people who leave their home country for two years never quite fit in again in their home country. They can be natives who have followed domestic happenings while they were abroad, but there will always be the little things that they just do not get.

Well, I was away from the US for two and a half years, and have only been back for five months or so. Besides the face-on culture shock of moving back to America (I still often feel like an immigrant), there are myriad things that I just "don't get". Here is a Top Ten List (a la David Letterman...if he even still does this...)

10. Christmas now begins before Halloween. Need I say more?

09. Hats. I remember back in school, if you wore a baseball cap, the rim needed to be broken in to be "cool". Then people began wearing baseball hats backwards. Then sideways. Now the cap must be worn facing frontwards, but on an off-angle of about 45 degrees. And the rim should be cardboard-straight. I and some other volunteers first noticed this one running into student travellers in Thailand, and we knew American culture had begun to pass us by. Where did this one come from?

08. Elastic bands are now a fashion item to be worn on the wrist. I have seen this one, and I really do not understand it at all.

07. Television. It is even worse than it used to be. And I just am not even bothering to get back into the loop. What the hell is "Lost"? Its like a scripted Survivor or something? Whatever...

06. Pop-tarts. All of 'em. How is Britney Spears still popular? I know a lot of it is morbid curiousity, but still, she's younger than me and already looks 15 years older than she is. Granted she had two kids, but she's also a millionaire. And just why do people pay attention to Paris Hilton????

05. Internet society. Yes, I am being a little hypocritical as I am writing on a blog, but still. I see many younger coworkers of mine writing on Facebook and MySpace and YouTube and whatever other combined-word-name websites are out there. And I don't get it.

04. Organic food is now everywhere, and it basically just means its the same old food but at more expensive prices. There do seem to be a lot more farmers' markets, and that is the one good unknown that I've encountered on my return to the States.

03. iPods. I know that people had them in 2004 before I left, but really, it has become a new staple good. I guess its better than people playing their cellphone ringtones for entertainment, as is common in Asia. But still, what is up with people's newfound worship of Apple?

02. Another fashion unknown to me: Men's hairstyles. What is with guys styling cowlicks into their hair? You know what I mean: the hair sticking up on the front of men's heads. It seems like this is the new power-cut for men, the more "relaxed" style being the 70's-esque jock overgrown mop. Someone just needs to call in the Paris Island barbers, please...

01. Politics. No, even though I keep up on it, American politics still baffles me. Why are people now all of a sudden tired of Iraq? What makes it more of a disaster now than in 2003-2004 (granted its not much better, but to be fair it's not that much worse). I said it before, I'll say it again: if Americans are tired of the war now, then they shouldn't have supported it in 2002-2003 and then reelected Bush. You made your international obligations, deal with them. I find it insane that the political world has pulled a complete reverse: Thomas Friedman and Fareed Zakaria, who supported Bush and introducing democracy into Iraq now say its a bad idea that won't get anywhere, and Paul Krugman who once so decried the future bankruptcy of Social Security wrote vehemently in 2005 about the lack of a need to reform it. Apparently people went from being gung-ho pro-Bush in 2001-04 to being anti-Bush since then. Where does this all come from? And speaking of politics and society, why does it seem now that everyone in America either speaks Spanish or hates people who speak Spanish?

Number one wasn't much of a Letterman punchline, so here we go: Boston Teams have won championships in their respective leagues. Wow.

More Sage Words from a Celebrity

2006-11-13T05:22:00.000+05:00

I will admit, that I have heard a lot of advice from celebrities on weighty subjects over the years: from Britney Spears and the Dixie Chicks on the Iraq War to Madonna on international adoption and K.I.S.S. on the feasability of a two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Now, Elton John ... excuse me, SIR Elton John ... has spoken out in order to set us straight (no pun intended). He states that organized religion needs to be abolished. While I do admit that organized religion has caused quite a great deal of unnecessary quarelling and conflict over the centuries, I'm not sure that it has exactly created a world of "hateful lemmings" (something of a bizarre metaphor). Nor do I quite understand how he makes the leap in attributing anti-gay sentiment in Latvia, Russia and Poland (until 1991 all officially atheist countries) to organized religion. Nor, quite frankly, do I really understand what organized religion has to do with anti-gay sentiment at all (you will find that different members of different religions take a wide variety of stances on the subject...and therefore Sir Elton is including in his condemnation such gay-friendly religions as Buddhism in Thailand).

Nor do I understand how he can combine this statement with other statements praising Jesus and Sunday school (the latter mostly for its stickers) and religious gays. Nor how he can call for a worldwide religious conclave (in my opinion the best idea from this muddled tirade, and reminiscent of something from Dune) by the religions he wants to ban.

Nor, to be honest, can I remember just why this man is famous in the first place. Something about singing...

Lest We Forget

2006-11-12T00:02:00.000+05:00

Today is Veteran's Day. We should remember the veterans of all our conflicts today. If you don't mind acting like Canadians, Brits or Australians, wear a poppy flower in memoriam.

It is interesting that in the former Soviet Union veterans are honored on Victory Day, the day marking the fall of Nazi Germany in World War II. By contrast, the West remembers its Veterans today (and in America, confusingly, also on Memorial Day, although I am not too clear whether it is specifically veterans killed in combat who are remembered on May 28, or all deceased vets, or just all deceased). Today is the 88th anniversary of the cease-fire that ultimately ended the First World War, and that led to the Versailles Treaties. It was the unwillingness of the Western Powers to uphold these treaties and to occupy and disarm Germany, as well as the fiction generated today that the German military was unbeaten and had been betrayed by Jewish-led Socialists and Communists, that ultimately led to the far more destructive (and better-remembered) Second World War. So today, a day that has become something of a forgotten holiday, should be a day to remember that any conflict can be a lost cause if we lose the political will to properly resolve them. Such conflicts will not disappear, however. They will come back to us, often in a more horrible guise.

Tis the Season?

2006-11-11T23:52:00.000+05:00

I work in an office above the Copley Mall in Boston, and the mall has already been decorated with garlands, wreaths and sales advertisements in anticipation of Christmas. Christmas is still almost two months away! This holiday season, at least in its commercial form, keeps getting longer and longer. I will refer the reader of this blog to my rant concerning Halloween for my thoughts on the subject.

Yes, I should point out that my feeling that the Republicans would pull off a last minute rebound in the elections was wrong. But, as the Economist pointed out, if you bet against yourself then no matter what happens you can feel good. So, yes I was wrong. Thank God! Also, Tim's endorsed candidate for the Senate in Virginia, former Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb (D), beat the presidential hopeful George Allen (R), in the tie-breaking seat for Senate control. Thats two for the price of one. Hopefully the victory for such Democratic moderates as Tester and Webb in the Senate bodes well for American politics. I am a little hopeful, even though I am sure American politics is going to get a lot hotter and nastier over the next two years. McCain should still be the eventual Presidential winner in 2008. That's my endorsement.

Anyway, it looks like Madison can rest easy knowing that the American system is righting itself (no pun intended) a little. And we have a potential female Speaker of the House, which is a nice advancement (whatever her politics may be). And George Bush is immediately acting smarter, which is also a welcome change. Things are looking a little better these days.

Elections, elections...

2006-11-07T04:03:00.000+05:00

I know everybody and his brother is blogging something on the upcoming US elections. Why, the BBC alone has a team of bloggers chugging away on the topic! And them's furriners! Something comes to mind with Shakespeare, monkeys, typewriters and infinite time...

Still, I wanted to make at least one statement. Perhaps it will not mean much, perhaps it will look foolish, perhaps prescient. However, I wanted to use the opportunity, Election Day -1, to state that I have a feeling that 2006 will not be the political sea-change that the media would like to make it out to be. I have a respect for the genius of Karl Rove, and I have a strong feeling that the Republicans will do much better tomorrow that one might think. Will this mean that they will retain all their political spoils? Doubtful. However, I can see them making it as difficult as possible for any races to be settled against their interests. I can even see them keeping control of the House, or even better/worse (depending on your political persuasion) giving up control, but only enough to make the Democrats look more incompetent.

However, ultimately nothing will change, at least not this time. I must admit, that one reason I grow tired of politics (as opposed to policy) is because one senses that it is all the more a hewing to the status quo, an inadventurousness and a true fear for change. I am sure politicians have always been so, but then that was why there were statesmen above them. Now, however, even such allegedly venerable offices as senator and president are mere political hacks in a 24/7 popularity contest, and the closest thing to statesmen (like, believe it or not, Dick Cheney), are shadowy figures. To paraphrase Churchill, politics has gone to the modest men who have much to be modest about. (This was spoken about Clement Attlee, and the statement itself is a misleading political quip, as history showed Attlee to be a better statesman than his contemporary political rival allowed).

It is interesting in other respects how so little changes in politics. Nicaragua went to the ballot boxes yesterday to vote for a new president, and the likely winner (thanks to some jimmying of electoral laws) looks to be former Sandinista Daniel Ortega. The State Department has engaged in some undue meddling, stating their disproval over the possible presidency of this former foe. However, Mr. Ortega seems to have gone far from Marxism (what with there being no Soviet Union and a geriatric regime in Cuba these days) and is more of a populist than a threat to strategic balances of power. His very existence and political survival, in my mind, is a perfect example of how conflicts arise as a result of rivalries between Great Powers than from anything else, democracy, the UN, or whatever. There will be no new contra war, I think we can rest assured, although the US risks looking a little foolish not letting go of Cold War ghosts. And I will not even begin on Oliver North's campaigning against Ortega...perhaps a little jealous that this former foe of his has found a better career than part-time conservative politician and commentator on Fox News?

So, go vote (the city Somerville reneged on their promise to mail me directions to the nearest polling station!), and then get on with your life, because things will be as they have pretty much always been. It's amazing how much money gets spent on these campaigns, when ultimately very little changes.

Speaking of our cheap modern culture...

2006-11-01T04:20:00.000+05:00

What is the deal with modern horror movies? I don't want to sound like an old man, but I just don't get the point any more. I once read that the difference between terror and horror in films and literature is like the difference between erotica and pornography. The concepts of terror and erotica in culture attempt to titillate the mind by suggestion and a certain level of craft, while horror and porn are blunt, brutal, and just try to supply the consumer with an animalistic fix.

The level of gore and violence in films is in general not something I disapprove of, or more properly care about: I am not some Tipper Gore trying to mandate what people should and should not see. I do not think it corrupts our culture, but more accurately the reverse: it sells because our culture demands it.

But I ask myself, and this is where I get really baffled: how can large numbers of (allegedly) adult citizens watch a film whose plot is basically that a bunch of people get cruelly tortured and killed? And this is the third installment in an incredibly popular series!!! To me, this doesn't seem like playing on our sense of fear as much as raising bloodlust in the brutal and increasing depression in the thinking. Either way, it seems to be somewhat mindnumbing. My passions even get more aroused when I think that the audiences for whom such films are made are alleged members of the Western civilization that finds the Holocaust and terrorism to be acts of evil. Apparently real political violence is bad, but fake (although extremely graphic) violence for entertainment is enjoyable. It seems that we are a step closer to the Roman ampitheatres, and we know where the Romans wound up.

I would much more highly recommend The Ring, either in its original incarnation or the American remake. That is a truly terrifying film.

Le Halloween

2006-11-01T03:59:00.000+05:00

I noticed this BBC article regarding the collapse of the Halloween fad in France. I find it very interesting, although I do somewhat doubt that Halloween's unpopularity is owing to anti-Americanism in France. The surprising lack of celebration of the Fourth of July might be more directly related, but as The Economist often points out, the French are heavy consumers of American films and fast food.

There probably are good reasons for its unpopularity, and I'm sure some of them come from the artificiality of Halloween. Halloween and St. Valentine's Day both fall into this category: they are often denounced as fake holidays made up by capitalists in order to make money. However, if the holiday products were not popular, then companies would not sell them - exactly as they are doing in France!

The ultimate problem stems from the quandry of holidays. Holidays are ultimately events based on tradition or collective experiences, and so it is rather difficult to up and introduce them into new cultures, unless related to some sort of immigration or fad. Ireland is the only country that celebrates Halloween as an actual national holiday, because the Irish have maintained their connections to the holiday's Celtic roots. The English and the Americans steadily lost this connection over time, and especially in the constant churning of American society Halloween got replaced with something easy, non-religious and "safe - fun". The trick has been banned, and the treat sweetened and sold in stores. Ultimately, it is a meaningless holiday because any meaning was intentionally stripped away. In this sense, the French are right, because the only remaining value is to a specific, targeted demographic market, much like Valentine's Day, and even Christmas. Let us not forget that the old English Yule festivals never made it to America, because of the Puritans banning such pagan celebrations, and that Christmas only came to the shores of the New World because of German immigration (bringing St. Nicholas and fir trees) and a Victorian obsession with the Gothic, the archaic, and (once again) "safe-fun" for the family.

My wife remarked to me that Americans are terrible at celebrating holidays, and I must agree with her. The American idea of celebrating a holiday mostly consists of buying peripherals and decorations, and then once the holiday arrives by sitting in front of a television at home and eating. Even the parade is an increasingly rare tradition (when was the last time you went to a parade?). And as for street festivals and carnivals? Forget it: those are for immigrants or for drunken college coeds in New Orleans. In my experience, other countries seem to celebrate with more heart: I have eaten a traditional Christmas dinner at a vicarage in England, complete with hasty pudding. I have celebrated Nauryz in Kazakhstan by going to street festivals, watching live singing and dancing and horseracing, and by eating ethnic food. And the latter country is not even a rich one! I question why Americans have so much, yet celebrate so pathetically. Perhaps O. Henry was near the mark, when in one of his short stories he noted that Americans are always attempting to create new "traditions" to make up for their lack of any.

Or these days they just try to buy them. The BBC also noted that Americans are spending five times as much on Halloween as on the 2006 political campaigns. Billions and billions for cheap costumes, beer for the adults and snickers bars for the kids.

So be frightened! Eat some candy! Vivre le Halloween!

Another Good Documentary

2006-10-27T03:56:00.000+05:00

Frontline has another good documentary on North Korea, a subject that I think is better left to the Cyberpanopticon's thorough forum. I will, however, say that after watching this 2005 documentary it appears to me that the current American Presidential administration has very little solid idea on how to address the North Korean nuclear problem. The administration has decided that the North Korean regime is evil, and that therefore they cannot deal with it on essentially any level. However, on the other hand they claim that the North Korean situation is not a "crisis", and that military force is not a real option. I guess this means that the President ultimately does not really care, even with the nuclear tests and that North Korea has conducted and the resultant UN sanctions since this documentary was filmed.

We will see how that policy plays out, especially considering that nuclear weapons and a possibility of regime change are only a few possible headaches on the Korean peninsula, besides conventional war, social collapse in North Korea, and the evitable concerns of a Chinese rising power.

The North Korean footage reminded me a lot of life in Central Asia. There are definite Soviet traditions shared, but at least (somewhat) greater political freedom and greater economic freedom have positively impacted Central Asia. Still, that peaceful change was fifteen years ago, and it still far from complete, nor has it brought stability to the region. American policy-makers should not expect any better, but should fear much worse, from North Korea's future.

Good Documentary Link

2006-10-27T00:46:00.000+05:00

I have to say that one of the PBS productions that I enjoy watching is Frontline. They have very concise, informative and detailed documentaries on just about any possible subject of public interest, from Herbal Medicines to the Kennedy Assassination.

You can freely download and watch them. I just watched "The Lost Year in Iraq" (aired Oct. 17), and I have to say that it sums up a lot of my feelings and impressions on Iraq and the US policy (or lack thereof) regarding Iraq.

I would like to point out that they mention just what kind of people they put in charge of the CPA in 2003. The documentary addresses that, but one sterling quote is: "I never in my life thought I would encounter 'frat brothers' and 'strategic planning' in the same sentence."

All in all, I would say that 2003 for everyone (myself included) was a wasted year. I thoroughly enjoyed relocating to a more independent and stable developing country the following year.

More War or Less?

2006-10-22T20:58:00.000+05:00

Well, after reading through some of the day's latest headlines regarding the growing war in Somalia (one that seems to be much overlooked, much like most of Africa's conflicts), I have decided that it is time for me to share the links that I have been perusing off and on for the last year. I have been attempting to collect data on conflicts across the world, as I was hoping to assemble a 2005 version of the book New State of War and Peace. That plan is on hold.

2006 has been, in my un-scientific impression, a pretty rough year as far as peace goes. I would go so far as to argue that there has been a real uptick in both civil and international conflict this year: Lebanon and Somalia fought new wars, wars continued unstopped in Iraq and Darfur, a potential end to war still looks some ways off in Uganda, an insurgency is growing in Nigeria and a war under cease-fire in Sri Lanka has recommenced.

It is, of course, too soon for 2006 to be evaluated entirely by political scientists, and so it remains to be seen what the effects will be on their theories. I wish to point out three major sources of studies that I have perused: George Mason University's Center for Systemic Peace, the University of Maryland's Peace and Conflict studies, and the University of British Columbia's Human Security Report (this latter has garnered the most press coverage, in the BBC, the Economist and the Atlantic, among others). All three of these academic studies attempt to define what a conflict is, and by their definitions to chart the course of conflict since 1945. All three have arrived at similar conclusions (judging by their charts, perhaps even suspiciously the same conclusions): there was a marked increase in conflict and crisis in the 1980's up to 1992, and then an inexorable decline since then, all headlines to the contrary.

The authors of these reports also reach similar conclusions: the decrease in violence has largely been the result of the international system (meaning the Great Powers and such international organizations as the United Nations) working in concert to end conflicts. Arguably this was true in the 1990's, although it would appear that such a will is diminishing now (look at the North Korea and Iran crises to see potential fissures between powers, to say nothing of Iraq!). Another theory posited for this trend (although not as strongly by the above-mentioned reports' authors) is the democratic peace theory, which depending on its flavor states that war between democracies is either less likely or will not happen at all. I will not go into the details of these theories here, except to state that I am strongly skeptical of such a theory (as is the historian Donald Kagan, who states in his On the Origins of War that war is the more common human condition, rather than peace). A lot of the democratic peace theory would appear to hinge on what is a "democracy" and what is a "war", as Matthew White relates in his humourous and insightful article on his website.

I believe that the democratic peace theory is a major example of what is wrong with political science in academia today. It takes historical events, creates a tautological argument out of them and then attempts to apply it universally as a law, as if it were a physical science. Most people consider true democracy a 20th century invention, and most democracies are considered to be stable societies and economies located in the West (which happen to be allied to each other), therefore, stating that these countries do not go to war with each other seems to be the obvious, and taking this further by stating that no two democracies will ever go to war borders on the irresponsible. It also ignores inconvenient details, such as elected leaders in Cyprus and Turkey being at war with each other in 1974 (there was a military coup attempt in Cyprus, making it "unstable"), Northern Ireland hosting a low-level insurgency, and other small examples. Further, considering that war is by its nature an unstable act that leads to corruptions or curtailments of democracy (Britain was arguably more totalitarian, if also more benevolent and more democratic than Nazi Germany in 1940-1945), it seems to me that proponents of democratic peace theory have defined any case of war out of their study sample!
Historians will remain sceptical of a "science" that has the control group act as the variable group, as they will remain skeptical of a panacea espoused by President Bush as a reason for war, ie the US should invade Iraq and democratize it because no democracies go to war with each other.

The "hard " theory is espoused by R.J. Rummel, who has a blog addressing the theory here (note the nazi atrocity artwork, perhaps he is not being fully objective). The increasingly more accepted "soft" theory recognizes that unstable societies are the most likely to go to war, followed by authoritarian states with anyone else and finally by democracies with each other (meaning that democracies can war with each other, its just the least likey variant). Once again, if stability is the issue, one wonders why we should bother with democracy. Robert Kaplan himself pointed out in a prescient article that democracy is a particular phase in a society's development, hard to attain but able to be passed-by. It seems irresponsible to create policy based on a premise that peace can be achieved by forcing disparate societies to act as if they have experienced the 18th century Englightenment. Some can, others will not.

Finally, I promised to link to the Defence Academy of the UK's reports site. It has a good deal of useful studies on conflicts in the world today. Better to study these and keep an open mind on the future.

Collectively Shooting Oneself in the Foot

2006-10-19T04:23:00.000+05:00

Absolute power does seem to corrupt absolutely!

I was perusing a BBC reporter's blog of American political undergoings today, and I must say I was rather shocked at her analysis. Apparently conservatives in this country, seeing the political implosion that their party is currently undergoing, have decided to do the exact diametric opposite of what makes sense.

Social conservatives fear, actually fear, the prospects of nominating John McCain for the 2008 Presidential Election. And why do they fear this? Essentially, because McCain would win. They fear that he will not be true to "conservative values" and will say anything to get elected (I am not sure how this sets him apart from any politician, including the social conservatives' darling George W. Bush...remember that Constitutional Amendment on marriage kicked around in 2004?).

Basically, what these political types fear is that a man would be elected President who would essentially represent the political Center, rather that a more extremist and activist viewpoint. And of course, one cannot have that! They would apparently prefer Massachusetts' own Mitt Romney, who has recently been burnishing his social conservative credentials (despite governing Massachusetts) by denouncing gay marriage and the "terrorist" ex-president of Iran Mohamed Khatami (hmmm, who is a relative political liberal...). Well, let me say that even if social conservatives pull off a religous coup by averting evangelical warfare (traditional Christians frown upon Mormons) a Romney 2008 campaign would fall flat on its face. It would be like Bush 2000 with hindsight, without a President dad and even without the attempt to be a "compassionate conservative."

I would rather a McCain candidacy were run, and not just for the Republican Party, whose fortunes I could care less about. As I see things, the most likely 2008 race would be Hilary Clinton versus John McCain. I think Clinton would lose, and that is not due to any personal grudge, but in large part because I just do not think Americans would stomach Bill back in the White House in every way but name (by the way, the Democratic establishment also feels Hilary could not win, but probably will support her anyway, as seen in this article). But at least a McCain vs. Clinton race would be between two centrist candidates who actually have some ideas of substance to propose, discuss and debate. And that would certainly be better than a race of the least-worst candidates. Unfortunately, the latter seems more common than the former.

America Reaches 300,000,000

2006-10-18T06:41:00.000+05:00

Today is the day that the population of the United States is estimated to reach 300,000,000. This is noted in an Economist article, and is viewed rather positively by the article's author. However, for a rare occasion, I must say that I do not agree with the esteemed British newspaper.

I find this article too optimistic, especially in how it states that the expanding US population will solve more problems than it creates. The US is unique among developed countries in that its population is rapidly expanding, growing at about 1% annually (by contrast, the Russian population is decreasing by .4 percent annually). The Economist argues that such a population expansion arises from America's religiosity and optimism (although I've seen different causes in different sources, including greater patriotism!). Population growth will allow the US to avoid problems paying public pensions, as the graying European states and Japan are facing. The American population is even expected to reach 400,000,000 or more by 2043, a doubling in less than 80 years! The article closes with a look at Houston, a city with no zoning laws, gated communities with relatively affordable housing, and a growing population, one that is increasing mixed and Hispanic. The America of the future will look like Houston, the article proclaims. Let us rejoice!

Well, nonsense I say. Let us at other elements in the picture. First of all, there are environmental concerns, issues that are poo-pooed by The Economist. Americans already consume vast quantities of resources and energy in a very inefficient manner: should we be thrilled that such a population will rampantly increase?

Furthermore, the article notes that America has wide-open spaces, perfect for child rearing and much more desirable than Japan and Singapore. True...but once again, what does this mean, really? Half of overcrowded China is unpopulated because it is mountain and desert, seventy percent of Japan is unpopulated because it is mountainous, and likewise most of the American West is arid and rugged terrain. The coastal areas are overcrowded because quite simply those are the places most suitable for habitation. How many Las Vegases and Phoenixes can America realistically support?

Further, there are economic considerations that are overlooked. I will admit that by economic calculations are a little hazy, but I know this much: as Paul Kennedy pointed out, growth in GDP only has real meaning in relation to its per capita increase. While the American economy continues to grow, so does its population. The American economy grew quickly in the 1990's, but how many times can the Internet be invented? The average annual GDP growth in the US since 1945 has been about 1-2%. If that trend continues, it looks to me like economic growth could be nullified by population gain (although admittedly I'm not sure how to compare the two...any assistance would be appreciated).

Other economic concerns are such: it seems to me that the statement that a young population will help pay for pensions is a cop out. America and other industrialized economies need to reform their public pensions so that it is less like a "pyramid scheme", as a friend of mine pointed out. Currently younger workers pay the pensions of retirees in the hopes that when they retire there will be enough workers to pay their pensions, etc. etc. Saying America is strong because its population is rapidly increasing and will not face this problem in the near future is a fudging of the fact that someday it will have to deal with pension reform (or massive overpopulation!).

Then there are social concerns. America may have, in the optimistic macro-picture, a young and relatively well-educated workforce, but what sections of the population are growing the fastest? Mostly immigrants and poorer classes and regions. It's not the lawyers in New York or the accountants in California that are having five children (although it's not unheard-of). Considering that America is less socially mobile than European countries, and that social stratification is hardening, will this increasing population actually have access to the social infrastructure and education that they will need to be really competitive? I question whether they will.

Finally, there is the aesthetic argument. Riding the subway in New York already reminded me of New Delhi...do we really need to make America that overcrowded? And yes, America can look like Houston, but do we want the model of the future to be such a reviled and soulless city? What about a more enjoyable, higher-quality life? Can megacities with gated communities, hourlong commutes and Mcmansions give us that?

I think these are all questions that need to be asked. And therefore I think we need to be sceptical in our assessment of how wonderful unchecked population expansion in America will be.

High Entertainment

2006-10-17T21:32:00.000+05:00

This is another diversionary post. I found out about this French guy who climbs the world's tallest structures without any equipment. It's pretty impressive, and he has quite a track record. Naturally his climbing in the States leads him to be arrested from time to time, but obviously our judicial system cannot tolerate such acts, and needs to prosecute them at the expense of, I don't know, acts of violence and the like.

As a mild acrophobic, I have to say that I am incredibly impressed by such people. Enjoy!

A Pointless Piece of Trivia Solved

2006-10-17T06:31:00.000+05:00

I am about to share with you, dear readers, a small piece of personal trivia that will have no bearings on your lives, despite its interest to me. But then that is the internet and blogs in general, so here we go.

It has occasionally been a matter of some debate among my family and Bostonian friends just as to where I grew up. Now, of course, for the non-Bostonians the answer is very simple: Boston. But of course as any locals know, nothing is more important in Boston (and Massachusetts if not much of New England) than knowing exactly where you come from. "Boston" isn't good enough among this society: one has to state their neighborhood of origin.

The debate has been thus: did I grow up in West Roxbury, or in Roslindale? Objectively, the debate is rather academic, as not only are the two neighborhoods part of Boston, but they have always been part of the same town, whether Roxbury (from 1630 to 1851) or West Roxbury (1851 to 1874). But this is Boston, the city that gave birth to the phrase "all politics is local", and so the hair must be split. West Roxbury will conjure up images of genteel parkways and golf courses, as well as a lovely colonial village center mostly destroyed (much like the rest of Boston) to satisfy the needs of cars in the 1950s. Roslindale, of course, conjures up more of a down-to-earth, working class feel, or perhaps something of a gritty urban "keeping it real" heritage. Neither of these stereotypes are exactly true, although from looking at the US Census figures West Roxbury is whiter and richer than Boston as a whole, and Roslindale relatively poorer (but average compared to Boston's overall income) and more racially and ethnically diverse (although once again close to Boston's overall figures). However, at the end of the day, I've told different people different answers as to where I'm from, depending as to which I think will produce a better reaction (ironically when speaking with people from "near abroad" New England, who have only a vague understanding of Boston's geography, West Roxbury can be misinterpreted as west Roxbury, which of course has completely different connotations).

But ultimately I wanted to get a firm answer to this question. I consulted the 2000 US Census, as posted by the Boston Mayor's Office, and a ZIP code map. What is the answer as to where I grew up?

It depends. According to the Post Office, my childhood address is in Roslindale. The US Census' information on my street was compiled with Roslindale's (it has a Roslindale census tract number). However, the City of Boston says that the address is in West Roxbury, and even the US Census tabulations ultimately include my area in West Roxbury. So I guess while I have my question answered, I still can say I'm from either Roslindale or West Roxbury, depending on the audience, of course!

The Decline and Fall of the English Language?

2006-10-16T05:16:00.000+05:00

I have finished reading a Doing Our Own Thing, a recently published work by noted linguist John McWhorter. I have had some previous exposure to his written works, and listened to him plugging this book on the radio some years ago, so I decided to have a look.

The main thrust of his book is so: in all languages there develops a difference between casual languages and ceremonial languages. Certain occasions demand a more formal type of speech, often using more complex grammar and vocabulary. Nonetheless, purely oral languages, while often being extremely complex grammatically, have a limited vocabulary range: any given person can only remember a few thousand words in their head at any time.

Written languages (such as French, German, Russian or English), on the other hand, can reach higher levels of complexity in vocabulary, as well as more complex sentence constructions. This is so because in writing, one has the luxury of consulting multiple sources for words beyond the memory, and can edit, lengthen and refashion expressions that in speaking would be broken up into simpler packets of information. Written languages can have a more “polished” feel, and often it is this use and mastery of reading and writing that allows for more complex constructions, more conventions and rules for language use, and more detached and studied forms of expression. Speaking is something more than just talking, rhetoric is more than just getting up and shooting off your mouth. Poetry, classical and classically-structured music in the Western sense are likewise forms of expression requiring attention to conventions and great skill in both reading and writing.

McWhorter then presents us with a dilemma: while most other literate languages have maintained a complex and polished written language quite distinct from casual spoken language, American English has largely lost this attribute. George Washington probably cussed and jawed more casually than he wrote, but for his society (as well as English-speaking society down to forty years ago), the written language and such forms of expression that rely on the writing were meant to adhere to rules of form and to a more complex vocabulary even by those users who possessed a relatively low level of education. Good language was a skill that was appreciated by many, even if they did not practice it on a daily basis. However, since sense of love and respect for the formal English language seems to have disappeared: where is the modern equivalent to illiterate Maine farmers listening to a recitation of Shakespeare? Mozart, or even Rogers and Hammerstein, are something on a higher level of complexity that “pop” music, whether Dylan or even Webber, yet the former have definitely lost out to the latter in public society. Poetry, for the common man, is largely dead, and anyway what of it that still exists is freeform largely based on casual speech.

And here is the rub of McWhorter’s argument. He states that it is the Countercultural Movement beginning in the late 60’s that fundamentally changed Americans’ use of and attitudes to the English language. No native speaker is praised for “speaking beautiful English” these days, as conventions and forms are seen as imposed restrictions to be shed in favour of “keeping it real” and “saying like it is”, ie casting aside written conventions and vocabulary in favour of casual speech. George W. Bush is just one of a society that values such “Let’s roll” talk over something Roosevelt, Churchill or Kennedy would have written. Americans are taught to distrust “false” sounding words and sentences, as well as the English language as something negative (in an extended aside he mentions how English-speakers are unique in demanding that opera not be translated into something that they can understand). Individuality is prized over form and structure, and casual talk is considered more genuine than reserved talk. However, a major negative of this development is that Americans lose not just love for their language, but a more complex language in general, one that is capable to deliver complex arguments that can persuade rather than just preach to the converted. We lose room for objective debate and appreciation.

Overall, I think that this is a powerful argument. I would strongly agree that Americans have lost a love for the more complex elements of their language, and that by extension they have lost something even while making gains in terms of free expression. Popular culture and expression, while meaningful, is simply not on the level of classical writing, speaking, poetry and music: it’s easier to do, and while this may democratize it to a certain extent, it also cheapens the culture. To take an art analogy, Picasso learned to paint like a Dutch master before becoming bored and attempting to press the limits through cubism. By contrast what artist today even needs to meet such classical skills when they can throw elephant dung on a painting, create a public controversy (anyone remember this one?) and become famous? All art, including poetry, literature and rhetoric, is expressive, but historically most of it hasn’t been in-your-face. McWhorter rightly points out that while we don’t have to tolerate generalized, sanitized, saccharin popular tunes like Americans did in the 1920’s, we still have lost a level of craft in putting words to melody that no rock star really has been able to reach.

Unfortunately, McWhorter leaves us hanging. He sees this decline as inevitable and unstoppable. But then, if it really is, then why should we care? He doesn’t make a very convincing argument to me about why, if the culture has been changed once in the 1960’s, it cannot change again. Likewise, his insight on the topic seems to be spoiled by (ironically) an overly casual and anecdotal tone: his writing sometimes seems to be more Dave Barry than that of a serious linguist. While I appreciated his diversity on sources of language use, I got bored with his personal asides into his love of musical theatre and the kinds of clubs he goes to in New York (I’m happy to see that U. of Cal. Berkeley’s money is well spent!). The structure of the book is also too sloppy for my taste, and I think I might have summarized his argument in 2 pages better than he did in 200. But then, this is the modern world, and a catchy, casual writing style with lots of “relevant”, already outdated anecdotes about 2003 politics is what sells books, rather than a finely-crafted argument.

Cuban Centenarians, et al.

2006-10-05T02:09:00.000+05:00

I liked this article on the BBC about Cubans over 100 years old, and their theories on how to live a long life. While the scientific truth probably has more to do with their genetic backgrounds (since a high number of them had centenarian parents), I think that at the same time the philosophy that they have lived by is worth following: work hard (in a real, productive job), eat well, and give yourself your indulgences, as long as its not something as addictive and destructive as alcohol (some might disagree with smoking cigars as well, but then again there are much worse forms of smoking). Also, apparently getting some is good for you too.

All this seems to fly in the face of the American lifestyle. What's worse (from the American viewpoint) is that this study would seem to demonstrate that communism can be good for one's health (cue the Monty Python mallets and American cries of "No, no, WRONG!"). I'm not condoning Castroism, mind you, but just noting that apparently people can live full lives even under a dictatorship.

Also, I realise that this is not terribly important, nor is related to Cuba or Condi Rice, Mark Foley, developments in the Middle East, the state of the economy, or scientific advances, but here I go. A number of you enjoy the British science fiction series Doctor Who, and so I thought I'd share that I've been spending too much of my time reading an online ratings guide evaluating every episode, season, movie and book. Wow. That's a lot of postings from Britain, but in my opinion rather entertaining. Possibly too much so.

Smooth Operators at the MBTA

2006-10-02T01:36:00.000+05:00

I saw this article as well as a couple others in this week's Boston Globe City Weekly. Apparently the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the operators of Boston's metro system known locally as the "T", is trying to encourage greater courtesy to commuters by other commuters through the distribution of gift certificates to Dunkin' Donuts. There is also a rather vague campaign to encourage T employees to be more courteous to commuters as well.

Long and short, I find this whole effort to be a misguided mess and waste of money, which in a sense makes it a perfect microcosm of the MBTA as a whole. It is very typical of the powers that be in Massachusetts to blame the shortcomings of a public service such as the T on the people that use it, rather than on those that are suposed to operate it efficiently. The article even mentions the dark rumour that it is actually the rowdy college students who are to blame for the T's problems, as good a lesson in the tactics of divide and conquer as I have ever seen!

What are the problems with the T as I see them (I ride the T at least 2 times a day)? They are as follows: the system is dirty: it is not cleaned or kept clean as much as it could be, especially when compared to a system like the DC Metro. The physical conditions of the stations vary dramatically. The "Charlie Ticket" system, a card system like New York or Washington, DC meant to replace the old token system, is in my opinion a complete disaster. The cards only state initial values, rather than the actual monetary value remaining on the cards. The machines dispensing cards are few in number, and seem to be difficult to use as there are always long lines in front of them (except for the machines that only take credit cards, which no one seems to use). The gates take the card and only open once the commuter receives the card back from the machine...a nice feature unless you are only using the card for one ride, in which case the machine has just given you a worthless card (in Washington, DC the machines "capture" farecards with no value). Also, ironically given the "Charlie of the MTA" song, the cards' value is deducted on entrance, rather than exit, which means that often there is a large pile of used fare cards either left on the gates or on the ground near them. Also, the system has been introduced haphazardly, so some stations still take tokens and do not take cards! Bus lines often shut down early in the evening. On top of all this, large portions of the orange line are closed for "signal maintenance" on the weekends, often with little advance notice. This and other infrastructure issues seem certainly try my patience, especially as every commuter must pay $1.25 a pop!

I also find it odd that the blame is shifted to commuters. I have witnessed MBTA employees throwing their trash on the tracks, and off-duty employees opening the doors on the orange line to chit-chat with on-duty train drivers. I've also listened to T employees complain that if someone jumps in front of the train they're operating, then the driver has to take a drug test! Poor babies!!! Honestly, I think the problem is that the MBTA, much like other agencies in this fine state, is an example of a governmental monopoly that has been captured by the employee union it negotiates with. The fare hikes certainly aren't being translated into better service (the PA system is also annoying and terrible. They also, for some reason, always give "No Smoking" announcements only in Spanish, I guess as Spanish-speakers are the only ones who want to smoke on the T. This seems to violate the Massachusetts law making English the official language, meaning that a state organ can make announcements in another language, but must provide all information at least in English).

But of course, the MBTA isnt designed to encourage mass transit. Despite my favoring mass transit, I now dream of driving my car, even in this traffic-clogged city. Oh, for a European-style mass transit system, such as I have experienced in Amsterdam or Munich, or even Kazakhstan, where the system is designed for use by all citizens, is cheap and quick, and runs regularly for most hours of the day and night. But then such a system would be truly revolutionary, and require more effort than Dunkin' Donuts certificates.

Here is an anti-T blog, submitted for your perusal.

Atheist Offensive!

2006-09-30T02:44:00.000+05:00

"Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, but at least its an ethos." - The Big Lebowsky (regarding nihilism)

"What? There's no silicon heaven? Well, then where do all the calculators go??" - Red Dwarf

No, this is not a call for crusade or jihad, but I've just been noticing that quite a few published works have been put out recently in the cause of atheism: here's the review for one and for another. This comes in addition to a recent article by a noted psychologists (psychologists, neurologists and evolutionary bioligists seem to be especially strident atheists) regarding religion as a cognitive by-product.

This prompted me to do a little research on theism, atheism, agnoticism, ignoticism, ad nauseam. About.com has a slightly over-exhaustive defence of atheism, although one wishes that they'd find a more photogenic spokesman.

Thoughts about the existence/non-existence of god, an afterlife, and the supernatural in general are definitely heavy thoughts of mine, when I can tolerate the burden. And while I feel that atheism does have its uses, and probably should not be weighed with the burden of proof against them, it is just interesting to me that these days they focus so heavily on the evils of monotheism. Monotheism has historically caused quite a large amount of problems for humanity in general, from self-mutilation to forced belief in the earth as the center of the universe, to the belief in the sin of eating food. Still, one feels that these atheists argue as they do because they have some particular axes to grind. I have yet to see how these atheists would treat atheistic religions, such as Zen or Daoism: Are these Western authors anti-theist, or anti-religion? They seem to blur their argument. Also, I must admit that although I've read their arguments on evolutionary psychology, practical necessity, etc., I'm still not sure how the metaphysics of ethics is addressed; I mean, if love, truth, good and evil are mere relative human constructs, whats to stop them from being altered? If I could develop an evil Land of Mordor with slaves and whatnot, and it was able to maintain itself and compete favorably against other societies, who could then complain? What if the Nazis won? Can one stop short of nihilism in this line of reasoning? I realize the metaphysics of morals isn't exactly the same thing as the non/existence of god, but if atheism is blurring the line by attacking both theism and religion, then it the subjectivity or universality of ethics is also a concern that should be addressed, rather than just glibly explained away by evolution or "practicality".

The general theist/atheist debate also seems to avoid other pathways, such as the viability of pantheism or pandeism. Perhaps atheists would sniff that such beliefs are worthless semantic fudges, but then again if such beliefs relabel the world around us in a way that make people happy, why not? If atheists are supposed to address things from a scientific perspective, then they shouldn't then turn around and argue which is a "better" way to view the reality of which we are a part, as long as it accords science its due. Maybe it makes some people feel better to think that the universe operates under cold, scientific laws and randomness, but if others choose to see us as all part of a divine whole, I'm not sure what is so wrong with that. As for what monotheists think on these issues, I think we'll just skip over that.

I like a point raised by "ignosticism": as with many other philosophical debates, ultimately nobody really knows what the hell they're talking about, because they haven't really provided any strict definitions and are more or less attacking extremes and cariactures (this can be turned against atheists: despite their best efforts to pretend otherwise, atrocities have been committed by convinced atheists as much as by convinced theists).

Anyways, as for myself, I used to think I was a "free thinker" until I realized that it's an actual group. I think that Hindu concepts on the Brahman are probably a good step in my own direction, but ultimately I agree with Herman Hesse's Siddartha, who tells the Buddha that he absolutely agrees with him, and therefore cannot follow him out of fear that he'd be doing it for the wrong reasons and not reaching his own conclusions for himself. We each need to follow our own path, and can learn from others, but shouldn't listen to them too much.

As an extra, here's an interesting scholarly article on the development of a belief in the afterlife in the Bible. Those ancient Hebrews were harsh, damn!

Fusion Steps Forward? Mesopotamia Steps Back?

2006-09-29T18:09:00.000+05:00

I saw this news story today about Chinese scientists conducting successful tests on a fusion reactor. Now, of course no one says what these tests actually were, or whether the reactor reached breakeven, but still, this is even the first time I've heard that the Chinese were developing a fusion reactor. So much for that decades-slow progress on the international reactors.

I know China is a developing country, and that even many of its accomplishments are perhaps overrated, but at the same time it seems to me that it is acting as a catalyst here: perhaps other countries will be spurred into researching fusion more thoroughly (admittedly it has been an ongoing project for 30 years without much payoff).

Also, through my internet trollings, I found some of the latest on Iraq. The fact that this war is hardly even reported in the news any more shows just what a disaster it has been: even worse, it appears that since the Coalition military limits its actual presence in Iraq (to avoid casualties?) , it has a minimal impact on the slow-motion trainwreck that is unfolding. Apparently the world doesn't care as long as its only Iraqis that are doing the fighting and dying.

I sometimes wonder just why this conflict got started. Weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism obviously have been discredited: I honestly never believed those claims, but more on that later. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was honestly a plus, but since then his shambolic trial seems to have done little to bring a verdict and justice on this dictator. There is the "cause celebre" of terrorism issue, the whole issue with European powers (whether one cares for them or not), and the fact that it seems precious few in either the US or UK administrations can admit that something has gone wrong.

Why do I mention this? It is because, as I said, the Iraq project has failed, more than because it is unpopular: most of the people initially opposing the Iraq war oppose any American-led war (anyone remember the anti-war bunch before the 2001 Afghanistan invasion? And they were often the same people distributing flyers and emails about the plight of Afghani women and how something needed to be done ... so much for consistency). This certainly isn't a war for oil: that's another popular slogan that has no basis in reality.

The sad fact is that this war was a war to "prove" certain pet theories that members of the administration had, namely (among others) the democratic peace theory (that as soon as Iraq had elections it wouldn't threaten its neighbors), and that the Rumsfeld doctrine of light, supermodern warfare was feasible. The American people, in their post-9/11 shock, were easily duped into thinking that Iraq and 9/11 were connected, and the rest is history. It's interesting how even this month, five years on, 9/11 can be so easily invoked in the public forum to further parochial political agendas.

J. Lo, Melungeons and the Future of America

2006-09-28T18:00:00.000+05:00

The other night I was watching a feature film starring Ms. Jennifer Lopez. Now, I won't get into any description of the film, other than to say that Jane Fonda is in it (so please keep it away from any Vietnam Era veterans) and it's so bad I felt like I'd been repeatedly hit in the head. However, some interesting sociological observations came to me as I attempted to dull the pain of watching this contemporary romantic comedy.

For starters, how easily Ms. Lopez' character was portrayed interacting with other characters from different ethnic groups and backgrounds. So what? You may ask. Well, such portrayals in American media are rare: usually films and television shows opt for standard cliches of one type or another, like same-race couples, "token" ethnic characters, etc. And this is not a left-leaning screed: when was the last time you've seen an interracial couple in a movie that was explicitly not about race relations? Yet an actress such as Ms. Lopez is not as easily cliched: she can fit into different settings without controversy.

The reason came to me when my wife (a newcomer to American society) looked confused, turned to me and asked: "Is Jennifer Lopez black?" Of course, the answer is: she's Puerto Rican, and Puerto Ricans are a little of everything (and have an especially strong yet overlooked matrilineal connexion to Tainos). Since such people have such a cosmopolitan background, they seem to be able to act as "interfaces" in American society. What other public figure could have Sean "Puffy" Combs as boyfriend, a Cuban [first] husband, and ueber white-boy Ben Affleck as a fiance?

I only mention this because when you look at US culture, racial categorizing from the 19th century has not died, if anything, with modern identity politics it has become more entrenched. The "one-drop" rule makes someone either white or black and the "pure blood quanta" rule makes someone an American Indian: this was true 100 years ago, and shockingly it's still true today. The idea of people being a racial mix where all parts are weighed equally by society has been historically disparaged in much of the US as being a "melungeon" (known in anthropological parlance as a "triracial isolate"). As stated in a certain history book, that touches on the subject, Lies My Teacher Told Me, this is sad because it represents a complete potential historical path of development in America that was shut out in favor of the disasterous policies that still divide Americans from one another. Perhaps greater acceptance of mixing would have made American society more like a Latin American one such as in Puerto Rico (although such societies do still suffer effects of racism, and a centrist review of said book shows that the author is perhaps selling his political agenda a little too strongly). It seems only now do we have such figures as Jennifer Lopez or Tiger Woods who defy the traditional classification and offer hope for a mixed, common "American" identity.

The former Soviet Union certainly does not have an American-style obsession with race or ethnicity: while there is much ethnic pride, and nationalism, and sadly in Russia even increasing racism, it still does not seem to be as much a day-to-day level of thinking as it is in America. This is especially true in Kazakhstan. A mixed Kazakh-Russian is not considered either "white" or"not white" and wouldn't be criticized as "acting white" for speaking Russian and living or working in Moscow. Conversely a Russian with Kazakh or Tatar roots wouldn't be seen by Kazakhs as being a "poseur" or "stealing our culture" for speaking Kazakh or practicing Islam (although such people are admittedly a rarity). If anything, countries attempting to introduce American-style identity politics threaten to tear apart whatever social cohesion that they have.

But then maybe I just seem to be reading too much into a J Lo movie. I blame the stresses of my job search.

Self-Advertisement

2006-09-27T21:43:00.001+05:00

I've been playing around recently with Wikipedia, and made a small contribution to that source of collective knowledge. As you have all obviously noticed, there is a dearth of information on Kazakhstan, so I decided to add some info on my "home town". It's tough to find reliable, free, unclassified information on Kazakhstan in general, let alone Aktobe, so I gave it my best. I also added some information on a few Kazakh historical figures, namely the confusingly named Abul-Khayr Khan, Abulkhair Khan and Ablai Khan. Kazakhs can keep them all straight, but something needs to be done to spread a little more knowledge of history on the step. No one even ever notices Central Asian history post-Chingis Khan ... but the Moghuls came from somewhere.

Setting Up

2006-09-27T21:03:00.000+05:00

Well, I now have my laptop and wireless access, so I thought I would bow to the peer pressure and create a blog. We'll see how this one turns out. Just what the subject material will be is anyone's guess, but I'll definitely try to give some observations on life, people, society and issues of import as I see them from Boston. Perhaps it will be something of an "outsider's" perspective, given my time away from the States. Who knows?