« January 2005 | Main | March 2005 »
February 27, 2005
So, Is Killing Afghans Fun?
That was the question posed by Major Randy Zeegers, "who functions as a liaison between the Army and the designers," to the Time magazine reporter who was trying out some of the newest video games the Armed Forces is developing as a recruiting tool:
After I took part in a heated session on a combat simulator, dodging RPGs and blasting away at street fighters in a nameless desert city, Major Zeegers asked me, "So, is killing Afghans fun?" It was hard to tell whether he was joking.
These games are serious business as far as recruiting goes. The game "America's Army" is where many of America's young learn about the Armed Forces:
Since it was released on July 4, 2002, America's Army has signed up 4.6 million registered players, and it adds 100,000 new ones every month. According to an Army study, 30% of Americans ages 16 to 24 say that some of what they know about the Army comes from the game.
But don't you worry. These games teach you about the real life. It's not like you can die and just start over immediately. You have to wait until the whole game starts over.
Colonel Wardynski is quick to point out that in games generally, when you die, you magically come back to life right away. Not in America's Army, he says. "In our game, there are penalties. In our game, if you're wounded or killed, you're out till the game starts over. The level of casualties your team incurs or inflicts on noncombatants--all those things come home as bad things to do. We don't want them to think it's Rambo."
That should teach those kids what real war is like. Plus, you get points deducted for killing civilians.
Posted by zeynep at 11:30 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
February 25, 2005
The Virtues of Sensationalist Scaremongering
Let me continue from theme of the last post. I do understand Sean's comment that media tends to sensationalize scientific news. But the real problem is that we have dearth of trustworthy sources. It's hard to relax when experts tell us, relax, they're looking into it. I say let's be sensationalist scaremongerers until such time that enough scared people act to fight off, and reverse, the political pressure on science to be mindful of profits rather than life.
Take this example from the ongoing arthiritis drug scandal:
Ten of the 32 government drug advisers who last week endorsed continued marketing of the huge-selling pain pills Celebrex, Bextra and Vioxx have consulted in recent years for the drugs' makers, according to disclosures in medical journals and other public records.If the 10 advisers had not cast their votes, the committee would have voted 12 to 8 that Bextra should be withdrawn and 14 to 8 that Vioxx should not return to the market. The 10 advisers with company ties voted 9 to 1 to keep Bextra on the market and 9 to 1 for Vioxx's return.
In other words, the drugs would have remained off the market had the people with financial ties to the drug companies been recused from the panel. Defenders of the panel's composition argue that it's impossible to be in a position of expertise about such drugs unless one has been involved at some point with the drug companies.
At best, this means there are no independent experts out there.
Add this to the nugget buried later in the story that "Celebrex, Bextra and Vioxx have never been proved in clinical trials to cure pain any better than ibuprofen or more than a dozen other, older pain pills," you see the serious problem here. And Ellen and Bob's comments from the last post do add to the case for concern. But even without more evidence for concern, here's our bigger problem. If the authorities and public health officials told us there was nothing to worry about, how could we evaluate their trustworthiness?
Posted by zeynep at 03:42 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
February 24, 2005
Rocket Fuel in Mother's Milk
A toxic chemical used in rocket fuel was found in virtually every sample taken in a new study of nursing mothers' milk, but researchers said it is too early to know whether the perchlorate levels are dangerous....
Perchlorate has been linked to thyroid ailments, and is considered particularly dangerous to children. It has been found in drinking water supplies in 35 states and also in vegetables. While the chemical occurs naturally, the National Academy of Sciences has said most of the contamination is from its use in rocket fuels, fireworks and explosives.
Contamination is especially widespread in California because of the many current and former defense and space program sites in the state.
According to public health advocates, perchlorate is in the water that supplies more than 16 million Californians. It has also been found in the Colorado River, the major source of drinking water and irrigation in Southern California and Arizona.
But don't worry. No undue alarm.
However, the milk study shouldn't raise "undue alarm" because the seriousness of its findings is unclear, said Ed Urbansky, a former Environmental Protection Agency chemist who has published several papers on perchlorate. He was not involved with the study."It's very difficult to determine what the findings might be other than to know it might be in so many milk samples," he said. "It's important not to raise undue alarm over the significance of the finding.
"We shouldn't be running through the streets screaming and not drinking milk because of this."
Don't scream. Don't run through the streets. Don't be alarmed.
It's only rocket fuel in milk.
Posted by zeynep at 05:26 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
February 23, 2005
What's the Question, Again?
Do you remember Manadel al-Jamadi, whose corpse was used as a picture prop?
Remember the claim he was "shackled to the wall" and just collapsed -- one of those unfortunate incidents, you know.
It turns out he was shackled in the "palestinian hanging" position, an internationally-recognized form of torture which can and does lead to death in a manner similar to crucifixion -- collapse of the lung, inability to breathe, crushing of the chests... This man was "one of CIA's 'ghost' detainees at Abu Ghraib — prisoners being held secretly by the agency." So now we know what CIA does to its ghost detainees.
Here are more of the details:
One Army guard, Sgt. Jeffery Frost, said the prisoner's arms were stretched behind him in a way he had never before seen. Frost told investigators he was surprised al-Jamadi's arms "didn't pop out of their sockets," according to a summary of his interview....
The military pathologist who ruled the case a homicide found several broken ribs and concluded al-Jamadi died from pressure to the chest and difficulty breathing.
Dr. Michael Baden, a distinguished civilian pathologist who reviewed the autopsy for a defense attorney in the case, agreed in an interview that the position in which al-Jamadi was suspended could have contributed to his death.
Dr. Vincent Iacopino, director of research for Physicians for Human Rights, called the hyper-extension of the arms behind the back "clear and simple torture." The European Court of Human Rights found Turkey guilty of torture in 1996 in a case of Palestinian hanging — a technique Iacopino said is used worldwide but named for its alleged use by Israel in the Palestinian territories.
The Washington Post reported last year that after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the CIA suspended the use of its "enhanced interrogation techniques," including stress positions, because of fears that the agency could be accused of unsanctioned and illegal activity. The newspaper said the White House had approved the tactics.
...
Navy prosecutors in San Diego have charged nine SEALs and one sailor with abusing al-Jamadi and others. All but two lieutenants have received nonjudicial punishment; one lieutenant is scheduled for court-martial in March, the other is awaiting a hearing before the Navy's top SEAL.
So, it looks like most of the people involved in this killing will get a slap on the wrist. But here's the part that best summarizes the situation, i.e. the summary posted by the Los Angeles Times:
WHO DIED: Manadel al-Jamadi, a suspect in a bombing in Iraq, died in 2003 during CIA interrogation in the Abu Ghraib prison shower room. A military pathologist ruled it a homicide.HOW IT HAPPENED: Army guards found him suspended by his wrists, which were cuffed behind his back. The position, known as "Palestinian hanging," is condemned by human rights groups as torture.
WHAT IT MEANS: The death raises new questions about CIA interrogation practices.
Okay. The CIA is disappearing people and torturing them to death. This is an acknowledged, widely reported upon fact. And all that does is "raise new questions." What needs to happen before we can move beyond perpetually "raising new questions?"
Posted by zeynep at 07:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bury Iraq
Don't you love this reuters headline: "Bush and Schroeder Bury Iraq Hatchet." Oh, great. It's all fine now if they've decided to move past it. I mean, who cares about what actually happens to the people of Iraq. We'll just bury them along with the hatchet.
Posted by zeynep at 06:48 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 21, 2005
Do We Need to Continue Affirmative Action for Older, White Racists?
Today is the 40th anniversary of gunning down of Malcolm X, or Malik El-Shabazz as he chose to be known later in life. Much can be said about his enormous legacy, but one thing is certain. He does not need "affirmative action" to qualify for the Nebraska Hall of Fame.
"Malcolm Little" was born in Nebraska 80 years ago, and he remains one of the most important historical figures of the 20th century worldwide, let alone Nebraska-wide. Yet, last year, the Nebraska Hall of Fame voted to induct Sen. Kenneth Wherry, instead of Malcolm X, into the Hall.
Who is Kenneth Wherry, non-history buffs will ask. He is a former senator and Rebublican whip who "sold cars, pianos, and livestock, and was a licensed undertaker before entering Republican politics in Nebraska in the 1920s." One of his most notable claims to fame is that he was very active in the witch-hunt against homosexuals during the Mcarthy era, at one point declaring, in an interview with the New York Post in December 1950, that: "You can't hardly separate homosexuals from subversives. . . . Mind you, I don't say that every homosexual is a subversive, and I don't say every subversive is a homosexual. But [people] of low morality are a menace in the government, whatever [they are], and they are all tied up together."
By May of 1950, Senator Wherry quoted reliable police sources that 3,750 homosexuals held federal jobs. A month later, the Senate authorized an official investigation, the first of its type in the history of the United States. The results of the "pervert inquiry," as it was popularly named, came out in December at a time of profound concern over national security.The Senate Report accused the Truman administration of indifference toward the danger represented by homosexuals in governmental positions. The Report explicitly mentioned "lack of emotional stability" and "weakness of . . . moral fiber" as defining characteristics of homosexuals that made them likely targets of Soviet propaganda and recruitment.
So, Nebraska Hall of Fame committee chooses this examplary man over Malcolm X, who would have been the first African-American inductee. Unfortunately for them, they held the vote in secret and the Attorney General of Nebraska says they have to vote again since they are legally obliged to have an open vote. Along with some shenanigans to increase the number of years an proposed inductee must be dead to 50 years, and thus exclude Malcolm X, there is a counter bill in the statehouse suggesting that "the governor consider 'gender and ethnic diversity and the person's appreciation for the history and culture of the state' when choosing appointments to the Hall of Fame Commission. A state senator explains the issue:
“When you consider the makeup of the people on the commission — older white people — the likelihood is not the greatest,” said state Sen. Ernie Chambers of the chances for Malcolm’s inclusion.
In other words, one has to propose laws that look like affirmative action in order to have a composition that would not be so boneheaded. But the reality is that it has been affirmative action of the other kind, the kind that perpetuates unqualified, conservative white people in power, that has led to a commission so blinded by their racism that they are unable to evaluate historical merit using any reasonable standards of evidence. I mean, really. What on earth are those people doing on that committee? What does it say about Nebraska's establishment that a bill is introduced with the implied suggestion that one has to be African-American or some other minority to appreciate Malcolm X's historical importance? Are there really no white people qualified at that minimum level of historical grasp? If that is indeed the case, perhaps we do indeed need to continue affirmative action for white people until further education and enlightenment can bring down the blinders of racism. Where would they be without it?
Posted by zeynep at 02:24 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 20, 2005
Bloodshed During Ashura Weekend
The events of last weekend in Iraq were very sad and worrisome. Eight or nine separate suicide bombers killed about 100 Shiite worshippers over Ashura weekend:
Shiites stung by two days of suicide bombings that left nearly 100 dead attended services in fortified funeral tents on Sunday in hopes of avoiding a third straight day of attacks. ... Shiite politicians, poised to take power for the first time in Iraq's modern history, have vowed not to allow the bloodshed to begin a civil war despite attacks Friday and Saturday that left at least 91 dead - including a U.S. soldier - and at least 100 wounded. The attacks came as Shiites celebrated their holiest day of the year.
I have written about such attacks before. It's quite amazing how little coverage these major developments are receiving. It's truly sad that there are so many people in Iraq willing to kill themselves as long as they can kill Shiite worshippers while they're at it. There is no two ways to interpret these attacks: there are people very committed to starting a civil war in Iraq and they are doing everything possible to provoke the Shiite into finally losing it and start attacking Sunnis.
Posted by zeynep at 11:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 17, 2005
The Word "Occupation" is Discovered
Thomas Friedman comments on Syria's occupation of Lebanon:
The message was that the Lebanese opposition to the Syrian occupation was getting united - inspired both by the example of Iraq and by the growing excesses of the Syrian occupation. Mr. Hariri, his friend said, was planning to use the coming Lebanese parliamentary elections, and a hoped-for victory by the opposition front, to send a real message to the Syrians: It's time for you to go.There is no excuse anymore for Syria's occupation of Lebanon, other than naked imperialism and a desire to siphon off Lebanese resources. If the U.S. government and media really care about democracy in the Arab world, Mr. Hariri's envoy said, then the U.S. has to get behind those trying to rescue the oldest real Arab democracy, Lebanon, from the Syrian grip.
...
When Syria's Baath regime feels its back up against the wall, it always resorts to "Hama Rules." Hama Rules is a term I coined after the Syrian Army leveled - and I mean leveled - a portion of its own city, Hama, to put down a rebellion by Sunni Muslim fundamentalists there in 1982. Some 10,000 to 20,000 Syrians were buried in the ruble.
Occupation to siphon off resources? Levelling towns that resist the regime imposed upon them? Isn't there another example? Let me think. Hmmm. What could it be? Gee. Must be some small, obscure country.
Posted by zeynep at 09:23 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
February 16, 2005
Not Your Asimov's Robots
The robo-soldier is coming, we're informed:
The American military is working on a new generation of soldiers, far different from the army it has."They don't get hungry," said Gordon Johnson of the Joint Forces Command at the Pentagon. "They're not afraid. They don't forget their orders. They don't care if the guy next to them has just been shot. Will they do a better job than humans? Yes."
The robot soldier is coming.
The Pentagon predicts that robots will be a major fighting force in the American military in less than a decade, hunting and killing enemies in combat. Robots are a crucial part of the Army's effort to rebuild itself as a 21st-century fighting force, and a $127 billion project called Future Combat Systems is the biggest military contract in American history.
...
Pentagon officials and military contractors say the ultimate ideal of unmanned warfare is combat without casualties. Failing that, their goal is to give as many difficult, dull or dangerous missions as possible to the robots, conserving American minds and protecting American bodies in battle.
"Anyone who's a decision maker doesn't want American lives at risk," Mr. Brooks said. "It's the same question as, Should soldiers be given body armor? It's a moral issue. And cost comes in."
The article goes on to argue that the robot would be cheaper than a human soldier, etc. etc. About how robots don't need pensions, disability pay, health insurance...
But you know the real issue. Robots do not need to be recruited, nor do they have mothers and fathers who may show up at Pentagon's doorsteps when their child gets killed. They won't vote. They will not come back and talk about what they did and what they saw. Most important of all, they will not do what Camilo Mejia has just finished serving a jail sentence for, become a conscientious objector. "By putting my weapon down, I chose to reassert myself as a human being," Mejia says in his essay titled "Regaining My Humanity."
The sad irony is that robots were first extensively imagined in the fiction of Isaac Asimov, who chose to create them with "the three laws," the first of which stated that "a robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."
Posted by zeynep at 11:53 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 15, 2005
Prove it Ward!
You would have thought that with all the brouhaha over Ward Churchill's three-year-old essay, his too-happy critics would bother to do a bit of research, learn a fact or two, before jumping on the bandwagon. But, alas, there are no standards if you are defending the empire, whereas everything you've ever written will be gone over with a fine tooth comb if you are talking about its cruel nature.
So I came accross an almost comical piece, except the Denver Post ran it as if it were a serious op-ed. It's by Andrew Cohen, identified as "an attorney and a CBS News legal analyst." First he claims that Churchill's writing is "unintelligible":
First, it is terribly written. It reads like a souped-up high school paper written by a kid straight out of his first rhetoric class. Several passages are unintelligible.For example, Churchill writes: "Property before people, it seems - or at least the equation of property to people - is a value by no means restricted to America's boardrooms. And the sanctimony with which such putrid sentiments are enunciated turns out to be nauseatingly similar, whether mouthed by the CEO of Standard Oil or any of the swarm of comfort zone 'pacifists' queuing up to condemn the black book [sic] after it ever so slightly disturbed the functioning of business-as-usual in Seattle."
What does that mean? Many more passages reflect a level of ardor that seems ill-suited to the give and take of true political science.
Well, dude, if you can't tell a "black book" from the "black bloc," of course you won't be able to understand that passage. This is Churchill's standard critique of the mainstream --and self-identified "pacifist" left-- regarding their attitude towards the "black block," an anarchist political grouping. Most of the tension between those groups bubbled to the surface over the question of property destruction -- such as the infamous window breakings during the WTO Seattle protests in 1999. I mean there's nothing surprising that a random right-winger can't follow an internal left debate, but shouldn't you have to at least a bit of googling before being allowed to publish an op-ed on a subject that you are so ignorant about?
However, being utterly ignorant is no obstacle to this writer:
More important, however, is that there are no sources for the many astounding claims he makes in his piece. No footnotes. No endnotes. Perhaps they were not included because of space. But if Churchill wants to move past this controversy, if he wants to truly take a stand for academic rigor as well as academic freedom, he ought to reveal what those sources are. If he has the courage of his convictions - as I am sure he does - he ought to put his cards on the table and give the world, and his students, the proof behind his conclusions.Here are just a few of the factual conclusions Churchill makes in his essay that he ought to be required to show proof for:
He asserts that 500,000 Iraqi children died "as a predictable - in fact, widely predicted - result of the 1991 'surgical' bombing of their country's water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other 'infrastructural' targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depending for its very survival."
He cites a "wave of elation that swept America at reports of what was happening along the so-called 'Highway of Death:' perhaps 100,000 'towel-heads' and 'camel-jockeys' ... in full retreat, routed and effectively defenseless, many of them conscripted civilian laborers, slaughtered in a single day by jets firing the most hyper-lethal types of ordnance."
...
Ok, for the first one, let's start with Madeline Albright? Remember her? Secretary of State under Clinton? She not only acknowledged the number, she belives the price was worth it:
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
The number, of course comes first from a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and later a 1999 UNICEF report [Addition: FAO numbers were preliminary, and later challenged, but important in that they suggested the scale of the disaster. Most people refer to the UNICEF report.] The lowest estimate is "106,000 to 227,000" -- so, what should we do Andrew? Fire Ward Churchill if only a quarter of a million kids under the age of five died under the sanctions rather than half a million as UNICEF estimates?
The second, "highway of death," I'm tempted to leave as a googling exercise but one can at least check out the BBC version, which has a lower estimate, still in the tens of thousands, and some testimony from Ramsey Clark's War Crimes Tribunal... I mean, it's one thing to say "it was worth it; we had to kill them in order to stave off larger battles," and all the usual justifications one hears, but what do you with this kind of total denial?
There is much to discuss about that infamous essay -- but how can there be a reasonable discussion when the facts about the real world as it exists, not as it is depicted by the propaganda system, are treated as figments of one's imagination?
In any case, I hope more people start asking those questions. Let's discuss. How many hundreds of thousands of children under the age of five died due to our sanctions on Iraq? What is this "highway of death"? What happened during the Vietnam War? What are the human costs of IMF imposed "structural-adjustment programs"? Which dictators received U.S. support during the cold war? After? Did we mine the harbors of Nicaragua? What did the "contras" do there? Why do we have soldiers and bases all around the world? What's torture business that keeps popping up all over the headlines?
Posted by zeynep at 01:05 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
"Missile Defense" Fails Another Test
This one didn't even get out of the silo:
A test of the national ballistic missile defense system failed Monday when an interceptor missile didn't get out of its silo, the second failure in as many months....
The Dec. 15 test was the first in two years. Before that, the program had gone five-for-eight in attempts to intercept a target. Missile defense officials say each test costs $85 million.
...
Bush proposes to spend $8.8 billion on ballistic missile defense programs in his 2006 plan, down from $9.9 billion authorized for 2005.
Meanwhile, they're cutting foodstamps for poor families and health insurance for kids.
Posted by zeynep at 01:03 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 14, 2005
It's all Command and Control Centers
Somethings never change, it seems. We never attack anything but command and control centers. This is how the BBC reported the firebombing of Dresden 60 years ago today:
British and US bombers have dropped hundreds of thousands of explosives on the German city of Dresden. The city is reported to be a vital command centre for the German defence against Soviet forces approaching from the east. Last night, 800 RAF Bomber Command planes let loose 650,000 incendiaries and 8,000-lbs high explosives and hundreds of 4,000-lbs bombs in two waves of attack. They faced very little anti-aircraft fire.As soon as one part of the city was alight, the bombers went for another until the whole of Dresden was ablaze.
Of course, in reality, that command and control center was bursting with civilians, including many refugees from other fronts -- somewhere between 25,000 to a 100,000 died through being suffocated or being burned alive.
Which reminds me of Truman's announcement of dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima:
The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost.
Such brazen propaganda. We'd never fall for it now.
Posted by zeynep at 04:07 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 11, 2005
Torturing Kids
At first, you might be outraged but not surprised by the treatement Omar Khadr received at the Guantánamo Gulag. Unfortunately, this has become business as usual in many U.S.-run detention centers around the world:
The memo, containing the latest accusations of humiliating treatment of a detainee in Guantánamo Bay, included a description of an interrogation that started sometime after midnight in March 2003.Khadr claims that military police officers handcuffed his hands and feet behind him in an interrogation booth at Camp Delta, then turned him into a ''human mop'' after he urinated on himself.
''Military police poured pine oil on the floor and [Khadr] and then, with petitioner lying on his stomach . . . dragged petitioner back and forth through the mixture of urine and pine oil on the floor,'' Washington attorneys Muneer Ahmad and Richard Wilson said in their memo, dated Dec. 30, 2004.
``Later, petitioner was put back in his cell, without being allowed a shower or change of clothes. He was not given a change of clothes for two days.''
And the non-denial denials are routine enough too:
''We have an ongoing investigation into abuse allegations at Guantánamo,'' said Southern Command spokesman Raul Duany. ``It will be premature to comment on specific incidents without having the results and recommendations of the ongoing investigation.''
But here's the kicker. Omer Khadr, a Canadian, was just 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan. Fifteen. He's now eighteen. He's still there. We've locked up a fifteen year old, thrown away the key, and we're torturing him in the meantime.
Omar Khadr, 18, a Canadian who was captured by U.S. troops in Afghanistan at age 15, outlined the abuse complaints through a memo that his civilian U.S. lawyers were allowed to make public for the first time Wednesday.
Omar's family does have Al Qaeda links, most notoriously his father Ahmed Said Khadr who was was killed in Pakistan. Omar was picked up in a battlefield in Afghanistan. There are some allegations that he tossed a grenade that killed a U.S. medic but no charges have been brought. In fact, his lawyers are demanding that he be tried. Let's just assume it's all true. That he was a child-soldier from an Al-Qaeda family. That just makes him a victim under any understanding of international law, common sense or compassion. A fifteen year old is not a fully competent adult. That's why they can't enter into legally binding contracts. You can't sue them in court if they promise to do some work for you but don't. That's why if an adult has sex with a fifteen year old, it's called statutory rape. Minors do have responsibilities and can be held accountable for their actions, but it always has to be done in a manner that provides their age.
Not that it's okay to hold adults indefinitely without due process, a trial, access to lawyers... But what could possibly be the idea behind holding a kid so young? And torturing him to boot? (By the way, if his family indeed sent him to Afghanistan to fight at that age, I wouldn't mind it if they were tried for child abuse.)
Posted by zeynep at 08:43 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
February 10, 2005
Cheery Thought for the Day
Maybe I should call it "Cheery Thought for the Century":
Last year was the fourth warmest since systematic temperature measurements began around the world in the 19th century, NASA scientists said yesterday.Particularly high temperatures were measured over Alaska, the Caspian Sea region of Europe and the Antarctic Peninsula, while the United States was unusually cool. But the global average continued a 30-year rise that is "due primarily to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," said Dr. James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in Manhattan.
The main source of such gases is smokestack and tailpipe emissions from burning coal and oil.
The highest global average was measured in 1998, when temperatures were raised by a strong cycle of El Niño in the Pacific Ocean; 2002 and 2003 were second and third warmest.
Dr. Hansen said a weak Niño pattern was likely to make 2005 at least the second warmest year and could push it beyond 1998 and set a record.
Actually, millenium is a better order of magnitude than a century since this current warming spike does not just pertain to the last century:
The unusual nature of the recent warming was corroborated separately yesterday by a new analysis of 2,000 years of indirect temperature records in tree rings, stalagmites, seabed layers, and other evidence from around the Northern Hemisphere.That study, published in the journal Nature, found that previous peaks of warming, particularly during medieval times about 1,000 years ago, were as warm as the 20th-century average but that no spikes in the last 2,000 years matched the warming since 1990.
More and more this is feeling like watching a not-too-good horror flick. You know what's coming... It's only going to get worse. And it would take a long time for things to start getting better even if we stopped and reversed everything we were doing wrong right now.
"2004 deadliest earthquake year in five centuries," says another deadline. Stop! Don't Check Out the Sound Coming from the Basement! Don't Go Down Those Stairs! Don't Open That Door!
Posted by zeynep at 09:23 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
North Korea May Have Announced It Has Nukes
North Korea may have announced it has nukes. It sounds like it from the text, but BBC and other organizations are properly cautious since translation problems have caused crisis of this nature before.
Ya think they figured out Saddam Hussein got toppled because he didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction? Ya think they realized that no amount of inspections and proof that there are no WMDs can hold back the U.S. once you are in the crosshairs? Maybe? Just maybe?
Now we should go back and hold hearings for everyone responsible for naming North Korea, (along with Iran, Libya, Syria and Iraq), as possible targets for a first strike with nuclear weapons in the Nuclear Posture Review. Invading Iraq as we did has killed all legitimate non-proliferation attempts. Who will ever sumbit to an inspection process again? Why won't every country, from dictators to democracies, at least considering arming themselves with the most terrible of weapons in order to stave off an invasion?
The sadder thing is I don't think the U.S. cared if North Korea had WMD or not. I think it was thrown in to balance out the Muslim enemies. That's also why they may be able to play this one down again. North Korea does not have oil, after all.
Posted by zeynep at 08:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 09, 2005
Race to The Bottom, Round Seventeen
You knew this was coming:
But at least one company is scaling back in Bangalore. On Jan. 19, Tampa-based Sykes Enterprises Inc. -- a call center operator that has been in India since 2002 -- said it would shift much of the work handled by its Indian operators to centers in Manila and Shanghai. "We moved calls to other facilities in Asia to get a higher rate of return," says Dan Hernandez, Sykes's vice-president for global strategies.
What good can come out of an economic set up where there is a shortage of consumers and a surplus of workers? Consumption at this rate will surely destroy our planet, yet our economic system encourages --needs-- more. And billions seek more remunerated work, even at pittance wages.
Posted by zeynep at 02:05 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Volunteers to Clear Landmines? Lock Him up and Throw Away The Key!
So, here's what you get for refusing to carry a weapon, instead volunteering to clear landmines and roadside bombs in Iraq:
In February 2003, a month after Lance Cpl. Joel David Klimkewicz was told he was going to Iraq, the young marine filed to become a conscientious objector. More than a year later, his application was denied, and he was again told to prep for duty. Klimkewicz, 24, volunteered to clear land mines and roadside bombs but refused to carry a weapon--a stand that led to his being court-martialed in December, busted to private, and thrown in the brig at Camp Lejeune for seven months.
That jail time comes in spite of a recommendation from the Marine equivalent of a grand jury that "the matter be disposed of by nonjudicial punishment and administrative separation from the military, with an honorable discharge."
Posted by zeynep at 01:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 07, 2005
Nuclear Warhead in Thine Own Eye
This weekend, the Washington Post ran an article titled "What Bin Ladin Sees in Hiroshima," by Steve Coll, former managing editor of the Post. I first thought it would be an article about how Bin Ladin constantly brings up the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of U.S. immorality. Well, it certainly wasn't that. The article was only about how Bin Ladin and his followers were after nuclear weapons:
His inspiration, repeatedly cited in his writings and interviews, is the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which he says shocked Japan's fading imperial government into a surrender it might not otherwise have contemplated. Bin Laden has said several times that he is seeking to acquire and use nuclear weapons not only because it is God's will, but because he wants to do to American foreign policy what the United States did to Japanese imperial surrender policy.
You would've thought just typing or reading that paragraph would get some people thinking... Osama Bin Ladin, the master terrorist, looking to us for inspiration; examining our methods in order to copy them.
Worse, Bin Ladin's reading of our motivations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is pretty charitable; historians have put forth a pretty convincing argument that the U.S. knew Japan was going to surrender but used the bomb anyway, and later manufactured the myth that it was the least bad choice:
Gar Alperovitz: The use of the atomic bomb, most experts now believe, was totally unnecessary. Even people who support the decision for various reasons acknowledge that almost certainly the Japanese would have surrendered before the initial invasion planned for November. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey stated that officially in 1946.We found a top-secret War Department study that said when the Russians came in, which was August 8, the war would have ended anyway. The invasion of Honshu, the main island, was not scheduled to take place until the spring of 1946. Almost all the U.S. military leaders are on record saying there were options for ending the war without an invasion. So minimally, as Hanson Baldwin, The New York Times writer, put it, if the goal of the bombing was to end the war without an invasion, that was unnecessary, so it was "a mistake." That's Baldwin's phrase.
Now, did American policy-makers know this at the time? That's a slightly different question. Many scholars now believe that the president understood the war could be ended long before the November landing. J. Samuel Walker, a conservative, official government historian, states in his expert study, perhaps with slight exaggeration but not much, that the consensus of the scholarly studies is that the bomb was known at the time to be unnecessary.
Sojourners: How do you explain the large gap between that consensus and the prevailing popular opinion, which is that the bombing was necessary to prevent the invasion?
Alperovitz: The popular myth didn't just happen, it was created by several official acts, and by many things President Truman and Secretary of War Henry Stimson did. During the early postwar period, there was a slow growth of criticism of the bomb, including from the religious community and from some of the important radio spokespersons of the time. Many conservatives at that point, actually more than liberals, were raising serious questions about the bombing. The Calhoun Commission of liberal Protestant theologians for the Federal Council of Churches-Reinhold Niebuhr and John C. Bennett were members-criticized the bombing, both as unnecessary and as immoral, a sin demanding some sort of contrition.
As the criticism grew, there was an organized, semi-official response to put it down. The argument was that the bomb was the least abhorrent choice we had available. The documents available show that isn't true-but it was an extraordinarily successful propaganda effort.
(Here's a little example of how much the propaganda system that trains us to limited attention spans affects our ability to understand the world. As I was choosing a quote from an interview with historian Gar Alperovitz, I thought to myself that it was a bit too long. Would people read it to the end? But, then again, this is about couple of hundred thousand people that were killed by a decision that we are taught was without alternative, so what's a few long paragraphs?)
And just so you don't think this propaganda machine only worked in the past, consider this: just recently, a federal program has quietly begun designing "new generation of nuclear arms meant to be sturdier and more reliable and to have longer lives." It was reported in science section of the New York Times; I bet not much more will be heard of it for a few years. Who's paying attention? Let's talk about the upcoming Michael Jackson trial, during the break we'll discuss how hateful and irrational they are.
Posted by zeynep at 10:26 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
February 04, 2005
Pesky General Tells the Truth and a Church Steps Up
Here's what General Hagee said, to explain comments made by Lt. Gen. James Mattis of the Marine Corps. "Lt. Gen. Mattis often speaks with a great deal of candor. I have counseled him concerning his remarks and he agrees he should have chosen his words more carefully. While I understand that some people may take issue with the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war."
So, what was that "unfortunate reality of war" that Gen. Mattis admitted in a moment of candor? Simple. He enjoys killing people. It's "hell of a hoot," in fact:
"Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. ... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling."
Better news, yet. This general is now in charge of developing ways to better train and equip the Marines. And preparing for him the future recruits who find killing to be "hell of a hoot" is the Trinity Church of Nazarene:
It's Sunday morning at Trinity Church of the Nazarene and staff member Mark "Gunny" Hestand is on his belly behind a tree, an imitation M-16 in his hands, showing six teen-age boys in fatigues how to ambush an enemy.Hestand, 43, and a teen-age squad leader have been barking at the "soldiers" who are cranking out pushups and line sprints beside the church.
...
Thirty minutes later, the teens march into the church cafeteria in two single-file lines to the cadent commands of Smith. They gather around a table with Hestand and Bible study leader Tom Gilbert.
...
The teens are part of "Boot Camp," a youth group that mixes Marine Corps values and combat techniques with Bible study. The concept is the brainchild of Hestand, who started the group in 2001 to encourage youth involvement in the church. As far as he knows, Boot Camp is unique in the Christian world.
While some may find the juxtaposition of military and the church to be unusual, or even alarming, Hestand said he believes the two share key principles.
"We take the basic principles that are Christian and basic principles of warfare and we merge them," he said. "Our enemy is Satan. Our weapon is not an M-16, it's the Bible. We're trying to get them to be warriors for God."
Hestand lists the Marine values of honor, courage and commitment as analogous to Christianity.
"One of the reasons I chose the Marine style over other military branches is that almost anything they say you could replace the word 'Marine' with 'Christian,'" Hestand said.
Got that? "Marine" and "Christian" are interchangeable. If you are wondering how to get there, wrap your bible in a camouflage colors and paint your walls army green:
Framed marine posters hang on walls Hestand painted army green. He sits behind his desk on a weekday dressed in fatigues and boots. A G.I. Joe doll is displayed on a table. A Bible wrapped in a camouflage book cover rests next to his computer."My office looks more like a ROTC recruitment center than a radio station office," he said, laughing.
Morris and Hestand are well aware that Boot Camp is "way out of the box" of normal church programs, but the only complaint thus far has been from the occasional parent concerned about the marine-style
yelling of drill instructors, they say.Occasionally a parent will be uncomfortable with the use of toy guns. But Morris says it's in boys' nature to play with weapons and if it wasn't guns it would be sticks.
This aggressive and combative nature is at the heart of Boot Camp. Hestand and company say that men - particularly Christian men - have become domesticated, boring and divided from their natural instincts of adventure and drive to tackle challenges. The end result is a docile and unhappy man.
The idea that Christian men must be reshaped is straight from Eldridge's "Wild at Heart," which argues that man's wild heart is a mirror of God's and that man's three natural and worthy desires are to: fight a battle, live an adventure and rescue a beauty.
"Wild at Heart" has sold over a million copies since its 2001 release. It has sparked debate, but is used as a manual by many churches and is prominently displayed in Christian bookstores.
Isn't great to have a Church where the offices look like ROTC recruitment centers? They do need the help. The Marines have missed their recruiting goals for the first time in a decade. It turns out that parents have been more actively fighting the recruiters.
Posted by zeynep at 02:06 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
February 02, 2005
"Well you did say Jehovah"
He said it. He said it, said it, said it. He said the "I" word. "The fall of imperial communism was only a dream..." Imperial, imperial, imperial...
A much-needed lexical breakthrough, finally.
Mathias: Look, I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying Jehovah.
Crowd: [Shocked] He said it again!
Edler: You're only making it worse for yourself.
Mathias: Making it worse? How could it be worse? Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah.
Crowd: Ooooooh!
Elder: I'm warning you... If you say Jehovah once more... [A stone flys by and hits the elder.] Right. Who threw that? Come on. Who threw that?
Crowd: She did she did, he, him, him, him, him, him, him.
Elder: Was it you?
Woman2: Yes.
Elder: Right...
Woman2: Well you did say Jehovah. ... [She gets stoned {the blasphemer}]
Elder: Stop, stop. Will you stop that... stop it. Now look. No-one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Do you understand? Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear; even if they do say Jehovah. ---- [The skocked women stone the elder to death, ending in the dropping of a huge bolder on his fallen body.]
Woman3: Good shot.
Posted by zeynep at 10:08 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
George W. Bush and I Agree
"In any nation, casting your vote is an act of civic responsibility; for millions of Iraqis, it was also an act of personal courage, and they have earned the respect of us all."
Amen to that. Exactly why we should make sure that we end our occupation.
Posted by zeynep at 09:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"Broader Middle East"! Yikes!
"To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes..."
Yikes! Broader Middle East? Is that a coded threat to China?
Posted by zeynep at 09:52 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
What Was the "Defense Department" then?
"We have created a new department of government to defend our homeland," says the president. That always gets me. If we needed a "Homeland Security Department" to defend the homeland, isn't that basically admitting Pentagon, a.k.a "Defense Department," isn't really engaged in "defense"?
Posted by zeynep at 09:45 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Did Cheney Applaud?
Did Cheney applaud "For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage"? My station cut away to a crowd shot... Did he or did he not applaud the declaration that his daughter was bad for families, children and society?
George W. just said we should show young men an ideal of manhood that "rejects violence." I hope the next conscientious objector uses that in his trial.
Posted by zeynep at 09:38 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Does Not Compute. Does Not Compute.
Listening to the SOTU, trying to adjust after my return... I just heard Bush say "environmentally responsible" and "nuclear" in one breath. "Safe" and "clean" as adjectives for "nuclear energy."
To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home, including safe, clean nuclear energy.
Now he just blatantly lied about the financial situation of Social Security. I can't wait till he gets to how we've done nothing but good in Iraq.
Posted by zeynep at 09:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 01, 2005
To be a Forum or Not to be a Forum
Here's a piece that describes some of the tensions that plague the WSF. I'll post more about this after I catch up with all the work that's waiting for me on my return but the issue really is thorny. We do need an open forum, we also need more institutions at a global level that can reflect the political will of the world's people. Unfortunately, there is only the WSF at the moment so everyone wants it to be everything.
On the fun side, some people weren't happy at the turn the World Economic Forum had taken:
The head of Britain's leading employers' organisation launched an outspoken attack last night on the "hijacking" of the World Economic Forum in Davos by NGOs which wanted business to apologise for itself....
"Too many of the sessions have been an excuse to beat up on business, to say that business must do better," he said. "The pendulum is swinging too far in favour of the NGOs. The World Economic Forum is caving in to them. Davos has been hijacked by those who want business to apologise for itself."
Really, a little wider acceptance of relatively mild criticism and such sensitivity! Of course, this is an effective P.R. technique: don't let the norms ever move an inch towards the "wrong" direction. I wish we had it as together so that all the wrongs they do would generate strong reactions.
Posted by zeynep at 06:42 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack