" /> Things I Know I Know: March 2003 Archives

« February 2003 | Main | April 2003 »

March 31, 2003

When the Good go to Work

Among the essays I have on my list to write some day is the one expounding my thesis that it's not possible for large organizations to be ethical, even if all or almost all the people in the organization are 'good' people trying to do the right thing. Here, from Secrets by Daniel Ellsberg, is one of the reasons why this is so:

McNaughton's fear, he told me one afternoon when he had just come back from the White house, was that one day the president would turn to him and ask him what he thought about bombing. In a memoir written years later, NSC aide Chester Cooper describes having had a comparable fantasy more than once. The president would be going around the table asking if everyone agreed with his decisions, and he imagined himself saying when it came to his turn, "No, Mr. President, I do not agree!" As he was contemplating this thought, he would notice the president's eyes turning to him and he would hear himself saying, as he nodded yes, "I agree, Mr. President."

McNaughton told me, "I've asked myself what I would do." Then he paused and looked at me. "I would have to follow McNamara's lead. I'd have to say something along the same lines as McNamara. I couldn't contradict McNamara or under cut him in front of the president." I didn't say anything. He went on: "You know, my family owns a newspaper in Illinois. We don't have much to do with running it; that's for the editor. The main thing we have to do is pick the editor. And when we pick an editor, well, there're a number of things you look for, but my father taught me that the number one thing you look for is loyalty."

He continued to look at me, and I continued to listen. I knew why he was telling me this. He didn't define what he meant by loyalty, but it was clear enough from his story: Do what's good for your boss, the man who hired you; put that above what you think is best for the country, above giving the president or the secretary of defense your best advice if that would embarass your boss....

Current reading

I actually have finished several books lately (er, that is, in the last month or so...) and I intend to blog on them eventually. However...

I'm currently reading, Secrets by Daniel Ellsberg (subtitled: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers) and, given the war in Iraq and all the conflicting reports, things-we-can't-tell-you, and decisions that make no sense, it's a profoundly unsettling experience.

The Museum of Unworkable Devices

Can be found here.

March 28, 2003

Hart's a' Bloggin'

Gary Hart has started a weblog.

It has comments (moderated--wisely, I think). I'm looking forward to how it evolves. I'm certainly one who had mostly dismissed Gary Hart from public life, but I've been impressed with his speeches and writing recently. He strikes me as straightforward and intelligent and, most important, inclined to treat the issues as important rather than a game conducted for political points.

In his first entry, he says:

The Internet is clearly the most important new medium to help increase people's involvement in a "primary of ideas." It's an amazing tool for people to share ideas, talk about their concerns and their dreams, and debate the many important policy ideas that will affect our country's future.

I plan to use this blog for just such a discussion. From time to time, I'll post my thoughts on current policy matters, as well as share some stories about where I'm traveling and the people I'm meeting. I'll also ask some of my friends to share their thoughts as well. I cannot promise to be as skillful at this as many of those who have made the blogger universe such an important part of the internet. However, I'm committed to using the Internet as a vital tool to engage people on critical policy matters and the future of our country.

Good luck in the blogosphere, Mr. Hart.

What She Said

Jeanne D'Arc of Body and Soul has an elegant heartfelt post on humanity, history, truth and war:

Human emotions are enormously complicated. Everyone knows that about herself. Everyone sees that in her friends and family. Why don't we carry that knowledge into our reading of the news? Why, when we read about people in other countries, do we expect them to be less complex, less human than we are?

There's an article in the New York Times today about Iraqi refugees, who despised Saddam Hussein, and fled to Jordan, now returning to fight against the United States. Another, in The Guardian, reports Iraqis returning from Syria. Thousands of Iraqis have returned in the last ten days. I think I know how they feel. Well, "know" is probably the wrong word for that sticky web of thought and feeling. Let's say I think I've felt something similar to what they feel.

From the first time I heard the neoconservative dream that Iraqis would refuse to fight for Saddam and welcome American "liberators" with open arms, it seemed to me not only highly unlikely, but dehumanizing as well. As if oppressed people don't have the same mixed-up emotions that the rest of us have. As if complex inner lives were unique to technologically advanced societies. We want to believe that there's a small number of bad Iraqis who fight for Saddam, and an enormous number of good ones who are on our side, or will be as soon as they can break free enough to express their true emotions. After all, we're good, right? How could they fail to see that?

And now for something completely different...

Charming Billie and I were at a tracking seminar all last weekend.

We started the morning in the classroom talking about what tracking was, about the experience the seminar instructor brought to the table, about what people wanted from the seminar. After that, we drove out to a big area of open rolling hills to work dogs.

The attendees included people who had never tracked before, people who were working on a TD (first title) with their first dog, people who were working at TDX and VST level training, people who had trained multiple dogs and tracking judges. There were all breeds of dogs: Rottweilers (of course), Boxers, Miniature Pinschers, Otterhounds, Italian Greyhounds, Golden Retrievers, Airedales, and others. We started by pairing off the people who were just introducing their dogs to tracking so they could lay short tracks for each other. Part of the seminar cost included a packet that included flags, bright orange clothespins and a glove--all of which we'd use over the weekend.

The second exercise involved two people walking side by side for about 100 yards. One of these people was the actual tracklayer with a glove to leave at the end of the track, the second was a decoy. At about 100 yards each person made a ninety degree turn, one to the left and one to the right. The person with the glove then left the glove at the end of his or her track and both people returned to the start. The exercise for the dog was to follow the 'real' tracklayer to the glove at the end. A glove at the beginning of the track gave the dog the 'right' scent to follow.

After lunch, we went back to the fields to work with dogs, like Charming Billie, who are working on a TD. We did an exercise that was designed to introduce them to angled starts (which they will see in TDX and VST tests) and also to show us a way to build confidence on turns. The instructor uses articles the way I've often used treats on tracks, to reward the dogs for being right and to build confidence. The tracks consisted of a start flag, an article about 10 paces past the start flag, a corner and a final article about 20 paces from the corner. Articles in tracking can be gloves (TD), personal cloth and leather items like scarves, socks, gloves, shoes (TDX) or small cloth, metal, plastic, and leather items like gloves, switch plates, plastic lids, and luggage tags (VST). Another exercise, this one again for the intermediate dogs consisted of straight line tracks (about 100 paces) with a crosstrack at fifty paces. The crosstrack was marked so that the handler could watch their dog's reaction to the crosstrack. TDX tracks always have two crosstracks and dogs have to learn to make the right choice on the track.

Day two we again started in the classroom. People had questions about how to read your dog, what kinds of articles to use, aging tracks, preparing for tests, and many other topics. After about an hour we went off to a local college where the instructor was going to run her dog on a 500 yard VST track and where she had also laid 5 short tracks for people who were working their dogs on VST. I volunteered Billie to run one of the short tracks although she's never worked on tracks older than two hours before. The demo dog ran a track that began on grass at the edge of a parking lot. When we arrived we saw that the flag and the starting article had been removed (this is very common in VST since it's conducted on campuses and around buildings and places with heavy foot traffic and lawn mowers and groundskeepers). In VST tests, judges ask the tracklayer to bring a fifth article (four articles are laid on the track) so that if the start article is taken, there's still something with the tracklayer's scent on it to give the dog at the start.

With the extra article, the instructor started her dog. The track went along the grass, around a building, down stairs, through a small, enclosed brick area, turned on a sidewalk, and worked its way around a building, back into a parking lot, with a turn in the middle of a large number of parked cars and finished up on a small island in the middle of the parking lot where several people had walked their dogs before the track started. Along the way we encountered a loose dog (instructor's advice: always make sure your dog is under control, plan on stopping the track and proceeding when it's safe). Other important advice for VST tests: carry water, teach your dog to stop for water, and be prepared to use it. Another judge adds that most of the dogs that passed their VST tests were given water on the track.

We then run the five short tracks.

The first track, which was also missing the start flag and article goes down a sidewalk, turns up a driveway, goes down a set of open weave metal stairs, through a small courtyard and up another set of stairs. Billie would never do that in a million years, I think (she doesn't like open stairs, let alone ones you can see through to the ground--I make a note to work on this outside of tracking).

The second track starts on grass, turns on a sidewalk then goes up another sidewalk to the paved entryway to a building.

The third track is Billie's. Hers starts on grass, goes up a sidewalk and makes a turn in front of a doorway and goes down a set of steps (concrete, not open) and ends on grass. She has a little trouble starting. This is the first three hour old track she's ever done and I believe (as does the instructor) that the difference between two and three hours of age is one of those 'break points' after which everything is different. I let Billie sniff the article. She noses it around and gets the scent. I pick it up and she goes a few steps then stands there and looks, moves a little, looks some more. She starts in the wrong direction and I wait. Her nose isn't down and she's not really doing much. Finally, I offer her the article again. After sniffing it carefully a second time, she begins tracking. She tracks straight up the grass although the track itself is on the sidewalk, it's easier to catch the fringes of scent that linger in the grass. Then, when she reaches the building, the shade and the brick wall pull her in close. At the top of the stairs, where I have no expectations as she's never done anything like this before, she checks the door, checks either side, starts down one side of the stairs, comes back and tracks down the other side of the stairs out onto the grass and finds the glove. Hurray!

There are a couple more tracks I don't see, then it's off to lunch. After lunch we go back out to the fields to work on what we've learned so far. I partner up with the person I usually track with and we lay some short-ish tracks with no treats and gloves as rewards after the turns. Pretty good tracking by everyone We finish up the day by watching some of the other dogs work their short tracks and talking about the things dog people talk about when they get together: old dogs, old judges, past tracks, new ideas.

All in all a good seminar with lots of time for dogs and to be outdoors in great weather. I have many ideas I can't wait to try next time I go tracking, which is exactly what you ask a seminar to give you.

March 27, 2003

More Resignations

I'm a little slow on these because I'm behind on my blogging, but at least two more senior members of the Foreign Service have resigned.

Ann Wright, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia:

This is the only time in my many years serving America that I have felt I cannot represent the policies of an Administration of the United States. I disagree with the Administration’s policies on Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea and curtailment of civil liberties in the U.S. itself. I believe the Administration’s policies are making the world a more dangerous, not a safer, place. I feel obligated morally and professionally to set out my very deep and firm concerns on these policies and to resign from government service as I cannot defend or implement them.

...

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator and has done incredible damage to the Iraqi people and others of the region. I totally support the international community’s demand that Saddam’s regime destroy weapons of mass destruction.

However, I believe we should not use US military force without UNSC agreement to ensure compliance. In our press for military action now, we have created deep chasms in the international community and in important international organizations. Our policies have alienated many of our allies and created ill will in much of the world.

John Brown, senior member of the Foreign Service who served in the State Department for more than 20 years, primarily in Eastern Europe and Russia, has also resigned:

I am joining my colleague John Brady Kiesling in submitting my resignation from the Foreign Service (effective immediately) because I cannot in good conscience support President Bush’s war plans against Iraq.

...

Throughout the globe the United States is becoming associated with the unjustified use of force. The president’s disregard for views in other nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an anti-American century.

...via GovExec.com

Searching....

In the last month, 38 people have come to Things I Know I Know, looking for information on jet packs; 18 have come looking for Senator Byrd's speech; 12 searching for France's role in the American Revoultion (good for you!); and 2 looking for information on 'Al Franken satellite head'.....

I haven't been...

able to post much the last few days, but I've got a seminar report coming and a few other observations and links.

March 20, 2003

Why It Matters

I've mentioned this first bit before, but Hillary Clinton didn't win her seat in the US Senate in spite of the voters in rural, conservative upstate New York state. She won with the help of people in those counties. They voted for her despite controversy during her husband's presidency, despite agruments about whether she was enough of a New Yorker to run, despite some people's utter hatred of her. They did it, at least in part, because she was the candidate who came there and talked to them about economic hard times and lost opportunities as if what they experienced actually existed. Those votes were there for a Democrat to take--even a controversial, much reviled candidate--because she listened.

As I visit various left-leaning blogs, I see contempt, condescension, and dismissal of people in the 'Red' states. They're usually throw-away comments, sometimes made in the blog itself, sometimes made by visitors. And it bothers me, because it dismisses people who I think could be on our side.

I posted the following comments over at MaxSpeak in response to discussion generated by this post (about the tobacco farmer who drove his tractor into a pond in Washington, DC) and thought I'd repost them here (for the five or six people who come here occasionally):

You know, no one likes to be treated with contempt. And I can't figure out for the life of me why there's so much contempt for farmers in liberal circles. It bothers me quite a lot.

I agree strongly with Max that we need more ways for people to be free economic citizens. We need more ways to promote independence (for all of us, not just farmers). Whether we have economic freedom has a lot to do with whether we feel as if we can speak out on important issues. When you're most worried about getting a dime for your next meal, you're not going to criticize your employer for having the worst safety record in the business or increasing your hours without paying overtime.

Farms and farmers are failing not because we pay too much in subsidies (I mean, think about it) but because we pay them as little mind as necessary, because we promote agribusiness consolidation, which severely restricts their access to markets, and because we fail to add the value (and there is significant value) of stewardship of the land, returns to the environment, and economic stability.

Medium-sized farms support small towns. Large corporate farms do not. Medium-sized farmers buy locally. Large corporate farmers may not even buy in-state. When those medium-sized farms fail they take four or five other businesses with them. Poverty in rural areas is pervasive and deep and largely invisible to most people.

Hard-working, reasonably intelligent people have been forced, through bad advice, bad government programs, lack of power, and their own decisions into desperation and poverty and suicide. There's huge opportunity for creating influential progressive voters in rural communities...but it's not going to happen if we'd rather spend our time being snarky and superior.

...and this...

Two things:

A few years ago at the National Pork Congress, I was thinking about factory hog farms and pollution and production vs shoved-over-to-the-side-and-ignored 'alternative' agriculture and why people inssited on doing what, to me, seemed just willfully ignorant and destructive. And I had a revelation: all these people on the convention floor were just doing the best they could with what they had. It didn't make what they were doing less destructive or even less ignorant. But, basically, these were people who loved farming (even many of the agribusiness folks) and it was dying on them and they honestly didn't (and don't) know what to do about it. We can yell at them about what they're doing or we can invite them in, find common cause, and proceed together in areas like civil liberties and government regulation and promoting economic fairness. Most farmers want what we want--to make a living, to raise their families, to live in freedom. But they're not going to walk with us just so we can say--my god, you're ignorant aren't you.

A lot of farmers and rural dwellers are conservative, but a lot of them are 'old-style' conservatives, not Federalist society conservatives. There's a guy I know who lives well north of me in a very rural area with whom I've had political conversations for 10 years and we've never agreed on a single thing--taxes, government, women, nothing. And he told me the other day that he's pissed about the economy, worried about the PATRIOT act and has no faith at all in the Bush administration.

We need numbers and people and voices. We won't agree on everything, but the things we will agree on can use all of us to support them.

Farmers aren't more noble or purer or simpler than the rest of us. Neither are they stupider or more out of touch. They want, as I said above, what we all want. And they care a lot about individual freedoms and civil liberties. Their support often goes to Republicans because that's who they feel is listening to them and understanding what they're dealing with. You know, we can listen, too.

Farming

I have added a 'Farming' category at the right so all my posts on farming and rural life can be together instead of under 'General' (which is a stupid category which I wouldn't use at all if I weren't so right-brained).

I am not currently a farmer, in case anyone's wondering, though I've farmed, worked in agribusiness, been an agricultural researcher, live in 'flyover country' and care about what I eat and how we take care of the land.

This is not how it's supposed to work

President Bush calls seven million people world-wide, who come out to protest a war, a 'focus group.' We send letters and call our congressional representatives and the White House. We talk and we listen and we propose solutions, but it makes no difference. Our voices don't matter.

From Brian Doherty at Reason:

It seemed, for a moment, almost important—like democracy, a free people debating the most vital issue affecting the polis. But no one said what undoubtedly many of us were feeling, like a nagging sickness: It didn't matter. The world will little note nor long remember what they said there. But it will never forget what George W. Bush's army does in Iraq. Americans argued, prattled, commented, editorialized, marched in the streets, waved signs. None of it mattered a whit to the hyperpower. To the hyperpower, we are subjects, not citizens. It doesn't matter what we think when it comes to war. Politics, after all, stops at the water's edge, right?

March 19, 2003

Justice Bans Media From Free Speech Event

The mind boggles....

The Periodic Table of Haiku

...can be found here.

There's also, apparently, a Periodic Table of Poetry.

Robin Cook's Resignation

From BBC News:

...History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition [against terrorism].

The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.

Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.

Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.

Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired....

the speech can be read in its entirety here....

Because We Can

Idle Words is bringing us French Week...

It's French week here at Idle Words, where the Stars and Stripes and the Eagle salute the country that made them great. Every day for the next seven days, the better half and I will be manning the barricades (right next to the hot topless Liberty chick) for our beleaguered French friends, a daily défense d'honneur. If you're looking for liberty fries, you came to the wrong place.

Liberté! Égalité! Fraternité!

So far:

March 18, 2003

None of this matters really

...because the people and what they think don't seem to matter much right now.

But Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has a post about how we got where we are with respect to the UN and Iraq and war. Maybe, he says, we all thought we were talking about different things:

France, Russia and most of the rest of the countries on the Security Council thought they were signing on to a juiced-up version of inspections, basically like what we had until the old system broke down in 1998. That would mean a relatively open-ended process in which inspectors went into Iraq and searched around at will. If they found stuff it would be destroyed. If they obstructed the inspections, then the UN might sanction forcing the issue by authorizing an attack.

You might say that this is a lily-livered approach, or bad policy. But I think it's clearly what they thought were signing on to.

We, and perhaps also the Brits (but I have my doubts), had a very different idea. Our idea is (and possibly was then too) that Saddam had to make the positive decision to come forward and hand over what we accused him of having or that was it.

The problem is, it's not what we said:

The problem for the United States is that we pretty clearly went on the record validating this other interpretation. Here's what America's UN Representative John Negroponte said at the UN on the day the resolution passed ...

There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.

What he was saying there was that 1441 was not self-enforcing. Its language and what counted as an infraction was to be decided by the Security Council. This was the price we paid for getting for getting the unanimous vote.
What this means pretty clearly is that we cannot claim that Resolution 1441 gives us any basis for doing what we're about to do. The White House has sort of had it both ways on this -- on the one hand saying we're bagging the UN process and on the other saying 1441 gives us sanction. Clearly, it doesn't give us sanction since at the very least the expressed understanding of 1441 at the time was that only the Security Council could judge when 1441 had been be violated.

Brad DeLong says this:

To tell your allies that your word as a nation is not good--that agreements won't mean what you said they meant if you find it convenient to pretend otherwise--is extremely dangerous. It changes international relations from a search for mutual benefit into a struggle for power, and may have very bad implications for the long run.


It's this kind of thing that bothers me the most. There's so much lying going on. And the people who want war anyway seem determined to ignore it. To them, it doesn't seem to matter why we're going to war, whether our reasons are good, whether we have reasons that make sense to anyone who was raised on US history and the Constitution. What matters is that there be war. And that's not the way we were raised. It's not what we were taught. And it's not only confusing (if there are good reasons, lay them out for me without lying, without yelling and without calling names), it's disheartening.

We, who are...

From an Iragi weblog:

No one inside Iraq is for war (note I said war not a change of regime), no human being in his right mind will ask you to give him the beating of his life, unless you are a member of fight club that is, and if you do hear Iraqi (in Iraq, not expat) saying “come on bomb us” it is the exasperation and 10 years of sanctions and hardship talking. There is no person inside Iraq (and this is a bold, blinking and underlined inside) who will be jumping up and down asking for the bombs to drop. We are not suicidal you know, not all of us in any case.

Read the rest here....

New Mexico on truth, justice and the American way

The 46th legislature of the State of New Mexico, recently passed the following:

A JOINT MEMORIAL

AFFIRMING CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES; DECLARING OPPOSITION TO FEDERAL MEASURES THAT INFRINGE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES.


WHEREAS, the state of New Mexico is proud of its long and distinguished tradition of protecting the civil rights and liberties of its residents; and

WHEREAS, New Mexico has a diverse population, including immigrants and students, whose contributions to the community are vital to its economy, culture and civic character; and

WHEREAS, the preservation of civil rights and liberties is essential to the well-being of a democratic society; and

WHEREAS, federal, state and local governments should protect the public from terrorist attacks such as those that occurred on September 11, 2001 and should do so in a rational and deliberative fashion to ensure that a new security measure will enhance public safety without impairing constitutional rights or infringing on civil liberties; and

WHEREAS, government security measures that undermine fundamental rights do damage to American institutions and values that the residents of New Mexico hold dear; and

WHEREAS, the house of representatives believes that there is no inherent conflict between national security and the preservation of liberty and that Americans can be both safe and free; and

WHEREAS, federal policies adopted since September 11, 2001, including provisions in Public Law 107-56, known as the USA Patriot Act, and related executive orders, regulations and actions threaten fundamental rights and liberties

...

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO that it:

A. affirm its strong support for fundamental constitutional rights and its opposition to federal measures that infringe on these rights and liberties

...

D. direct public schools and institutions of higher education to provide notice to individuals whose education records have been obtained by law enforcement agents pursuant to Section 507 of the USA Patriot Act;

E. direct public libraries to post in a prominent place within the library a notice as follows: "WARNING: Under Section 215 of the federal USA Patriot Act (Public Law 107-56), records of books and other materials you borrow from this library may be obtained by federal agents. This law also prohibits librarians from informing you if records about you have been obtained by federal agents. Questions about this policy should be directed to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530."; and

F. direct the state official in charge of homeland security for New Mexico to seek periodically from federal authorities the following information in a form that facilitates an assessment of the effect of federal anti-terrorism efforts on the residents of the state of New Mexico and provide to the legislature and the interim corrections oversight and justice committee, no less than once every six months, a summary of the information obtained:

(1) the names of all residents of New Mexico who have been arrested or otherwise detained by federal authorities as a result of terrorism investigations since September 11, 2001, and:

(a) the location of each detainee;

(b) the circumstances that led to each detention;

(c) the charges, if any, lodged against each detainee; and

(d) the name of counsel, if any, representing each detainee;

(2) the number of search warrants that have been executed in New Mexico without notice to the subject of the warrant pursuant to Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act;

(3) the extent of electronic surveillance carried out in the state pursuant to powers granted in the USA Patriot Act;

(4) the extent to which federal authorities are monitoring political meetings, religious gatherings or other activities within New Mexico that are protected by the first Amendment of the United States constitution;

(5) the number of times education records have been obtained from public schools and institutions of higher learning in New Mexico pursuant to Section 507 of the USA Patriot Act;

(6) the number of times library records have been obtained from libraries in New Mexico pursuant to Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act; and

(7) the number of times records of books purchased by store patrons have been obtained from bookstores in New Mexico pursuant to Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act; and...

...read the full document here.

This is excellent. Thank you, New Mexico.

March 13, 2003

The snow, in its majestic equality...

or inequality, since no two snowflakes are alike (or, at least, lots and lots of them are different).

But enough about me...

snowcrystals.net has fascinating pictures of snowflakes . There's also information on how snowflakes form and other neat stuff.

March 12, 2003

Crime and Punishment

Oh, look, big surprise, drug treatment programs are more effective and cost less than prison:

Prosecutors can reduce drug crime more effectively by sending nonviolent drug offenders to a strict treatment program instead of prison, according to sponsors of a study released Tuesday.

Participants were 67% less likely to return to prison and the program costs about half as much as housing a person in prison for an equivalent amount of time.

Why don't we do more of this? Two reasons, we keep asking these methods to be perfect. Someone can make great political hay out of someone who went through a program like this and then went right out and did something heinous. But, guess what? Nothing's perfect. The question shouldn't be, were we decent to someone and they betrayed us. The question should be is it more effective than the alternative?

Second, we are a punishment culture. It doesn't feel right in some awful way that strikes at the core of what many of us believe, to change people who have done something wrong through positive rather than negative means. But really, in the end, what matters is they changed. Not whether they know they were wrong, not whether they had enough bad stuff done to them to make up for it. Is society better off with people who are brutalized or people who have changed? The answer is simple, although sometimes getting to the question isn't simple at all.

...via TalkLeft

March 11, 2003

Whither Turkey

The Washington Post reported:

Turkish ruling party leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, speaking on national television after an election victory that clears the way for him to become prime minister, suggested tonight that he would let U.S. troops in Turkey only if the United States provided stronger assurances that the interests of his nation would be protected in a postwar Iraq.

Erdogan also indicated he was in no hurry to call a second vote on the issue in parliament, despite growing pressure from the United States for a decision that would allow the Pentagon to go ahead with plans for a northern front against Iraq by moving troops into southern Turkey. U.S. ships carrying tanks and equipment have been waiting near Turkish ports for weeks, and U.S. officials have threatened to give up on Turkey and send the ships to Kuwait instead

Erdogan said that a vote would likely not take place until after March 19th, unless the Bush administration addressed concerns immediately:

In the interview, Erdogan blamed the United States for rushing him to go to parliament last week before he had gathered enough support, and for alienating the Turkish public with statements that cast their resistance to the U.S. deployment as a bargaining ploy for more economic aid. Now, he said, the Bush administration would have to wait for these bad feelings to ease.

"I shouldn't give a definite date right now, but the U.S. has to take certain steps," he said. "As long as these steps are not taken, it is difficult for us to soften this climate in Turkey."

Meanwhile, preparations go on.

...via TalkLeft

What's Out There?

The SETI@home project has found about 150 signals that might be evidence of intelligence in the universe:

After more than a million years of computation by more than 4 million computers worldwide, the SETI@home screensaver that crunches data in search of intelligent signals from space has produced a list of candidate radio sources that deserve a second look.

March 07, 2003

Home Furnishings

You must all go look at this chair.

It would sure change the look of my living room...

March 06, 2003

The Toaster Museum

is looking for funds so it can move into a permanent home.

I'm just glad I now know that there were once toy toasters that actually worked, a toaster mosaic made out of 3, 053 pieces of toast, and people with toaster tattoos...

Crypto-history

Someone is selling an Enigma machine on eBay

...via BoingBoing

Things that go blimp in the night

Sure, you think blimps are just going to be innocent hours of pure fun, but sometimes there's just the horror....

March 03, 2003

The world's smallest piano

There's not much to say about this, except it's a really tiny piano

For All you lucky Poor People....

Ftrain.com has something to say about the current idiotic idea to label the poor 'lucky duckies' and suggest they should pay more of their meager income to support the rest of us.

When I hear that poor folks aren't taxed enough, I think back to those years when, suddenly, unexpectedly reduced to poverty from the middle class, my mother and I ate so much canned tuna that we would swell up during the hot summer because of all the mercury in our bloodstreams. After the 10,000th tuna fish sandwich, I began to identify with the fish. I started taking baths instead of showers. I would see a fisherman and start crying.

...

But if someone had come in back in the day and wanted to take away some money, if we didn't get that refund out of Mom's taxes, then forget it. No Ftrain, possibly no Paul. Seriously. It was that tight. And even if it wasn't that tight, goddamn it, we deserved a monthly trip to Dairy Queen too, you fuckers, and maybe even a few nice shirts. It just makes me wonder at the inhuman lack of empathy of the person who would tax the poor. I know such a proposal will not get through the House, I know someone has erected a windmill at which I can tilt, but how can anyone lack empathy to that point? How can someone be that awful to even suggest that?

...

But what I'm saying is, I hope you will remember to be kind to the poor, even when they are annoying and unattractive, and to those who do not have as much power as you, and even more than kind, fair, and even more than fair, generous. Because whether you believe in Jesus or Allah or no one, whether you believe in a strong market economy or collective farms, there's ideology, and then there's decency, and if you can't have decency, then fuck ideology, you're no friend of mine or anyone, and I hope Pete Seeger comes to your house and sings "Little Boxes" until you, too, want to exercise your second amendment rights.

March 02, 2003

Guilty because I want you to be...

TalkLeft asks :how do you prove your innocence?

How difficult would it be for you to prove your innocence, particularly if you were in a foreign country and the FBI said it was after you? For this 72 year old Englishman, on a wine-tasting vacation in South Africa, it was pretty tough--he spent 20 days behind bars in Durban, due to the FBI's mistake.

There's an update on this story here.

The concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' is an important one and we've been whittling away at it for years, from prosecutors who say they don't care if a man is innocent to the Bush administration's unrelenting attacks on due process and free speech. Even worse, Bond was left to rot in jail because no one could be bothered to do the basic routine checking required to see that he wasn't the person they were after.

The FBI say it's Bond's own fault really for being cooperative and not kicking up a big enough fuss: "One of the problems was that Mr. Bond waived his right to an extradition hearing, part of which would have included a check on his identity," said Nancy Harrera a spokes[woman] for the US attorney in Houston.

March 01, 2003

Turkey says no

News24.com reports on today's vote in the Turkey parliament which refused the US permission to use Turkey as a staging area in war with Iraq.

US officials appeared stunned by the Turkish parliament's refusal Saturday to allow the deployment of 62 000 US troops for a possible war with Iraq.

The officials, who had been prepared to hail the parliament's approval of the deployment based on initial reports that the vote had succeeded, expressed consternation when told that it had in fact been defeated.

"They did what?" blurted one State Department official.

That official and others declined to comment on the nullification of the close vote and were seeking clarification from the US embassy in Ankara as well as Turkish authorities.

Twenty Questions

Try this. It's pretty good.

Standing on Principle

As published in the New York Times, US Diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, sent the following in a letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell:

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

...

The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.