Holy Shit. This article in the New York Review of Books is infuriating. The article describes a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross regarding the treatment of the 14 "high value detainees" that were until recently kept in secret detention sites outside the US. The description of their interrogations is appalling and very clearly torture. Through all of this, it seems that senior officials were aware of and sometimes directing the torture.
Bush has said that his administration did not torture. But the only way that statement is true is through the cruel and ugly logic of his torture memo, where torture is defined only as causing death, organ failure, or the loss of functioning of a body part. Rejecting that narrow definition of torture, we can accept that Bush did in fact torture prisoners.
Read the article for yourself. And get angry.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Book Report: Chasing the Flame (1)
I am not ready yet to give my thoughts on Samantha Powers' book Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World. I finished reading it a while ago, but I have not been able to organize all my thoughts on it yet. So while I do that, here is a post with some golden quotes from the book (the Kindle is amazing!).
Here is the quote of the book:
Here is the quote of the book:
To nonexperts, humanitarian action and human rights sounded like synonyms or, at the very least, complements. But he knew that, in the real world, feeding people was often incompatible with speaking out. "How do we reconcile the need for humanitarian access and thus discretion, with the need, sometimes the obligation, for human rights?" he asked a gathering of diplomats from donor countries in Geneva, undoubtedly with the events of Zaire and Tanzania on his mind. "In the face of overwhelming human rights abuses, when do humanitarian agencies withdraw?"And now some others to get you thinking:
Released from the cold war stalemate, the Security Council of the 1990s had been liberated to enforce international peace and security. But the back-to-back calamities had made it clear that, if civilians were not pawns in a larger ideological struggle, as they had been in the cold war, their welfare would command hardly any attention at all. Instead of using the Security Council to establish and enforce a new global order, the major powers sent lightly armed peacekeepers into harm’s way simply to monitor the carnage. The results were devastating in two regards. First, civilians were murdered en masse. And second, the UN peacekeepers took far more of the blame than the politicians who had handed them an assignment that was, Vieira de Mello liked to say, "mission impossible."This last quote is amazing.
in the 1980s Western governments had spent millions aiding the Cambodian refugees as a way of destabilizing the Vietnam-installed regime in Phnom Penh. But in the Great Lakes area, a region of marginal strategic value, Western governments were not using aid as a tool for promoting their national interests. Rather, they were using aid as a substitute for meaningful foreign policy engagement of any kind. [Something Western governments do way too often.]
He urged UN officials to accept "that humanitarian crises are almost always political crises, that humanitarian action always has political consequences, both perceived and real." Since everybody else was playing politics with humanitarian aid, he wrote, "we can hardly afford to be apolitical."
In 1999 scholar Edward Luttwak published an influential article in Foreign Affairs entitled "Give War a Chance," in which he suggested that aid workers and peace-brokers were prolonging wars that would only end permanently if they were "allowed to run their natural course." "Policy elites," Luttwak wrote, "should actively resist the emotional impulse to intervene in other peoples’ wars—not because they are indifferent to human suffering but precisely because they care about it."
Vieira de Mello wrote a steaming letter to the editor slamming Luttwak’s "simplistic compilation of old arguments and wrong conclusions." He faulted Luttwak for his "uniform picture of war." Since few conflicts tidily confined themselves within national borders, Vieira de Mello argued, turning one’s back on violence would often result in wider, messier regional conflicts. In addition, since so many governments and rebel movements benefited from war, they had an incentive to prolong war on their own. They didn’t need any help from aid workers.
While he acknowledged that humanitarian action could sometimes have perverse consequences, he wrote that "to deny aid altogether is not only unhelpful, it is unthinkable." He noted that he generally valued critical commentary, but he found unhelpful such "oversimplified accounts far removed from the complexities of actual war and blanket statements that lead to quietism." [I have heard this same argument before, and de Mello's response is perfect.]
But he thought the flawed tendency of aid workers to give aid uncritically and indefinitely was a lesser danger than the tendency of rich countries to turn their backs on humanitarian crises altogether.
Only when Western powers stood together unequivocally, flexing their collective diplomatic and financial muscles, did Russia and China come around, as in the Persian Gulf War or in the belated decision to act militarily in Bosnia. But Vieira de Mello knew that occasions would arise when all the Western unity and diplomacy in the world would not change their views. In those circumstances, he was prepared to admit, exceptional emergencies might require a "coalition of the willing" to bypass the paralyzed Council. Ever so rarely, the urgency and legitimacy of the cause could excuse the illegality of the procedures. [Notice how this echoes the US justification for Iraq - without the legitimacy of the cause.]
He adopted a formulation common among those who supported NATO’s action but were nervous about its implications: The war was illegal (under the procedural rules of the UN Charter) but legitimate (according to the substantive ideals the UN was trying to advance).
he also did not understand why disarmament was a key item on the Security Council checklist while human rights were not. "A regime that can grossly violate the rights of its own people is ipso facto a threat to its neighbors and to regional and international peace and security," he insisted.
He knew that the organization he cherished was at once an actor in its own right and simply a building, no better or worse than the collective will of the countries that constituted it.
but he never imagined that U.S. planners would think so little about the peace [in Iraq]. Surely, he thought, they had watched as UN peacekeepers foundered in their "morning after" efforts to maintain order in the 1990s. Surely the Coalition would take precautions to stave off the kind of chaos that could be far deadlier than anything a regular army could unleash. Surely they would understand that establishing human security was a prerequisite to achieving other aims.
In 2000 he had embraced a new norm first put forth by an independent commission: the "responsibility to protect." The first responsibility to protect individuals from violence fell to those individuals’ government, but when that government proved unable (in a failing state) or unwilling (in a repressive state) to offer such protection, then the responsibility vested upward to the international community, which had a duty to mobilize the means to stop mass murder.
Book Report: Shia Revival
I finished reading The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr. The book mostly focuses on the conflict between Shia and Sunni faiths, with an emphasis on Shiaism, and includes a brief history of Islam (again, with a focus on Shiaism). The book is well written and so it was a quick read.
I learned two main things from this book. First, our understanding of the Middle East and their politics, as covered in the press, is highly skewed. Who we see as the villains and heroes depends on who likes us and who does not. In the past we have seen Iran as a villain and Saudi Arabia as a hero. In fact, as 9/11 taught us, it should be the other way around. We even judge Iran's democracy more harshly because of our relationship with them and yet don't judge Saudi Arabia's repressive government.
The author sees all developments in the Middle East through the lens of Shia and Sunni interactions (conflicts) and that other issues are often pawns in that interaction. An Iraq with closer ties to Iran can counter strength of Sunni governments, whose oppression and intolerance have a negative impact on the region (which is not at all how the US press sees it). Also, the Israel / Palestine issue is manipulated to garner popular support and strength in the region.
The book manages to provide a much more nuanced, and less negative, view of Shias and Iran specifically. Unfortunately, I do not think Americans are ready to accept that view.
The second thing I learned was of course how similar Islam and Christianity are when you contrast their histories. Both religions have had to respond to oppression against their faithful. Early Christians choose martyrdom (a really good analysis of the Gnostic Book of Judas suggests the author believed that martyrdom was against God's will - leading sheep to the slaughter) as a way to promote the faith. In the face of oppression, Shias have at times chosen martyrdom (as the celebration of Ashora remembers) at times modified their faith, and at times simply withstood the oppression.
Both faiths have had to deal with modernization as well, although it seems Islam has had the greater challenge since the modern world has seemed to leave Muslims behind. This debate largely revolves around traditionalism versus change. The faiths also face(d) conflicts over who should lead the faith and who should lead the government - and whether those two should be the same.
The issue that really struck me though was how the religions debate internally whether individual piety or social justice is more important - essentially whether the faith should be inward looking or outward looking. Around the 1950s, Shia clerics argued that the faith was too focused on piety and did not do enough to fight for changes to make people's lives better. Through these teachings, these Shias were arguing for revolution and social change - some argued in support of communism.
This book is a must read because it can both humanize Shias and help people to think about our role in the Middle East differently. We should be supporting states based not on their rhetoric towards us, but how their actions affect us and their own people. Also, by better understanding the power plays between Sunnis and Shias, we can better manage issues and conflicts in the region.
I learned two main things from this book. First, our understanding of the Middle East and their politics, as covered in the press, is highly skewed. Who we see as the villains and heroes depends on who likes us and who does not. In the past we have seen Iran as a villain and Saudi Arabia as a hero. In fact, as 9/11 taught us, it should be the other way around. We even judge Iran's democracy more harshly because of our relationship with them and yet don't judge Saudi Arabia's repressive government.
The author sees all developments in the Middle East through the lens of Shia and Sunni interactions (conflicts) and that other issues are often pawns in that interaction. An Iraq with closer ties to Iran can counter strength of Sunni governments, whose oppression and intolerance have a negative impact on the region (which is not at all how the US press sees it). Also, the Israel / Palestine issue is manipulated to garner popular support and strength in the region.
The book manages to provide a much more nuanced, and less negative, view of Shias and Iran specifically. Unfortunately, I do not think Americans are ready to accept that view.
The second thing I learned was of course how similar Islam and Christianity are when you contrast their histories. Both religions have had to respond to oppression against their faithful. Early Christians choose martyrdom (a really good analysis of the Gnostic Book of Judas suggests the author believed that martyrdom was against God's will - leading sheep to the slaughter) as a way to promote the faith. In the face of oppression, Shias have at times chosen martyrdom (as the celebration of Ashora remembers) at times modified their faith, and at times simply withstood the oppression.
Both faiths have had to deal with modernization as well, although it seems Islam has had the greater challenge since the modern world has seemed to leave Muslims behind. This debate largely revolves around traditionalism versus change. The faiths also face(d) conflicts over who should lead the faith and who should lead the government - and whether those two should be the same.
The issue that really struck me though was how the religions debate internally whether individual piety or social justice is more important - essentially whether the faith should be inward looking or outward looking. Around the 1950s, Shia clerics argued that the faith was too focused on piety and did not do enough to fight for changes to make people's lives better. Through these teachings, these Shias were arguing for revolution and social change - some argued in support of communism.
This book is a must read because it can both humanize Shias and help people to think about our role in the Middle East differently. We should be supporting states based not on their rhetoric towards us, but how their actions affect us and their own people. Also, by better understanding the power plays between Sunnis and Shias, we can better manage issues and conflicts in the region.
Economy, Interest Rates, and Cycles
As I have been thinking about the economic crisis, one thing keeps nagging at me. I have thought for a long time that interest rates were too low, and yet they kept getting lower. The constant lowering of interest rates during high growth seemed to have been an attempt to maintain growth and prevent a recession. And that decision was made on the assumption that we could actually prevent recessions.
This article in the Atlantic however suggests that the normal business cycle (boom and bust) still exists and maybe always will - that we have not conquered it. So maybe we should have raised interest rates during high growth instead of lowering them to maintain the high growth. By lowering them further while we were growing, we not only created a bubble, but removed one major mechanism we have for getting ourselves out of the recession. Interest rates cannot be lowered further, so the Fed is left with creative but risky mechanisms to get the economy going again.
There has been a lot of talk about lax regulation under Greenspan, and rightly so. But I think the Fed's policy on interest rates needs to be considered as well.
This article in the Atlantic however suggests that the normal business cycle (boom and bust) still exists and maybe always will - that we have not conquered it. So maybe we should have raised interest rates during high growth instead of lowering them to maintain the high growth. By lowering them further while we were growing, we not only created a bubble, but removed one major mechanism we have for getting ourselves out of the recession. Interest rates cannot be lowered further, so the Fed is left with creative but risky mechanisms to get the economy going again.
There has been a lot of talk about lax regulation under Greenspan, and rightly so. But I think the Fed's policy on interest rates needs to be considered as well.
Gay Marriage: What Does the Bible Say?
Newsweek recently had an interesting article focusing on gay marriage. The article tried to engage with Christian arguments against gay marriage, instead of simply dismissing the Bible as an invaluable place to derive policy. Overall, the author made some good points, but oversimplified others. At the same time, I don't know how you can really engage in a discussion on textual teachings of the Bible and be thorough while also meeting space constraints of a Newsweek article.
Her first point, and what I have come to believe, is that most people who oppose gay marriage cannot do it using Biblical textual literalism, since almost no one actually follows all things taught in the Bible. Modern Christians regularly disregard teachings from the Old Testament, especially Leviticus, one of the few places male homosexuality is mentioned.
So if textual literalism is not driving Christians to oppose gay marriage, what is? The common response is support for a traditional family. It is this part of the argument where the author oversimplifies. She looks back to the Old Testament families (especially Abraham and Jacob) and suggests that since they had multiple wives, than the Bible cannot be the source of a focus on the one male - one female family unit. This argument does not make sense if we see that the teachings of Jesus often conflict with, and probably were meant to change, teachings in the Old Testament. The loving and peaceful Jesus was very different from what appears to be a vengeful Old Testament God. So if Jesus did preach about family units, than Jacob's multiple wives doesn't matter as much.
Unfortunately, I don't know as much about all of the teachings of Jesus, so I don't know what focus he put on families. But from what I understand, his (and Paul's) opposition to divorce is far stronger than opposition to gay relationships (the author rightly mentions this as well). So this begs the question - why does modern Christianity put far more focus on gay marriage than on actually dealing with the bigger problems facing what the Bible upholds as the traditional family unit? Through this lens, it seems like bigotry masking itself as righteousness.
If Christians really want to focus on strengthening families, then they need to focus on things that are actually affecting families. If high divorce rates and single family households are contrary to what the Bible upholds as the correct family unit, then Christians should deal with these issues, which are not related to homosexuality at all.
The bottom line is that opposition to gay marriage makes little sense even if you accept that the Bible can be a reasonable place to draw moral lessons. Almost no one can claim they are Biblical literalists and looking at the spirit of the text gives no clues to understand why opposing gay marriage should be a major focus of Christians hoping to protect families.
Her first point, and what I have come to believe, is that most people who oppose gay marriage cannot do it using Biblical textual literalism, since almost no one actually follows all things taught in the Bible. Modern Christians regularly disregard teachings from the Old Testament, especially Leviticus, one of the few places male homosexuality is mentioned.
So if textual literalism is not driving Christians to oppose gay marriage, what is? The common response is support for a traditional family. It is this part of the argument where the author oversimplifies. She looks back to the Old Testament families (especially Abraham and Jacob) and suggests that since they had multiple wives, than the Bible cannot be the source of a focus on the one male - one female family unit. This argument does not make sense if we see that the teachings of Jesus often conflict with, and probably were meant to change, teachings in the Old Testament. The loving and peaceful Jesus was very different from what appears to be a vengeful Old Testament God. So if Jesus did preach about family units, than Jacob's multiple wives doesn't matter as much.
Unfortunately, I don't know as much about all of the teachings of Jesus, so I don't know what focus he put on families. But from what I understand, his (and Paul's) opposition to divorce is far stronger than opposition to gay relationships (the author rightly mentions this as well). So this begs the question - why does modern Christianity put far more focus on gay marriage than on actually dealing with the bigger problems facing what the Bible upholds as the traditional family unit? Through this lens, it seems like bigotry masking itself as righteousness.
If Christians really want to focus on strengthening families, then they need to focus on things that are actually affecting families. If high divorce rates and single family households are contrary to what the Bible upholds as the correct family unit, then Christians should deal with these issues, which are not related to homosexuality at all.
The bottom line is that opposition to gay marriage makes little sense even if you accept that the Bible can be a reasonable place to draw moral lessons. Almost no one can claim they are Biblical literalists and looking at the spirit of the text gives no clues to understand why opposing gay marriage should be a major focus of Christians hoping to protect families.
Book Report: The Bottom Billion
I read Paul Collier's The Bottom Billion a while ago, but never published this post. I did however publish a joint book report on this book and The End of Poverty over at the short-lived human rights blog. I have been reading (slowly) all of the popular books on development, and this was the one I started with.
To summarize quickly, Collier takes a very pro-growth position on how to improve the countries in the bottom billion - the worst performing countries. He uses statistical modeling to look at what factors affect growth, and he finds that being landlocked, resource rich (oil or diamonds for example), recent conflict or coups, and poor democracy - especially lack of an open press all have negative correlations with growth.
His solutions therefore are to promote democracy, export diversity, and international intervention during / following conflicts. I can agree with all of these, especially intervention. I firmly believe that more peacekeeping missions are both good for stability (obviously) but also a moral necessity to protect the victims of conflict. Sound democracy is hard to argue against also, since it can lead to pressure on the government to make good decisions. And countries with one major commodity can see their revenue misused and their exchange rates harmed (international aid can have the same impact).
I fear that I am oversimplifying, as well as leaving things out. I don't have the energy right now to really get into the details of his economic proposals. The point though is that he analysis made sense, but it seemed both too broad and quick, as well as somewhat cold in its tone. His arguments were all about economics, to the point that his main concern was to see positive growth that might get these countries out of their horrible situation over 20 years or so. What he didn't focus enough on was what to do right now to improve their situation. Their conditions are so horrible that we need equal focus to long term solutions and short-term fixes and I felt that his book was mostly focused on the long term.
To summarize quickly, Collier takes a very pro-growth position on how to improve the countries in the bottom billion - the worst performing countries. He uses statistical modeling to look at what factors affect growth, and he finds that being landlocked, resource rich (oil or diamonds for example), recent conflict or coups, and poor democracy - especially lack of an open press all have negative correlations with growth.
His solutions therefore are to promote democracy, export diversity, and international intervention during / following conflicts. I can agree with all of these, especially intervention. I firmly believe that more peacekeeping missions are both good for stability (obviously) but also a moral necessity to protect the victims of conflict. Sound democracy is hard to argue against also, since it can lead to pressure on the government to make good decisions. And countries with one major commodity can see their revenue misused and their exchange rates harmed (international aid can have the same impact).
I fear that I am oversimplifying, as well as leaving things out. I don't have the energy right now to really get into the details of his economic proposals. The point though is that he analysis made sense, but it seemed both too broad and quick, as well as somewhat cold in its tone. His arguments were all about economics, to the point that his main concern was to see positive growth that might get these countries out of their horrible situation over 20 years or so. What he didn't focus enough on was what to do right now to improve their situation. Their conditions are so horrible that we need equal focus to long term solutions and short-term fixes and I felt that his book was mostly focused on the long term.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Only Cure for Steroids
I have been despondent about the ability of steroids testing to ever keep up with the cheaters. I believed that the cheaters would always have more resources than, and therefore be multiple steps ahead of, the testing agencies. I still think this is the case. But I recently came across a testing policy that would actually combat this and could be a real deterrent for steroids use. Here is the most important part of the proposal, via Freakonomics:
This is the only method that would actually be effective. And the fact that we don't see it, and won't ever see it, shows me that baseball is not actually committed to ending steroid use. The unions would never allow it, and Major League Baseball will never push hard for it. What a shame.
An independent laboratory stores urine and blood samples for all players, and tests these blood samples 10 years, 20 years, and 30 years later using the most up-to-date technology available.He has other suggestions, but this is the best one. Cheaters know they can beat the system now, but they also must know testing will eventually catch up to their methods years from now. The next step would be to incorporate clauses in contracts that impose penalties years later if positive results come back years later.
This is the only method that would actually be effective. And the fact that we don't see it, and won't ever see it, shows me that baseball is not actually committed to ending steroid use. The unions would never allow it, and Major League Baseball will never push hard for it. What a shame.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The Bible, Again
In a previous post I mentioned how I was interested in reading the Bible primarily because I wanted to know where it actually talked about homosexuality. In looking back, I realize I did not make it clear why I would be interested in that. In case you do not know me as well, my interest is in how a loving God could ban something that, when done between two consenting adults can be just as beautiful as any heterosexual relationship.
My interest therefore is where in the Bible gay relationships are mentioned, what the context is, and how it compares to other proscriptions of the Bible. I assume that many people who argue against recognizing gay marriage do so with little real knowledge of the Bible and so my goal is to know the Bible better than they do.
In truth, I think I also oversimplified. I also want to read the Bible to understand myself better, to understand my family (ancestry) better, and to understand other conservative thought better.
My interest therefore is where in the Bible gay relationships are mentioned, what the context is, and how it compares to other proscriptions of the Bible. I assume that many people who argue against recognizing gay marriage do so with little real knowledge of the Bible and so my goal is to know the Bible better than they do.
In truth, I think I also oversimplified. I also want to read the Bible to understand myself better, to understand my family (ancestry) better, and to understand other conservative thought better.
Big Mac - Hitting Coach
I will always have a soft spot for Mark McGwire. Granted, I am disappointed in how he conducted himself (allegedly) in his chase for the homerun record. But heroes from your youth are hard to topple, and when they do fall, they rarely fall all the way.
So this article in the Times, about his foray back into baseball as a hitting instructor, makes me smile. I am happy that he is finding joy in baseball again. At the same time, I can still admit that he will need to come clean about his use of performance enhancing drugs at some point. He cannot keep avoiding the issue. He owes it to his fans. But more than that, he owes it to those who might come next and follow his example.
So this article in the Times, about his foray back into baseball as a hitting instructor, makes me smile. I am happy that he is finding joy in baseball again. At the same time, I can still admit that he will need to come clean about his use of performance enhancing drugs at some point. He cannot keep avoiding the issue. He owes it to his fans. But more than that, he owes it to those who might come next and follow his example.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Child Soldiers
The problem with a book like A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Child Soilder and a movie like Blood Diamond, is they mostly raise awareness of situations that are long since over. You are left enraged that these conditions existed, but you are left without an outlet. The inevitable question that arises is where the current crises are. Unfortunately, that information is not as readily available, as these incidents are not covered widely. I should have posted about this a long time ago, but here is a brief word about where current child soldier incidents are:
Well, knowing is half the battle, right? The other half is action...
The 13 countries where groups that recruit child soldiers operate are Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, Myanmar, Nepal, Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Colombia, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Uganda, according to the report.Some of these should be no surprise. Congo, Somalia, and Sudan are homes to some of the worst conflicts right now and I imagine that many years from now, the next books and movies will be set in these countries. Sri Lanka continues to battle the Tamil Tiger terrorist group. I have heard about Myanmar's use of child soldiers. It is surprising though that Afghanistan is of course on our radar in the US, but allegations of using child soldiers is not discussed.
Well, knowing is half the battle, right? The other half is action...
No Matter the Consequences
Just a little while ago, I was reading Chasing the Flame, a book about Sergio Vierra de Mello, and I watched the American Experience movies on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. Needless to say, these things both made me tremendously sad yet filled me with a desire to live a life fighting against injustice, regardless of the consequences. Unfortunately, that is not what I do right now. But I am working on that. Kind of.
One thing that stood out, was this poem that Robert Kennedy was fond of by Aeschylus (he read it the night Dr. King was assassinated):
Kennedy, above the other two I mentioned, was taken before he was able to show any of his real potential. With Kennedy's death, Nixon was elected to the presidency. I cannot even comprehend (but others can) the different world we might have lived in had RFK lived and won instead of Nixon.
One thing that stood out, was this poem that Robert Kennedy was fond of by Aeschylus (he read it the night Dr. King was assassinated):
Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.Each time I read these words, they move me.
Kennedy, above the other two I mentioned, was taken before he was able to show any of his real potential. With Kennedy's death, Nixon was elected to the presidency. I cannot even comprehend (but others can) the different world we might have lived in had RFK lived and won instead of Nixon.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Reading the Bible
A writer for Slate recently read the Old Testament of the Bible and wrote an article, (and a book) about the experience. Reading the Bible does not seem like that big of a deal, until you consider how few people actually do. Instead of displaying any stereotypes I have of religious groups in the US, I'll just reference the writer's point that only evangelical protestants really read the Bible.
I recently began reading the Bible, with the hope of at least being able to talk more intelligently about what it does and does not say. My main reason was to learn more about how and when the Bible disapproves of homosexuality. But I also wanted a more general understanding.
This is no small undertaking, and I have made limited progress. But my thoughts so far are similar to David Plotz's.
I also understand Plotz when he says that his heroes in the Bible are those who question God. In fact, one of my favorite parts of Slaughter House Five is when the narrator tells of his love/respect for Lot's wife because she looked back at God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah even though it turned her into a pillar of salt.
I plan to continue reading the Bible when I have time, although it will be a very slow process. It is interesting reading, although long passages of boring narration surround the interesting and relevant stories. I'm sure I'll have more to say as I read.
I recently began reading the Bible, with the hope of at least being able to talk more intelligently about what it does and does not say. My main reason was to learn more about how and when the Bible disapproves of homosexuality. But I also wanted a more general understanding.
This is no small undertaking, and I have made limited progress. But my thoughts so far are similar to David Plotz's.
After reading about the genocides, the plagues, the murders, the mass enslavements, the ruthless vengeance for minor sins (or none at all), and all that smiting—every bit of it directly performed, authorized, or approved by God—I can only conclude that the God of the Hebrew Bible, if He existed, was awful, cruel, and capricious. He gives us moments of beauty—such sublime beauty and grace!—but taken as a whole, He is no God I want to obey and no God I can love.I have similar feelings about God's role in the world we live in as a whole, and maybe one day I will share a more personal post I have written on the topic.
I also understand Plotz when he says that his heroes in the Bible are those who question God. In fact, one of my favorite parts of Slaughter House Five is when the narrator tells of his love/respect for Lot's wife because she looked back at God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah even though it turned her into a pillar of salt.
I plan to continue reading the Bible when I have time, although it will be a very slow process. It is interesting reading, although long passages of boring narration surround the interesting and relevant stories. I'm sure I'll have more to say as I read.
Losing Faith
As much as it pains me to say this, I am losing faith in Governor Paterson. And it seems I am not alone. There is not one thing to point to, but a collection of small decisions that do not make sense. I understand that the state is facing a large budget deficit. In two of his proposed solutions, one borrows from the future to pay a part of next year's deficit and the other cuts funding for a cheap but meaningful service (Governor's Island) for very small budget savings.
In fact, I perceive that his administration is trying to balance the budget through lots of small changes that might affect only small constituencies instead of big but painful changes. This choice makes me question his leadership. I want a governor who is going to stand up and make bold choices in the face of a terrible economy. Instead, I feel like he wants to slide by quietly and hope to not makes waves with his budget decisions. Budget gimmicks and cutting of cheap services do not get a government through a recession. Only tough but smart choices will.
I also feel like we have a different David Paterson than the one who was lieutenant governor and senate minority leader. I was expecting someone who was liberal but collegial. Instead, we seem to have a moderate - one who is easing a Pataki environmental decision and less vocal about reforms to the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
Of course, you can draw a comparison to Obama - another person who seemed to be liberal but collegial and instead is showing to be more moderate - but Obama seems more in charge and willing to make tough decisions and defend them. If Paterson is going to win back trust, he is going to have to be more transparent about, and show strength in, his choices.
In fact, I perceive that his administration is trying to balance the budget through lots of small changes that might affect only small constituencies instead of big but painful changes. This choice makes me question his leadership. I want a governor who is going to stand up and make bold choices in the face of a terrible economy. Instead, I feel like he wants to slide by quietly and hope to not makes waves with his budget decisions. Budget gimmicks and cutting of cheap services do not get a government through a recession. Only tough but smart choices will.
I also feel like we have a different David Paterson than the one who was lieutenant governor and senate minority leader. I was expecting someone who was liberal but collegial. Instead, we seem to have a moderate - one who is easing a Pataki environmental decision and less vocal about reforms to the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
Of course, you can draw a comparison to Obama - another person who seemed to be liberal but collegial and instead is showing to be more moderate - but Obama seems more in charge and willing to make tough decisions and defend them. If Paterson is going to win back trust, he is going to have to be more transparent about, and show strength in, his choices.
Progress in DRC?
The developments in the Democratic Republic of Congo continue to fill me with hope. It really looks like one of the most violent regions in the world may get a break. It is particularly exciting given that the region includes the Virunga National Park, a rich rain forest home to the largest population of mountain gorillas, among others. With peace, tourism might return, bringing some prosperity to the region. At least it might allow protection of the park and the gorillas to return.
Of course, I need to temper my hope with some realism. Congo has seen positive developments in the past, only to see greater and more deadly setbacks. In addition, while one of the insurgent groups has folded, there are other economic factors that impact stability for the residents and protection of the park. As National Geographic pointed out, the charcoal industry is also threatening the park and the gorillas.
Of course, I need to temper my hope with some realism. Congo has seen positive developments in the past, only to see greater and more deadly setbacks. In addition, while one of the insurgent groups has folded, there are other economic factors that impact stability for the residents and protection of the park. As National Geographic pointed out, the charcoal industry is also threatening the park and the gorillas.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
My Diet
I realized recently that I have not blogged yet about my diet. Since my diet choices are based on my politics, it seems appropriate that I do.
A year ago or so (maybe more, I do not remember), I decided officially that I was going to cut back on meat. For a while I had been see-sawing between effective vegetarianism and serious meat-eating with nothing guiding me. That worked at the time because I had no moral or ethical reasons for going either way.
As I learned more about food production in the US, I saw the effects of our dietary choices. First, I started consuming "free-range" eggs as often as I could. This change stemmed from my new understanding of the conditions of battery cage chickens, including the large amounts of antibiotics and hormones that are injected into them to keep them from getting sick (which is far more likely due to the unsanitary conditions in the battery cage operation).
More than that though, I learned about the industry behind our beef consumption. In fact, the meat industry is an enormous contributor to green house gasses and becoming a vegetarian is an easy way to decrease your carbon footprint. I also learned about the scale of pollution produced at the feed lots in the middle of our country and the conditions animals are kept in to feed our enormous appetite for beef.
The conclusion I came to is that our meat consumption is far higher than needs to be and far higher than is sustainable. This is possible because the prices we pay do not take into account the impact we are having. Introductory level economics courses will tell you that markets are ineffective at including environmental costs into the prices of goods (without regulation). Therefore, we are often underpaying, and therefore over-consuming, things that have serious negative environmental impacts. Meat is a perfect example of this.
I firmly believe that if we included the true cost of meat production, including the costs of pollution and greenhouse gasses, prices would be higher and consumption would be lower. People would realize they do not need to eat meat twice or three-times a day.
In the face of all this, I realized that I needed to decrease my meat consumption even before the market found a way to accurately price meat. I first cut back to eating meat no more than once a day. That was not as challenging for me since I was not eating meat for dinner. My next step was to cut back to eating meat no more than three times in one week. My final step has been to cut back to meat no more than once a week, and when I do I try to get it from somewhere that is raising the meat in a way that is sustainable and treats the animals more humanely.
So far, I have found it pretty easy to cut back to this level. (It helps that I have someone who can cook - and teach me how to cook - great vegetarian dishes.) Once you start trying, you find lots of things to substitute for meat. And when you do eat meat, it feels like a treat.
As you can tell, I do not believe that we all need to become vegetarian. I do believe however that we should think about how often we eat meat and the effects that has. It seems in our country that we feel we should eat meat at every meal as a right. There is no legitimate reason for this. We could all cut back and still lead healthy (maybe more healthy) lives and allow for our meat to be raised sustainably and humanely. As my experience has proved, cutting back on meat is not a major sacrifice. You still eat meat, but less frequently.
Now, in truth the same logic could apply to my egg consumption. I feel that free-range is marginally better than battery-cage. However, the bigger problem is overall consumption of eggs. I almost always eat at least one egg per day, which means I am definitely contributing to a level of overall consumption that is likely just as unsustainable as for meat. I will probably need to deal with this sometime if I want to really tell myself that I am being consistent.
How about this, I'll cut back on eggs if you cut back on meat? We'll do this together.
A year ago or so (maybe more, I do not remember), I decided officially that I was going to cut back on meat. For a while I had been see-sawing between effective vegetarianism and serious meat-eating with nothing guiding me. That worked at the time because I had no moral or ethical reasons for going either way.
As I learned more about food production in the US, I saw the effects of our dietary choices. First, I started consuming "free-range" eggs as often as I could. This change stemmed from my new understanding of the conditions of battery cage chickens, including the large amounts of antibiotics and hormones that are injected into them to keep them from getting sick (which is far more likely due to the unsanitary conditions in the battery cage operation).
More than that though, I learned about the industry behind our beef consumption. In fact, the meat industry is an enormous contributor to green house gasses and becoming a vegetarian is an easy way to decrease your carbon footprint. I also learned about the scale of pollution produced at the feed lots in the middle of our country and the conditions animals are kept in to feed our enormous appetite for beef.
The conclusion I came to is that our meat consumption is far higher than needs to be and far higher than is sustainable. This is possible because the prices we pay do not take into account the impact we are having. Introductory level economics courses will tell you that markets are ineffective at including environmental costs into the prices of goods (without regulation). Therefore, we are often underpaying, and therefore over-consuming, things that have serious negative environmental impacts. Meat is a perfect example of this.
I firmly believe that if we included the true cost of meat production, including the costs of pollution and greenhouse gasses, prices would be higher and consumption would be lower. People would realize they do not need to eat meat twice or three-times a day.
In the face of all this, I realized that I needed to decrease my meat consumption even before the market found a way to accurately price meat. I first cut back to eating meat no more than once a day. That was not as challenging for me since I was not eating meat for dinner. My next step was to cut back to eating meat no more than three times in one week. My final step has been to cut back to meat no more than once a week, and when I do I try to get it from somewhere that is raising the meat in a way that is sustainable and treats the animals more humanely.
So far, I have found it pretty easy to cut back to this level. (It helps that I have someone who can cook - and teach me how to cook - great vegetarian dishes.) Once you start trying, you find lots of things to substitute for meat. And when you do eat meat, it feels like a treat.
As you can tell, I do not believe that we all need to become vegetarian. I do believe however that we should think about how often we eat meat and the effects that has. It seems in our country that we feel we should eat meat at every meal as a right. There is no legitimate reason for this. We could all cut back and still lead healthy (maybe more healthy) lives and allow for our meat to be raised sustainably and humanely. As my experience has proved, cutting back on meat is not a major sacrifice. You still eat meat, but less frequently.
Now, in truth the same logic could apply to my egg consumption. I feel that free-range is marginally better than battery-cage. However, the bigger problem is overall consumption of eggs. I almost always eat at least one egg per day, which means I am definitely contributing to a level of overall consumption that is likely just as unsustainable as for meat. I will probably need to deal with this sometime if I want to really tell myself that I am being consistent.
How about this, I'll cut back on eggs if you cut back on meat? We'll do this together.
More Services AND Lower Taxes
I think I am learning something important about Democratic and Republican behavior in response to the public’s desire for more services AND lower taxes.
Democrats, when running for office, tell the country they are going to increase services while pretending that they are also going to be able to cut taxes.
Republicans, when running for office, tell the country they are going to cut taxes while pretending that they are also going to be able to provide services.
The point is that as a voter you should know which things a candidate says are real priorities. Despite giving lip service to both things constituents demand, they will only really be able to provide one. A president that tries to do both will end up running large deficits, as Bush did and as Obama right now is planning to do for at least the next few years.
Speaking of Obama's budget, it seems that he is moving away from some of the absurd gimmicks of the Bush years (ie not including war spending in the budget but asking for supplemental appropriations, which should only be used for unplanned expenses and after a year or two, the wars were no longer unplanned). Transparency is a beautiful thing, and it makes this budget analyst almost tear up to see our president moving in that direction.
Democrats, when running for office, tell the country they are going to increase services while pretending that they are also going to be able to cut taxes.
Republicans, when running for office, tell the country they are going to cut taxes while pretending that they are also going to be able to provide services.
The point is that as a voter you should know which things a candidate says are real priorities. Despite giving lip service to both things constituents demand, they will only really be able to provide one. A president that tries to do both will end up running large deficits, as Bush did and as Obama right now is planning to do for at least the next few years.
Speaking of Obama's budget, it seems that he is moving away from some of the absurd gimmicks of the Bush years (ie not including war spending in the budget but asking for supplemental appropriations, which should only be used for unplanned expenses and after a year or two, the wars were no longer unplanned). Transparency is a beautiful thing, and it makes this budget analyst almost tear up to see our president moving in that direction.
Oil Facts
I meant to link to this Times graphic a long time ago. Although the numbers may have changed a bit since then, I am guessing the overall picture is the same or similar. Here are the main ideas I take away from this:
- America is the largest oil consumer. (20.6 million barrels per day)
- America is the third largest oil producer. (8.4 million barrels per day)
- The biggest suppliers to the US are:
1. US (domestic production) (40%)
2. Canada (12%)
3. Mexico (8%)
4. Saudi Arabia (7%)
5. Venezuela (7%)
6. Nigeria (5%)
It is striking that Saudi Arabia makes up a relatively small percent of our consumption. Despite its small share though, it is still extremely important as small changes in production (or expected changes in production) have big impacts on prices.
- America is the largest oil consumer. (20.6 million barrels per day)
- America is the third largest oil producer. (8.4 million barrels per day)
- The biggest suppliers to the US are:
1. US (domestic production) (40%)
2. Canada (12%)
3. Mexico (8%)
4. Saudi Arabia (7%)
5. Venezuela (7%)
6. Nigeria (5%)
It is striking that Saudi Arabia makes up a relatively small percent of our consumption. Despite its small share though, it is still extremely important as small changes in production (or expected changes in production) have big impacts on prices.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Here is Our Chance
For those of you who have read Samantha Power's book A Problem From Hell, you'll remember her argument that throughout all of the genocides of the 20th Century, the US did nothing. It did not take action and it did not even condemn the genocides. The arguments used were the same - that to even condemn the genocide could cause the leaders of the guilty countries to choose not to cooperate with peace processes. Power argues convincingly that in the end, those leaders did not cooperate even though we avoided condemning them.
Despite countless examples in history to learn from, the same arguments continue to be made and sometimes carry the day. Those arguments have been voiced in regards to Sudan - although the US has condemned the genocide, many voices said that the International Criminal Court should not seek charges or an arrest warrant against Bashir, the President of Sudan. Those people said it could cause Bashir to stop participating in peace negotiations. I am glad those people were not listened to this time and that an arrest warrant for Bashir has been issued.
Those that argued against this in the specific case of Sudan claimed that if Bashir is arrested or otherwise loses power, those that might take over are far worse and that Bashir's role right now is somewhat productive. That may be true (although where are the results?). But for once we need to actually stand up to genocide. We need to show that we won't back down for fear that an uncooperative leader will not cooperate - that a murderous leader will murder more people.
But as with all experiments or new courses, we will be judged by the outcomes. So here is our chance - our opportunity - to show that the one time we condemned genocide and sought action in the ICC while the situation was ongoing, it made a difference. We can show that the best way to stop a killer is not to avoid making his life hard, but to do everything we can to make his life hard.
Here is our chance. Let's follow through. Let's actively seek Bashir's arrest, then continue by seeking charges against anyone else involved. Let's finally put an end to this genocide and set a serious example (unlike all the others before) to those who might perpetuate the second genocide of the 21st Century.
Despite countless examples in history to learn from, the same arguments continue to be made and sometimes carry the day. Those arguments have been voiced in regards to Sudan - although the US has condemned the genocide, many voices said that the International Criminal Court should not seek charges or an arrest warrant against Bashir, the President of Sudan. Those people said it could cause Bashir to stop participating in peace negotiations. I am glad those people were not listened to this time and that an arrest warrant for Bashir has been issued.
Those that argued against this in the specific case of Sudan claimed that if Bashir is arrested or otherwise loses power, those that might take over are far worse and that Bashir's role right now is somewhat productive. That may be true (although where are the results?). But for once we need to actually stand up to genocide. We need to show that we won't back down for fear that an uncooperative leader will not cooperate - that a murderous leader will murder more people.
But as with all experiments or new courses, we will be judged by the outcomes. So here is our chance - our opportunity - to show that the one time we condemned genocide and sought action in the ICC while the situation was ongoing, it made a difference. We can show that the best way to stop a killer is not to avoid making his life hard, but to do everything we can to make his life hard.
Here is our chance. Let's follow through. Let's actively seek Bashir's arrest, then continue by seeking charges against anyone else involved. Let's finally put an end to this genocide and set a serious example (unlike all the others before) to those who might perpetuate the second genocide of the 21st Century.
I Beg Your Pardon
As Bush was leaving office, I was waiting for him to issue a whole stream of absurd pardons. But as Obama was inaugurated, I heard / read nothing. So I wondered if maybe he had issued lots of pardons but it just wasn't covered. I went back and looked, and instead, what wasn't covered was the fact that he issued very few pardons at the end (wasn't covered means I didn't see anything in the NY Times - it very well could have been splashed over the Journal but I don't read that as often as I should).
So two things on this. First, I applaud Bush for not issuing a slew of pardons as seems to be the practice. Granted, I am not a lawyer and I don't know how many of the last-minute presidential pardons are legit. But it seems to me that if they are reasonable, then they should issue them at the time they come up. If you have to issue them on the way out, then you are worried about the appearance, which likely means they are probably bad pardons. I am especially glad that he didn't pardon Scooter Libby. (Dick Cheney thinks he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice - I agree. Cheney should have been the one punished.)
Secondly, I am disappointed that this wasn't covered more in the NY Times. If Bush did something prudent, it should be recognized. This is why the paper gets the rep for being very liberal and not objective.
So two things on this. First, I applaud Bush for not issuing a slew of pardons as seems to be the practice. Granted, I am not a lawyer and I don't know how many of the last-minute presidential pardons are legit. But it seems to me that if they are reasonable, then they should issue them at the time they come up. If you have to issue them on the way out, then you are worried about the appearance, which likely means they are probably bad pardons. I am especially glad that he didn't pardon Scooter Libby. (Dick Cheney thinks he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice - I agree. Cheney should have been the one punished.)
Secondly, I am disappointed that this wasn't covered more in the NY Times. If Bush did something prudent, it should be recognized. This is why the paper gets the rep for being very liberal and not objective.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Not Better
In case you were still holding on to the belief that Democrats are more ethical than Republicans, Spitzer's solicitation of prostitutes, Blagojevich's attempts to sell the Senate seat, Daschle's and Geithner's decision to avoid paying some of their taxes, and now stories about Roland Burris should have disabused you of any such notions. It is all simply disgusting.
About Roland Burris, he needs to resign. Either he lied or he is not as sharp as a Senator should be. I think it is both. We need to get the bad Democrats out of office now, so they are not around to make us look bad in 2010.
About Roland Burris, he needs to resign. Either he lied or he is not as sharp as a Senator should be. I think it is both. We need to get the bad Democrats out of office now, so they are not around to make us look bad in 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)