Shame is a powerful weapon. Like all powerful weapons, it should be used with great caution.
"Don't worry about it. He's just a builder. He probably doesn't even have a bachelor's degree."
I heard words similar to this (it was two years ago and I can't remember what I had for breakfast 30 minutes ago) when one of my coworkers "comforted" another after a brief exchange of words with a stand builder at a trade show. I was angry. My father used to be a builder and he is one of the smartest people I know. I later kicked myself for not having told him off. What made him think he was so much better than a builder? I should have put him in his place.
While I do still wish I had said something, I am now glad I did not "put him in his place." Shame is a powerful weapon. "Naming and shaming" is a diplomatic and political tool used by NGOs to get governments to do liberal things, after all, and it works surprisingly often. One need only look at reports by Amnesty International of the prisoners of conscience they have gotten released through no means other than torrents of pleading letters and bad global publicity. The World Bank even uses it to encourage governments to streamline their bureaucracies to make it easier for people in their countries to start a business. If I had snapped at my coworker, I'm sure it would have left a lasting impression. And I was right and he deserved it, right?
Those who live in glass houses...
I can very clearly recall the awful feeling of having said or done something offensive, inappropriate, or insensitive and being confronted (perhaps publicly) about it. It certainly does leave a lasting impression. Increasingly, though, that sinking feeling is accompanied by anger. Why? People say things they shouldn't, or in a tone or context they shouldn't, all the time. I don't think anyone is immune to this. So what right do we have to make other people feel ashamed? Presumably, the goal is to "enlighten" the other person and to make them think before saying something that could hurt others in the future. A lofty goal, perhaps. But is "enlightenment" and the prevention of future offense worth immediate shame? Too often, I fear that much of the real goal is the feeling of moral superiority and strength that comes from telling someone off. No lofty goal.
If our aim is to enlighten and raise the level of respect people have for others, surely we should begin with respect towards the person who, this time around, is "unenlightened"? In my experience, statements like the one above about the builder come more from a lack of thought than from malice. There is no need to use a sledgehammer. A joke can often be the best method. If you're not spontaneously funny enough, a non-public chat can also work. "Enlighten" comes from "light." It's supposed to be a positive thing. I try (try!) to think of how I might make someone aware that they've said something hurtful or ignorant without making them feel mean or stupid. Again, the goal is to make ourselves better, not put people down. It's what I'd like people to do when I say something hurtful or ignorant.
In fact, we have a right to expect that from others. So if someone shames you, tell them that, while their criticism may be valid, their approach could use some work. I know, it's not immediately as gratifying as verbally bashing them and sticking up for yourself, but trust me, this will raise the level of respect and comfort within your circle of acquaintances and you will all soon feel able to discuss anything with each other without fear of retribution. It is not about "not saying offensive things." There should be no risk of people feeling that they now "can't say anything." Quite the opposite: You are free to say what you think, safe in the knowledge that, if you are wrong, you will be swiftly corrected without being personally attacked. There are few things more gratifying than that.
P.S.: Acting in this way, too, is a work in progress. Which means: shaming someone for shaming someone is also not the best way to make the world a better place ;)
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Monday, August 11, 2014
When military action is the more "peaceful" option
US President Obama has authorized limited air strikes against the "Islamic State" (IS), an extremist (to put it mildly) group that has taken control of much of northern and western Iraq and eastern Syria. Some in his administration have apparently "toyed" with the idea of a limited troop deployment there to assist the Iraqi army as well, but Obama is a long way from approving this. If IS can be stopped without it, he is right to keep US troops out of harm's way, but it is not clear the Iraqi army is up to the challenge. If it isn't, being hesitant now could lead to heavier (and bloodier) US involvement later.
Many people fear another round of the Iraq War started by Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. Others might think further back and fear another Vietnam. Afghanistan in the '90s might be a better nightmare scenario, and it is also often cited. If Obama is worried the US will get dragged into an unnecessary war, as it was in Vietnam, he should also keep in mind the old adage "a stitch in time saves nine." It may be much easier to defeat IS now than it will be in a year's time.
Syria provides a cautionary tale: for a while, Assad looked sure to fall. Now Syria is in such a mess (including much of it falling into the hands of IS) that many hope he doesn't, despite all the atrocities he has committed to stay in power. Not backing the moderates more heavily there means Assad is still in power and it has also allowed IS to flourish--the worst of both worlds. Not going to war is not always the option that leads to greater peace and it is not always more prudent. In Libya, there was no real alternative government (though I still believe, as I have argued here, that the limited intervention there was the right thing to do). Iraq is not Libya. It has a (albeit very imperfect) government. Furthermore, it is a government that the US helped bring to fruition. The US therefore carries some responsibility for aiding in its success if it can.
Going back to the Afghanistan analogy, there is a lesson there, too, that speaks in favor of being proactive (though one could hardly call missions against IS "proactive," they are now much closer to "re-active"): The US's failure to be concerned about Afghanistan once the Soviet "threat" there receded came back to haunt it. If IS continues to threaten Iraq, makes progress against the Kurds, or threatens Jordan, hesitation and "prudence," may come to seem very imprudent indeed.
Many people fear another round of the Iraq War started by Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. Others might think further back and fear another Vietnam. Afghanistan in the '90s might be a better nightmare scenario, and it is also often cited. If Obama is worried the US will get dragged into an unnecessary war, as it was in Vietnam, he should also keep in mind the old adage "a stitch in time saves nine." It may be much easier to defeat IS now than it will be in a year's time.
Syria provides a cautionary tale: for a while, Assad looked sure to fall. Now Syria is in such a mess (including much of it falling into the hands of IS) that many hope he doesn't, despite all the atrocities he has committed to stay in power. Not backing the moderates more heavily there means Assad is still in power and it has also allowed IS to flourish--the worst of both worlds. Not going to war is not always the option that leads to greater peace and it is not always more prudent. In Libya, there was no real alternative government (though I still believe, as I have argued here, that the limited intervention there was the right thing to do). Iraq is not Libya. It has a (albeit very imperfect) government. Furthermore, it is a government that the US helped bring to fruition. The US therefore carries some responsibility for aiding in its success if it can.
Going back to the Afghanistan analogy, there is a lesson there, too, that speaks in favor of being proactive (though one could hardly call missions against IS "proactive," they are now much closer to "re-active"): The US's failure to be concerned about Afghanistan once the Soviet "threat" there receded came back to haunt it. If IS continues to threaten Iraq, makes progress against the Kurds, or threatens Jordan, hesitation and "prudence," may come to seem very imprudent indeed.
Friday, July 11, 2014
Israel and Hamas: Moral questions
In my focus on deterrence, I have mostly taken a utilitarian approach to the conflict between Israel and Hamas (if your goal is X, then Y is or is not appropriate), intentionally avoiding moral questions. I could only advocate things that would enhance deterrence, however, if I believed deterrence to be a morally valid option (I may need to write a second post explaining why I think so). A recent Op-Ed by Alan Derschowitz, an American law professor at Harvard, in the Jerusalem Post led me to conclude that it was time to talk about morality. In the article, he asserts that there is no moral equivalence between Israel's actions and those of Hamas, because Hamas intentionally targets civilians and uses them as human shields, while Israel does the opposite. This is true, but does that mean Hamas bears 100% of the responsibility for the conflict and, as I will focus on here, for the current crisis? An analysis of the deterrence situation before the crisis, like that to be found in my article last Friday in Strife journal's blog, adds an additional dimension to the moral question.
In that article, I argue that the current round of escalation was not necessary from a deterrence standpoint unless Hamas's leadership had given the order to abduct the three Israeli teenagers later found murdered near Hebron. The murderers are indeed Hamas members and Hamas has talked about abducting Israeli soldiers and using them to bargain for the release of Palestinian prisoners and has apparently trained members in the West Bank to do so. Israel has presented no evidence to date, however, that would suggest that the Hamas leadership, external or, perhaps more importantly, within Gaza, ordered or authorized the kidnapping and murder. Instead, there is evidence that the kidnappers were members of a rogue Hamas branch that acted on its own. One has to wonder why the teens were murdered relatively shortly after their capture if the idea was to use them as bargaining chips. The fact that Hamas long said it did not desire an escalation with Israel, waited until after Israel struck several targets in the Gaza Strip before launching its first rockets at Israel in two years, and was already in a weakened state led me to conclude that the kidnapping probably was not planned, but a rogue action.
Be that as it may, surely Hamas must take responsibility for the actions of its members, even if they acted without authorization? Of course. We would expect this much from Israel or the United States as well, after all. The initial strikes against Hamas in Gaza thus made sense, as did an extensive search-and-rescue operation to find the teens. But Israel's response went beyond search-and-rescue, punishing the actual perpetrators, and making Hamas pay a price for its lack of control over its own militants. It instead ran an operation to attack Hamas "infrastructure" in the West Bank and continued to attack Hamas targets in Gaza. It arrested scores of Palestinians who were uninvolved in the kidnappings. Hamas is an organization that uses terrorism and intentionally targets civilians. Many of those arrested were in fact known terrorists who were re-arrested after having been released as part of a deal to free Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier Hamas held for ransom for several years. There is thus a moral logic to all of these Israeli actions.
At the same time, the escalation that has followed Operation Brother's Keeper (as the hunt for the three teens was known) and Operation Protective Edge (the current operation against Hamas in Gaza) has led to the death, so far, of nearly 100 Palestinians in Gaza and the wounding two Israeli soldiers (one seriously) as well as that of seven civilians injured in a rocket attack on the city of Ashdod. One must of course point out that Israel does not intend to kill civilians in Gaza and takes measures to prevent this, the opposite of what Hamas does when it launches rockets. Further, Hamas places rocket launchers and military facilities within civilian areas to try to prevent Israeli attacks. It also encourages Gazans to act as "human shields" against attacks. This means that if Israel did not use precision weaponry, the death toll would be even higher. Hamas actively tries to kill Israeli civilians and places its own civilians in harm's way to protect itself, while Israel actively tries not to kill Palestinian civilians while attempting to keep its own out of harm's way. Derschowitz is right that there is no equivalence between these two actions.
But if this is the fundamental moral level, then, as I've hinted, there is a second moral level as well. Some response to Hamas's involvement, even tacit, in the kidnappings makes moral sense as well as strategic sense from a deterrence perspective. But a response so large that Hamas sees no other option but to fight a losing battle against Israel is not just unnecessary, it is counterproductive. It undermines deterrence and, by leading to escalation, leads to unnecessary deaths. War, though always a tragedy, is sometimes necessary to protect the lives of the citizens represented by the military. This gives such wars a moral legitimacy. Unless Israel has good evidence of Hamas's involvement, this is an unnecessary war that destabilizes the situation and causes unnecessary death and injury on both sides. It thus lacks such moral legitimacy. Do I demand more of Israel than I do of Hamas? Of course I do. Israel is a liberal democracy. Hamas is a political/militant/social organization that advocates violence against civilians and the eventual destruction of the State of Israel. There ought to be no equivalency of standards between them.
In that article, I argue that the current round of escalation was not necessary from a deterrence standpoint unless Hamas's leadership had given the order to abduct the three Israeli teenagers later found murdered near Hebron. The murderers are indeed Hamas members and Hamas has talked about abducting Israeli soldiers and using them to bargain for the release of Palestinian prisoners and has apparently trained members in the West Bank to do so. Israel has presented no evidence to date, however, that would suggest that the Hamas leadership, external or, perhaps more importantly, within Gaza, ordered or authorized the kidnapping and murder. Instead, there is evidence that the kidnappers were members of a rogue Hamas branch that acted on its own. One has to wonder why the teens were murdered relatively shortly after their capture if the idea was to use them as bargaining chips. The fact that Hamas long said it did not desire an escalation with Israel, waited until after Israel struck several targets in the Gaza Strip before launching its first rockets at Israel in two years, and was already in a weakened state led me to conclude that the kidnapping probably was not planned, but a rogue action.
Be that as it may, surely Hamas must take responsibility for the actions of its members, even if they acted without authorization? Of course. We would expect this much from Israel or the United States as well, after all. The initial strikes against Hamas in Gaza thus made sense, as did an extensive search-and-rescue operation to find the teens. But Israel's response went beyond search-and-rescue, punishing the actual perpetrators, and making Hamas pay a price for its lack of control over its own militants. It instead ran an operation to attack Hamas "infrastructure" in the West Bank and continued to attack Hamas targets in Gaza. It arrested scores of Palestinians who were uninvolved in the kidnappings. Hamas is an organization that uses terrorism and intentionally targets civilians. Many of those arrested were in fact known terrorists who were re-arrested after having been released as part of a deal to free Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier Hamas held for ransom for several years. There is thus a moral logic to all of these Israeli actions.
At the same time, the escalation that has followed Operation Brother's Keeper (as the hunt for the three teens was known) and Operation Protective Edge (the current operation against Hamas in Gaza) has led to the death, so far, of nearly 100 Palestinians in Gaza and the wounding two Israeli soldiers (one seriously) as well as that of seven civilians injured in a rocket attack on the city of Ashdod. One must of course point out that Israel does not intend to kill civilians in Gaza and takes measures to prevent this, the opposite of what Hamas does when it launches rockets. Further, Hamas places rocket launchers and military facilities within civilian areas to try to prevent Israeli attacks. It also encourages Gazans to act as "human shields" against attacks. This means that if Israel did not use precision weaponry, the death toll would be even higher. Hamas actively tries to kill Israeli civilians and places its own civilians in harm's way to protect itself, while Israel actively tries not to kill Palestinian civilians while attempting to keep its own out of harm's way. Derschowitz is right that there is no equivalence between these two actions.
But if this is the fundamental moral level, then, as I've hinted, there is a second moral level as well. Some response to Hamas's involvement, even tacit, in the kidnappings makes moral sense as well as strategic sense from a deterrence perspective. But a response so large that Hamas sees no other option but to fight a losing battle against Israel is not just unnecessary, it is counterproductive. It undermines deterrence and, by leading to escalation, leads to unnecessary deaths. War, though always a tragedy, is sometimes necessary to protect the lives of the citizens represented by the military. This gives such wars a moral legitimacy. Unless Israel has good evidence of Hamas's involvement, this is an unnecessary war that destabilizes the situation and causes unnecessary death and injury on both sides. It thus lacks such moral legitimacy. Do I demand more of Israel than I do of Hamas? Of course I do. Israel is a liberal democracy. Hamas is a political/militant/social organization that advocates violence against civilians and the eventual destruction of the State of Israel. There ought to be no equivalency of standards between them.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
The Unity Deal, Kidnappings, and a New Round of Escalation
About a month ago, I tweeted a link to an article in Haaretz that reflected a rather disturbing aspect of the recent deal between Hamas and Fatah to form a unity government. I was feeling cautiously optimistic about the prospect for this new government to be able to serve as the first unified partner in peace negotiations since Hamas's takeover of Gaza. Even now, this is still a possibility, but I could not shake the feeling that Hamas was attempting to have its cake and eat it to. As a Hamas source put it: "Hamas wants to avoid ministerial responsibility for civilian matters, but it wants to maintain its power as a popular-resistance group." This suggests Hamas wishes for the PA to take responsibility for any domestic difficulties while it avoids having to make tough choices about day-to-day government and can stick to "resistance." The problem with that, of course, is that Hamas's "return address" is still very clearly Gaza. This allowed me to remain cautiously optimistic, but if Hamas is behind the recent kidnapping of three Israeli teens, the unity government seems certain either not to last or to suffer a complete Israeli boycott.
At the same time, the PA has talked about the unity deal in terms of a "weakened" Hamas attempting to save face by running for the PA's protection. This comes across as crowing. With Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu now saying that the PA is responsible for terror attacks emanating from any part of "its" territory, including Gaza (never mind that the PA's control over much of Palestine is tenuous at best and non-existent in Area C where the teens were kidnapped), the perceived humiliation of Hamas via the unity deal, Hamas's apparent desire to return to "resistance," and comments by Hamas's then-Prime Minister that kidnapping Israelis (particularly soldiers) was Hamas's "top priority" to use them as "bargaining chips," it would not be surprising if Hamas were responsible for the disappearance of the three teens kidnapped last Friday. It is a way of showing it is not a spent force, contrary to what the PA suggests, and it would make sense as part of Hamas's stated strategy. That said, Hamas has long said kidnappings were a priority and it's not clear that this would necessarily be the right time. Other Palestinian political groups are also annoyed at being excluded from the talks between the two largest factions, Fatah and Hamas. Some of them are quite well organized. This could just as easily be an attempt by one of them to express displeasure at the deal, weaken it, and score points for continuing "resistance." And who knows? It could be a group a criminals or an unaffiliated group of activists.
Israel's response has been swift (after initial delays, it seems) and forceful: It has run a large search operation throughout the West Bank, focusing in particular on Hebron and, later, Nablus. It has arrested 240 Palestinians since the start of the operation, 180 of them Hamas men. As part of these operations, Israeli soldiers have not always acted in a way that will win them friends among Palestinians. For example, I have heard that some Israeli soldiers had removed three Palestinian families from their homes so they could sleep there. Maybe there was no other option and maybe this was an isolated incident, but it is definitely something that will increase tensions rather than ease them. (Though one must admit that "easing tensions" is understandably not currently part of Israel's agenda.)
All of this may backfire strategically. The PA's president Abbas has said that the kidnap victims must be returned and he had previously said that security cooperation with Israel is "sacred." A Palestinian academic I recently spoke with on the subject related to me that Abbas risks being seen as a "collaborator," further damaging his legitimacy in the eyes of Palestinians. The PA's apparent cooperation with Israel while the latter seems determined to root out Hamas in the West Bank is almost certain to drive a wedge between the two Palestinian groups and destroy the unity government. This may be what Netanyahu wants: To force Hamas back out of an arrangement with Fatah. But it is not clear that weak, divided, and desperate opponents are always the best option for peace and stability over the long term. Israel is right to do whatever it can to rescue its kidnapped citizens and the Palestinian side has often been disappointingly cynical, sometimes denying that the boys were even kidnapped and at other times suggesting that this is entirely equivalent to Palestinians held in Israeli jails. Nevertheless, Netanyahu risks sparking a new round of violence and uniting Palestinians in anger, rather than a mood for conciliation, with his current, divisive approach.
At the same time, the PA has talked about the unity deal in terms of a "weakened" Hamas attempting to save face by running for the PA's protection. This comes across as crowing. With Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu now saying that the PA is responsible for terror attacks emanating from any part of "its" territory, including Gaza (never mind that the PA's control over much of Palestine is tenuous at best and non-existent in Area C where the teens were kidnapped), the perceived humiliation of Hamas via the unity deal, Hamas's apparent desire to return to "resistance," and comments by Hamas's then-Prime Minister that kidnapping Israelis (particularly soldiers) was Hamas's "top priority" to use them as "bargaining chips," it would not be surprising if Hamas were responsible for the disappearance of the three teens kidnapped last Friday. It is a way of showing it is not a spent force, contrary to what the PA suggests, and it would make sense as part of Hamas's stated strategy. That said, Hamas has long said kidnappings were a priority and it's not clear that this would necessarily be the right time. Other Palestinian political groups are also annoyed at being excluded from the talks between the two largest factions, Fatah and Hamas. Some of them are quite well organized. This could just as easily be an attempt by one of them to express displeasure at the deal, weaken it, and score points for continuing "resistance." And who knows? It could be a group a criminals or an unaffiliated group of activists.
Israel's response has been swift (after initial delays, it seems) and forceful: It has run a large search operation throughout the West Bank, focusing in particular on Hebron and, later, Nablus. It has arrested 240 Palestinians since the start of the operation, 180 of them Hamas men. As part of these operations, Israeli soldiers have not always acted in a way that will win them friends among Palestinians. For example, I have heard that some Israeli soldiers had removed three Palestinian families from their homes so they could sleep there. Maybe there was no other option and maybe this was an isolated incident, but it is definitely something that will increase tensions rather than ease them. (Though one must admit that "easing tensions" is understandably not currently part of Israel's agenda.)
All of this may backfire strategically. The PA's president Abbas has said that the kidnap victims must be returned and he had previously said that security cooperation with Israel is "sacred." A Palestinian academic I recently spoke with on the subject related to me that Abbas risks being seen as a "collaborator," further damaging his legitimacy in the eyes of Palestinians. The PA's apparent cooperation with Israel while the latter seems determined to root out Hamas in the West Bank is almost certain to drive a wedge between the two Palestinian groups and destroy the unity government. This may be what Netanyahu wants: To force Hamas back out of an arrangement with Fatah. But it is not clear that weak, divided, and desperate opponents are always the best option for peace and stability over the long term. Israel is right to do whatever it can to rescue its kidnapped citizens and the Palestinian side has often been disappointingly cynical, sometimes denying that the boys were even kidnapped and at other times suggesting that this is entirely equivalent to Palestinians held in Israeli jails. Nevertheless, Netanyahu risks sparking a new round of violence and uniting Palestinians in anger, rather than a mood for conciliation, with his current, divisive approach.
Friday, April 25, 2014
How shorter prison sentences may REDUCE violent crime (and save money and destroy fewer lives)
There are at least four reasons we punish criminals: retribution, rehabilitation, prevention, and deterrence. We punish criminals out of a sense that this is just, regardless of the other effects. This is an emotional idea, but it is still useful to ensure a peaceful society: A society that citizens viewed as grossly unjust, in which criminals did not pay for their crimes, would be unstable and likely violent, full of vigilantes. The benefits of rehabilitation are obvious. This makes it unfortunate that that particular aspect usually takes a back seat to the other three. Prevention simply involves keeping dangerous people off the streets so they cannot re-offend. It is 100% certain (for that individual, obviously), but also, if permanent, removes the chance of rehabilitation and is quite sad, really. Prison is also horrendously expensive: It costs around $30,000 per inmate per year!*
The final aspect is deterrence: the idea that those who might be contemplating a crime are more likely to decide against it if there's a decent chance they will be caught and face unacceptable punishment. The approach to this in America has been "more is better": if short prison stays deter some, longer ones must deter more, right? Right, but only partly. There are at least two problems. The first: the longer prison sentences become, the less differences between them matter and the more abstract they are. One year in prison is surely a lot worse than six months. But what happens when we're talking 15 years versus 25? Sure, 25 is a lot more awful to contemplate than 15, but 15 horrendous years facing possible physical and mental violence on a daily basis is almost to horrible for most of us to contemplate. Those undeterred by that are those tough enough to excel at prison life. If that doesn't deter them, do we really think those last 10 years would make the difference? Studies suggest they do not.
The second problem is related to the first: From the beginning, criminologists have argued that different severities of crimes must carry different severities of punishment. This is not just fair, it also serves an important purpose in deterring violent crimes in particular. To see why, imagine you are robbing a someone's home. They are not home, but you are armed with a gun (after all, they might have one, too, and you may need to protect yourself). I've surveyed a few websites about penalties, but it's complicated, so this is purely illustrative. This would be armed burglary, I guess, which carries a sentence of something like 5 years for your first offence. If you've bee caught before, it could be longer. Let's say it's double. Now, the owner walks in with a gun. You cannot run, or he may shoot. You point the gun back at him, potentially adding another 10 years to your sentence. Your only options now are to surrender, and face at least 10 but possibly even 20 years in prison, or kill him and face 25, but only if you are caught. In the spur and fear of the moment, it is more likely your personal attitude towards killing will make a bigger difference than 5-10 years more in prison, the prospect of which is anyway offset by the fact that you may be able to get away scot free if you commit murder. It may be that the difference between theft, threatening violence, committing violence, and committing murder is not great enough and not optimal. Many European countries have much shorter prison sentences combined with lower rates of violent crime.
Sure, there are lots of reasons for this: greater social spending probably makes people less likely to commit crimes. The lack of guns in Europe is a big reason for reduced gun crime (and higher rates of knife crime in the UK, at least). This is not THE answer, just an illustration of the idea that lower prison sentences are not always "soft on crime." In fact, they may sometimes even reduce it. Plow some of those savings into greater rehabilitation and education efforts, and crime and re-offending could fall further, saving more money and making everyone better off again. Some Republican states are already trying such things and the results are promising. In that regard, at least, more really is better.
*As a tangent, I would argue that, since many criminals end up in crime due to low educational prospects and opportunities, it would be cheaper and perhaps more effective to send them to (community) college! At least then they would emerge from their time with better job prospects, not worse ones. They'd then be less likely to re-offed, saving money, and they'd earn more, paying the government more in taxes. Massive savings all around and a life saved from wasting away uselessly in prison.
The final aspect is deterrence: the idea that those who might be contemplating a crime are more likely to decide against it if there's a decent chance they will be caught and face unacceptable punishment. The approach to this in America has been "more is better": if short prison stays deter some, longer ones must deter more, right? Right, but only partly. There are at least two problems. The first: the longer prison sentences become, the less differences between them matter and the more abstract they are. One year in prison is surely a lot worse than six months. But what happens when we're talking 15 years versus 25? Sure, 25 is a lot more awful to contemplate than 15, but 15 horrendous years facing possible physical and mental violence on a daily basis is almost to horrible for most of us to contemplate. Those undeterred by that are those tough enough to excel at prison life. If that doesn't deter them, do we really think those last 10 years would make the difference? Studies suggest they do not.
The second problem is related to the first: From the beginning, criminologists have argued that different severities of crimes must carry different severities of punishment. This is not just fair, it also serves an important purpose in deterring violent crimes in particular. To see why, imagine you are robbing a someone's home. They are not home, but you are armed with a gun (after all, they might have one, too, and you may need to protect yourself). I've surveyed a few websites about penalties, but it's complicated, so this is purely illustrative. This would be armed burglary, I guess, which carries a sentence of something like 5 years for your first offence. If you've bee caught before, it could be longer. Let's say it's double. Now, the owner walks in with a gun. You cannot run, or he may shoot. You point the gun back at him, potentially adding another 10 years to your sentence. Your only options now are to surrender, and face at least 10 but possibly even 20 years in prison, or kill him and face 25, but only if you are caught. In the spur and fear of the moment, it is more likely your personal attitude towards killing will make a bigger difference than 5-10 years more in prison, the prospect of which is anyway offset by the fact that you may be able to get away scot free if you commit murder. It may be that the difference between theft, threatening violence, committing violence, and committing murder is not great enough and not optimal. Many European countries have much shorter prison sentences combined with lower rates of violent crime.
Sure, there are lots of reasons for this: greater social spending probably makes people less likely to commit crimes. The lack of guns in Europe is a big reason for reduced gun crime (and higher rates of knife crime in the UK, at least). This is not THE answer, just an illustration of the idea that lower prison sentences are not always "soft on crime." In fact, they may sometimes even reduce it. Plow some of those savings into greater rehabilitation and education efforts, and crime and re-offending could fall further, saving more money and making everyone better off again. Some Republican states are already trying such things and the results are promising. In that regard, at least, more really is better.
*As a tangent, I would argue that, since many criminals end up in crime due to low educational prospects and opportunities, it would be cheaper and perhaps more effective to send them to (community) college! At least then they would emerge from their time with better job prospects, not worse ones. They'd then be less likely to re-offed, saving money, and they'd earn more, paying the government more in taxes. Massive savings all around and a life saved from wasting away uselessly in prison.
Friday, April 11, 2014
Is pushing people with intolerant views to resign just another form of intolerance?
When the CEO of Mozilla recently stepped down amid anger about his political views, many on the political left and right worried that this was a sign of intolerance, a sort of totalitarian progressivism. Is it?
Philosophers call it the “paradox of tolerance”: defending tolerance may require intolerance of intolerance. Is this liberalism turning illiberal?
Liberal democracies like the United States protect citizens’ freedom of speech, religion, and conscience. So you should be free to argue against gay marriage, right? Absolutely, at least as far as the government and laws are concerned. You are also free to believe and argue that all blacks should be deported to Africa if you like. Being a bigot is not a crime. But that doesn’t mean others cannot be angered by your beliefs and protest against them. Legal rights and protections put limits on the government, not the people. Views the majority in society see as distasteful will be punished in the court of public opinion. You are not protected from the consequences of your speech, only from the government trying to suppress it. That majority may be wrong, of course, but more on that below.
The second problem is when people say things like “isn’t pushing a person out of a job because of his/her beliefs just as bad as doing the same to a gay person?” Frankly, no. Sexuality, like race, sex, gender, physical capabilities, ethnicity, etc. are immutable aspects of identity. They are NOT beliefs. Arguing with someone, pushing them out of a job, refusing them service, etc. on the basis of their identity is discrimination. It is unfair, unjustified, and unjustifiable in most circumstances (you may want a black actor to play a black role in a movie, so there are a few exceptions, of course). Beliefs are changeable and, unlike identities, they may be harmful to others.
The harm caused by beliefs is how we judge where to draw lines. This is highly problematic, however. Throughout history, people have been harassed, cast out of societies, and even killed because they held beliefs that challenged the status quo. This continues today, though in “liberal” countries people, thankfully, are usually not killed for their beliefs. We rightly condemn racist beliefs. We also limit freedom of religion and speech when these may harm others, for example when Christian Scientists deny their children life-saving medical treatment or when fundamentalists incite violence in the name of their god(s).
But people have been treated poorly for all manner of beliefs many in society thought were harmful at the time. Where do we draw the line? The test is harm. Does preventing gays from marrying cause harm? Those effected would surely say so (take me, who was prevented for 10 years from moving back to my home country due to marriage and immigration discrimination). Does believing the sun is at the center of the solar system? Not directly, but if it spread, it would damage the progress of knowledge that benefits humanity. Likewise, creationism is not harmful unless it spreads by being taught to children who are then deprived of a proper education. You are thus free to teach your children creationism, but the government should not teach things for which there is a consensus that they are not true. At the same time, such beliefs should not be “respected” in the sense that they remain unchallenged. This is how a liberal society functions.
What do I mean by “challenge”? The judgment about which beliefs are harmful will always, to some extent, be subjective and relative to current social conditions. Try as we might, we cannot escape the societal context in which we exist and cannot see things completely “objectively.” Harm is a good guiding principle, but it is imperfect. In most cases, the best move is to counter ideas rather than people. The best way to do that is through open debate. This means exercising our right to free speech to call out things we consider harmful. Beyond what the law says, however, we also need to listen and take time to consider.
As for Eich, a gay commentator on the Colbert Report, an American comedy talk show with a large following, recently opined that protesting against and boycotting the state of Arizona for its proposed anti-gay law was OK, but suggested that what happened to Eich was not. In fact, Mozilla customers angry about its CEO’s political views protested and boycotted, exercising their rights to free speech and their economic right to choose. There was nothing illiberal about it. A portion of the United States has come to realize that preventing same-sex couples from marrying is just as wrong as preventing any other two consenting adults from doing so. Saying otherwise is increasingly indefensible (literally: there are no good reasons for it, that side has lost the debate). That is free speech and open debate in action, resulting in intolerance of an intolerant view. A liberal democracy in action, in other words.
Philosophers call it the “paradox of tolerance”: defending tolerance may require intolerance of intolerance. Is this liberalism turning illiberal?
Liberal democracies like the United States protect citizens’ freedom of speech, religion, and conscience. So you should be free to argue against gay marriage, right? Absolutely, at least as far as the government and laws are concerned. You are also free to believe and argue that all blacks should be deported to Africa if you like. Being a bigot is not a crime. But that doesn’t mean others cannot be angered by your beliefs and protest against them. Legal rights and protections put limits on the government, not the people. Views the majority in society see as distasteful will be punished in the court of public opinion. You are not protected from the consequences of your speech, only from the government trying to suppress it. That majority may be wrong, of course, but more on that below.
The second problem is when people say things like “isn’t pushing a person out of a job because of his/her beliefs just as bad as doing the same to a gay person?” Frankly, no. Sexuality, like race, sex, gender, physical capabilities, ethnicity, etc. are immutable aspects of identity. They are NOT beliefs. Arguing with someone, pushing them out of a job, refusing them service, etc. on the basis of their identity is discrimination. It is unfair, unjustified, and unjustifiable in most circumstances (you may want a black actor to play a black role in a movie, so there are a few exceptions, of course). Beliefs are changeable and, unlike identities, they may be harmful to others.
The harm caused by beliefs is how we judge where to draw lines. This is highly problematic, however. Throughout history, people have been harassed, cast out of societies, and even killed because they held beliefs that challenged the status quo. This continues today, though in “liberal” countries people, thankfully, are usually not killed for their beliefs. We rightly condemn racist beliefs. We also limit freedom of religion and speech when these may harm others, for example when Christian Scientists deny their children life-saving medical treatment or when fundamentalists incite violence in the name of their god(s).
But people have been treated poorly for all manner of beliefs many in society thought were harmful at the time. Where do we draw the line? The test is harm. Does preventing gays from marrying cause harm? Those effected would surely say so (take me, who was prevented for 10 years from moving back to my home country due to marriage and immigration discrimination). Does believing the sun is at the center of the solar system? Not directly, but if it spread, it would damage the progress of knowledge that benefits humanity. Likewise, creationism is not harmful unless it spreads by being taught to children who are then deprived of a proper education. You are thus free to teach your children creationism, but the government should not teach things for which there is a consensus that they are not true. At the same time, such beliefs should not be “respected” in the sense that they remain unchallenged. This is how a liberal society functions.
What do I mean by “challenge”? The judgment about which beliefs are harmful will always, to some extent, be subjective and relative to current social conditions. Try as we might, we cannot escape the societal context in which we exist and cannot see things completely “objectively.” Harm is a good guiding principle, but it is imperfect. In most cases, the best move is to counter ideas rather than people. The best way to do that is through open debate. This means exercising our right to free speech to call out things we consider harmful. Beyond what the law says, however, we also need to listen and take time to consider.
As for Eich, a gay commentator on the Colbert Report, an American comedy talk show with a large following, recently opined that protesting against and boycotting the state of Arizona for its proposed anti-gay law was OK, but suggested that what happened to Eich was not. In fact, Mozilla customers angry about its CEO’s political views protested and boycotted, exercising their rights to free speech and their economic right to choose. There was nothing illiberal about it. A portion of the United States has come to realize that preventing same-sex couples from marrying is just as wrong as preventing any other two consenting adults from doing so. Saying otherwise is increasingly indefensible (literally: there are no good reasons for it, that side has lost the debate). That is free speech and open debate in action, resulting in intolerance of an intolerant view. A liberal democracy in action, in other words.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Easing the Gaza Blockade
Since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in
2007, Israel and Egypt have enforced a blockade on the territory. The
intention was to weaken Hamas by cutting it off from weapons and
other supplies and to weaken support for it by making life difficult
for Gaza’s residents. Hamas has still succeeded in arming itself
and, though support for the group has fallen, it is not clear that
this is due to the blockade nor is Hamas’s imminent downfall
apparent (though this is a region where attempting to predict the
future often proves to be a foolhardy endeavor). The blockade thus
does not seem to be working. Israel has instead entered a tenuous
deterrence relationship with Hamas, whereby retaliations for Hamas
violence against Israel have mostly kept that violence to a minimum.
The prospects for continued deterrence, albeit with occasional
outbreaks of hostilities, are reasonably good, but the blockade does
not necessarily help them. Given the massive cost of the blockade in terms of lost opportunities and economic hardship for the residents of Gaza and the damage this does to Israel’s reputation, one wonders if the policy can
safely be eased—to everyone’s benefit.
Deterrence relies on threats of
punishment if an opponent alters the status quo. It also relies on a
promise of no punishment if the status quo is maintained. This
doesn’t mean a deterrer must reward an opponent for good behavior,
but it doesn’t rule that out, either. What’s more, there are
reasons that easing the blockade could even help bolster deterrence.
This could work in three ways. Perhaps the most obvious is that, by
making the status quo more tolerable, the threat of punishment
becomes that much worse. An additional factor, however, and one that
is often overlooked by overly hawkish deterrence practitioners and
theorists alike, is that deterrence often breaks down due to “push”
factors rather than due to opponents taking advantage of a perceived
weakness. A Gaza resident I recently spoke to told me how Gazans felt
in 2008 in the run-up to the 2008-09 Gaza war: People were so fed up
and angry, and had grown so accustomed to the idea that a war with
Israel was coming, that many felt that any change, even a war, was
better than the status quo. If your opponent prefers a war with you
to leaving things as they are, deterrence will be difficult to say
the least, and an eventual reconciliation or peace deal even more so.
The final reason that easing the
blockade can help deterrence is that it may grant Israel greater
leeway in the case of future escalation. A gracious Israel that,
despite having previously been attacked by its neighbor, eases
restrictions on it, ought to have an easier time gaining support for
future reprisals if it suffers violence. This also provides the
opportunity to wrong-foot anti-Israel campaigners: If they continued
to claim Israel was acting unjustly in Gaza, it would be clearer that
their problem is more about what Israel is than what it does—a sign
of prejudice behind a veil of humanitarianism.
Easing the blockade needn’t mean
dealing with Hamas or easing sanctions on it. It needn’t happen all
at once, either, and could be reversed in steps as easily as it is
eased in steps, provided more possibilities for deterrence-related
reprisals. This means there is little risk in easing the flow of
goods and people across the border and much to gain in terms both of
security and quality of life. One caveat though: Easing must only be
done during periods of quiet and it should be done then.
Easing after a period of escalation rewards that escalation. Given
recent rocket barrages from Gaza, now wouldn’t be the best time,
but if things settle down again soon, soon would be a good time.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Russia, Georgia, Syria, Iran, and Ukraine: Cold War Redux?
I study deterrence, mostly in its non-nuclear, non-Cold War variety. (Deterrence is, to oversimplify, using threats to discourage an opponent from taking certain undesirable actions. Ex: "I'll cut off your oil supply if you attack my neighbor.") I am not an expert on Ukraine or Russia, but I will try to analyze the situation using my knowledge of deterrence, as I think this can tell us a lot about Russia's occupation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. For the most part, it still has little to do with nuclear weapons, but, this being Russia vs. the United States in many ways, they are always lurking in the background.
Some of Barack Obama's critics in America, like John McCain, claim that Russia invaded Crimea because Putin knew America would do nothing about it. The reason Putin knew this was because America "lead from behind" in Libya, hesitant to get involved or commit, and, more importantly, issued a "red line" warning over chemical weapons in Syria and then failed to carry through with the ultimatum, which could weaken America's ability to deter other aggressors, as I myself argued in this blog last September. Is this true? Would Putin have been deterred if Obama appeared tougher or if, say, George W. Bush were still in the White House? Hardly.
I say this not because I twice voted for Barack Obama, but because to say it is his fault is either disingenuous, meant only to hit him politically, or betrays a complete lack of understanding of how deterrence works. As The Economist points out, Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 while G.W. Bush was in the White House and has occupied 20% of the country ever since. Not only did the bellicose President Bush not deter Russia from invading, he also did little to punish it as a result. Russia is much more interested in Crimea and Ukraine than the United States is. What's more, and as can be seen on the map above, Russia has easy access to Crimea and the whole of Ukraine. It can easily launch an invasion or incursion, whereas the United States would require a massive logistical operation just to get troops, ships, and equipment to Ukraine. Considering Americans' war-weariness and financial constraints, such an operation was always unlikely, regardless of how committed the President seemed to other causes or how aggressive his rhetoric. Putin has still been careful, in some ways: He did not invade all of Ukraine and reinstall its ousted president, for example. He took control of an area of Ukraine with a majority Russian population that was long part of Russia and hosts its Black Sea Fleet. He rightly calculated that the US and Europe would be angry, but not so much that they felt forced to undertake real action. In sum: Russia could not have been deterred from this unless there had been US/NATO troops on the ground in Crimea and eastern Ukraine prior to the crisis--something that would never have happened because it would have angered Putin and brought on a crisis by itself and because the US and its allies have never cared enough to risk that. In other words: Russia has deterred NATO and Ukraine from expanding NATO to include Ukraine. And without having Ukraine in NATO, Russia could not have been deterred from taking over Crimea. This is not Obama's fault.
So deterrence has failed. Or has it? Deterrence never realistically applied to all of Ukraine, especially Crimea which, with its Russian population, "Autonomous Republic" status, and Russian bases, was always only tenuously controlled by Ukraine. Deterrence can now work to protect the rest of the country and this is where the US, NATO, and the EU must take a stand. There must be diplomatic consequences for the occupation of Crimea. There must be much more severe consequences for actions in the rest of Ukraine, including attempts to coerce it away from a deal with the EU again. This does not mean war. As I mentioned, Russian nukes are lurking in the background and Russia has a massive geopolitical advantage in Ukraine and an enormous and powerful army. The US should be careful never to threaten war, either, as this would then be a further empty promise it could not back up. An embargo on Russian oil and natural gas would be the biggest step for the most severe case: a Russian invasion of Ukraine (which Putin has darkly called a "last resort"). This would hurt Europe quite badly, particularly countries like Slovakia, who get almost all of their natural gas from Russia, but also Germany, which imports a great deal of it. If Russia invaded Ukraine, however, this would have to be done.
Barring that horror scenario, freezes on assets held abroad by Russian oligarchs in its parliament or close to Putin would be a first step. Visa bans on travel to the US, EU, and other allied countries would be another significant step. These could be used in response to threats on Ukraine or attempts to manipulate it. At the same time, the US and EU should provide Ukraine with economic and technical assistance and promote a functioning democracy there.
In the end, Russia will probably keep Crimea, as it has Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This should come at a price, but Putin surely expects this and is willing to pay it. Further damage and influence over Ukraine can and should be prevented, however. Deterrence can only work when you have the power to back up your threats. This means it's important to chose your threats wisely and not to overplay your hand. Threats of visa bans, asset freezes, and sanctions are credible, and the latter would be quite severe. War is not, and is this is a good thing. There is hope for Ukraine yet.
And what about the title? It is possible that this crisis could lead to steady hardening of positions, especially if it gets carried over into negotiations with Syria and Iran, the former of which Russia supports directly, the latter of which Russia supports more indirectly as a bargaining chip. This would be a much-diminished "iron curtain," however, and Russia is not looking to retreat into economic or political isolation behind it. If you've read this, however, then the "Cold War Redux" part of the title did its job ;-).
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Do we have too much faith in the US Constitution?
I'll start with what I mean by faith. Faith is believing something to be true or right without adequate evidence. If you have evidence for something, you don't need faith. The US Constitution is a wonderful document. It sets out to create the world's first liberal democracy, seeking to guarantee individual freedoms by anchoring them in the founding document itself and creating a government with divided branches all meant to keep each other in check. It is at once a reflection of human hopes for a better world, an attempt to make those hopes reality, and an implicit acceptance of the fallibility and corruptibility of individuals, especially those in power. It looks to the light, but the very need for it suggests a darkness it was meant to prevent (the darkness of tyranny, authoritarianism, and plain old bad governance).
Judged by the standards it set out, the Constitution is an incredibly successful document. The United States has not become a dictatorship, nor has it ever succumbed to dangerous ideologies like communism or fascism. It has remained flexible, changing as the times required to maintain a functioning society. The Constitution itself has also changed over time as the citizens of the United States sought to improve their democracy, something the Founding Fathers anticipated when the wrote the document and specified ways in which it could be changed.
But perhaps the success of the United States, which derives so heavily from its founding document, has led us to revere the Constitution as if it were an immutable holy text. Ideas (and I am taking no position on whether they are good or not) that might change how members of Congress are elected or would abolish the Electoral College are often rejected as if they were heresy rather than viewed according to their merits. The right to bear arms (which I actually support, by the way) is defended not so much on grounds of reason but because it is seen as an inalienable right given, not by god, but by the Constitution. It's almost as if the Founding Fathers were prophets.
What do you think? Do we view the Constitution as if it were something mere mortals ought not to change? Is this good or bad?
Judged by the standards it set out, the Constitution is an incredibly successful document. The United States has not become a dictatorship, nor has it ever succumbed to dangerous ideologies like communism or fascism. It has remained flexible, changing as the times required to maintain a functioning society. The Constitution itself has also changed over time as the citizens of the United States sought to improve their democracy, something the Founding Fathers anticipated when the wrote the document and specified ways in which it could be changed.
But perhaps the success of the United States, which derives so heavily from its founding document, has led us to revere the Constitution as if it were an immutable holy text. Ideas (and I am taking no position on whether they are good or not) that might change how members of Congress are elected or would abolish the Electoral College are often rejected as if they were heresy rather than viewed according to their merits. The right to bear arms (which I actually support, by the way) is defended not so much on grounds of reason but because it is seen as an inalienable right given, not by god, but by the Constitution. It's almost as if the Founding Fathers were prophets.
What do you think? Do we view the Constitution as if it were something mere mortals ought not to change? Is this good or bad?
Friday, January 17, 2014
Is America still the world's lone hyperpower?
Recent US failures and infighting give the impression that the US is weaker than it is.
The answer is "yes," and here is why. Throughout the world, countries have two choices: ally with a regional power or ally with the United States (or both if that regional power is also a US ally--a sign in and of itself). Countries that have an affinity for (or whose economies are perhaps too closely linked with) the regional power side with that power. If others are worried, they seek closer ties with other worried countries and with the United States as a guarantor of their security and interests. The fact that this occurs in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia shows that the US is seen globally as a power that can provide extra security. There is no other country that currently does this. So while there are regional powers that challenge US authority within one part of the globe, the single solution to regional fears remains the United States. Only when that changes (e.g. China begins to be seen as an alternative to an alliance with the US and this outside of China's backyard) will the world be multipolar.
The failure of the US military to solve political problems was a sign of US hubris, foolishness, and naivete, but it was not a sign of failing US power. Political problems require political solutions. Military force can defeat an enemy or clamp down on violence, but it cannot, in the end, provide a political solution, especially if that solution is supposed to be democracy rather than an iron-fisted dictatorship. This has always been the case. Without an internal readiness and cultural preparedness for democracy, democracy cannot come about. By its very nature (since it exists at the behest of the people), democracy cannot be forced. No amount of power in the world could have changed that. (State building may bring a country to democracy over years or decades, but it is an uncertain and incredibly intensive and expensive endeavor and requires civic education and institution-building--political solutions, in other words.)
Finally, that the US cannot always get what it wants and is constrained by international politics is also not in itself a sign that the US is not a hyperpower because this misunderstands the term. All states are subject to others' influence and demands and are not free to act as they please with complete impunity. States have varying degrees of freedom of action, however, and the US is freer than others due to its power. The US can, when it chooses, act alone militarily anywhere in the world. No other country can do this (except to a certain extent, perhaps, for Russia, which is however much weaker in other respects). When France and the UK got together to support rebels in Libya, their combined power was not enough: They needed US assistance to be effective.
The US is rightly chastened by its foolhardy experiment with neoconservatism and its inflated belief in the ability of the military to solve the world's problems. It has perhaps now swung too far in the opposite direction, but this is probably also temporary. In the end, however, its underlying power and ability to affect the world has only been lightly diminished, and this more by the damage to its reputation caused by the wars in the Middle East, political infighting in Washington, and its own (faulty) acceptance of its loss of power than by any real changes in fundamentals. US power still underwrites the international system and that will continue to be the case for at least another decade or two. Beyond that, anything could happen (even including a continued unipolar world with the US at its head--or not).
Friday, December 27, 2013
What has created high-paying blue-collar jobs, reduced America's trade deficit and greenhouse gas emissions, and cut Americans' energy bills (also further boosting the economy)? FRACKING!
Many of you will have read the title to this post and thought "sacrilege!" Fracking is an emotional topic just about anywhere that it is performed or contemplated. Countries like France and Bulgaria have at least temporarily banned the practice, while Luxembourg has failed to vote to allow it. Even in countries where it is not illegal, like Britain, it is distrusted and moves ahead only slowly.
There is certainly reason to be concerned. Companies that frack can rightly claim that there is no evidence of fracking ever contaminating a drinking water well, but they rely on a few tricks to make that assertion. The first trick is semantic: Contamination from oil or gas extraction can occur in many ways. The hydraulic fracturing (fracking) that cracks open the shale formations to release gas and oil is just one small part of the process and it is true that there is no evidence that this, by itself, has ever caused contamination (nor, as geologists point out, is it likely to). But who cares? The process of bringing it to the surface through supposedly hermetically sealed pipes that run through levels of rock that contain drinking water is an obvious concern. If contamination occurred at that stage, it wouldn't technically be due to fracking, but again... who cares? Finally, there have been confirmed cases of contamination from the ponds used to store waste water from the fracking process until it can be disposed of. Those ponds are often open and can overflow in a rain storm, causing toxic substances to leach into the soil and groundwater. Regulation of the ponds, the seals, and the chemicals used in fracking varies widely and is not based on solid study, all of which should be deeply disturbing to anyone interested in the safety of drinking water and the preservation of the environment or even just their crop fields.
That said, the other side of the debate is also guilty of twisting the facts to suit their own ideological desires. Many environmentalists point to the massive use of water (up to 7 million gallons for a single well) to frack wells. That sounds mind-boggling, but put it into context: "Of the [9,500 million] gallons of water used daily in Pennsylvania, natural gas development consumes 1.9 million gallons a day (mgd); livestock use 62 mgd; mining, 96 mgd; and industry, 770 mgd."1 In other words, fracking uses just 3% of the water used by agriculture in that state and just 0.2% of the water used by other industries. Granted, in a place plagued by drought (like Texas), this can still make a huge difference, but it is often blown out of proportion. Conventional oil fields also often require water to be pumped into them to maintain pressure and push oil out, so this is not something entirely new to fracking. Another claim is about contamination of drinking water. As noted above, some contamination has occurred from the above-ground pools used to store drilling waste. What's more, it seems gas has occasionally leaked upwards along improperly sealed pipes and into groundwater. The problem is, drinking water wells have more often been contaminated due to naturally-occurring gas deposits than from natural gas drilling. One study found levels of methane in groundwater in fracking areas to be close to background levels published previously by the US Geological Survey (i.e. the methane was there already). Another study notes levels were higher near fracking wells--but I'd point out that you'd also likely drill wells where you'd have more gas to find, so there may be a chicken-and-egg problem here. It should also be pointed out that fracking is not actually new, it's been done since the 1950s with little opposition.
After all that back-and-forth, your conclusion ought to be "mixed bag," and you might thus say "better safe than sorry." I agree with that to a point, but since fracking has been done safely for ages, many of the claims of the dangers are unfounded or confirmed only rarely, and because cases in which contamination occurred have seemingly always resulted from lax safety regimes, on balance I'd say: tighten up the rules, enforce them strictly, and move forward with fracking. Why? Because there's more to this debate than whether groundwater has been contaminated or not (or whether air pollution from it is dangerous, etc. etc.).
As my title suggests, there are massive benefits! By 2020, it is estimated that the American fracking boom will have generated 1.7 million jobs--"far more than the car industry provides." And these are the types of jobs that have been disappearing since the 1960s: They don't require a lot of skill or education, but they can lift those doing them solidly into the middle class. It's a force against the "hollowing out" of the American economy, whereby those in the middle class are either having to find some way to move up the income ladder--or accept sliding down it. Another benefit is to America's trade balance. America has run a trade deficit (importing more than it exports) since the 1970s (with just one exception). If you spend more money than you earn, you have to borrow the difference. The US has done just that for all that time. Its government is in hock to China and Japan, but the private sector has also seen foreign banks lending domestic banks money, which eventually has to be repaid. Many mortgages are held by banks in Germany, for example. This cannot continue forever (and was one big factor in the 2008-9 financial crisis). America either needs to import less or export more. Shale gas and oil found domestically mean the US can import less of both and export more, so the US could even start paying down its debts without having to spend less on other things (it's like a get-out-of-jail-free card).2 We should not underestimate this benefit. It could potentially mean lower borrowing costs (cheaper loans to homeowners, businesses, students) coupled with lower energy prices (saving people money) and more (and higher paying) jobs. It's a big deal.
Next, there are the environmental benefits. If fracking can be done safely, its ecological ledger could be on the positive side. Natural gas is cleaner than coal, both in terms of CO2 emissions and in terms of other forms of air pollution from coal (like particulates and sulfur oxides). US greenhouse gas emissions have already fallen by 300 million tons since 2000 (without even really trying--we didn't sign up to Kyoto, after all), and the pace looks to be quickening. Some of that is due to the recession, but some is due to natural gas replacing coal for electricity generation. Coupled with the benefits of lower energy bills, less foreign borrowing, more high-paying blue-collar jobs, and less American money going to unsavory regimes throughout the world in exchange for their oil (a point I haven't really made here but one that is highly significant if you're interested in how American foreign policy shapes the world), and fracking, carefully regulated, can be a very, very good thing.
There is certainly reason to be concerned. Companies that frack can rightly claim that there is no evidence of fracking ever contaminating a drinking water well, but they rely on a few tricks to make that assertion. The first trick is semantic: Contamination from oil or gas extraction can occur in many ways. The hydraulic fracturing (fracking) that cracks open the shale formations to release gas and oil is just one small part of the process and it is true that there is no evidence that this, by itself, has ever caused contamination (nor, as geologists point out, is it likely to). But who cares? The process of bringing it to the surface through supposedly hermetically sealed pipes that run through levels of rock that contain drinking water is an obvious concern. If contamination occurred at that stage, it wouldn't technically be due to fracking, but again... who cares? Finally, there have been confirmed cases of contamination from the ponds used to store waste water from the fracking process until it can be disposed of. Those ponds are often open and can overflow in a rain storm, causing toxic substances to leach into the soil and groundwater. Regulation of the ponds, the seals, and the chemicals used in fracking varies widely and is not based on solid study, all of which should be deeply disturbing to anyone interested in the safety of drinking water and the preservation of the environment or even just their crop fields.
That said, the other side of the debate is also guilty of twisting the facts to suit their own ideological desires. Many environmentalists point to the massive use of water (up to 7 million gallons for a single well) to frack wells. That sounds mind-boggling, but put it into context: "Of the [9,500 million] gallons of water used daily in Pennsylvania, natural gas development consumes 1.9 million gallons a day (mgd); livestock use 62 mgd; mining, 96 mgd; and industry, 770 mgd."1 In other words, fracking uses just 3% of the water used by agriculture in that state and just 0.2% of the water used by other industries. Granted, in a place plagued by drought (like Texas), this can still make a huge difference, but it is often blown out of proportion. Conventional oil fields also often require water to be pumped into them to maintain pressure and push oil out, so this is not something entirely new to fracking. Another claim is about contamination of drinking water. As noted above, some contamination has occurred from the above-ground pools used to store drilling waste. What's more, it seems gas has occasionally leaked upwards along improperly sealed pipes and into groundwater. The problem is, drinking water wells have more often been contaminated due to naturally-occurring gas deposits than from natural gas drilling. One study found levels of methane in groundwater in fracking areas to be close to background levels published previously by the US Geological Survey (i.e. the methane was there already). Another study notes levels were higher near fracking wells--but I'd point out that you'd also likely drill wells where you'd have more gas to find, so there may be a chicken-and-egg problem here. It should also be pointed out that fracking is not actually new, it's been done since the 1950s with little opposition.
After all that back-and-forth, your conclusion ought to be "mixed bag," and you might thus say "better safe than sorry." I agree with that to a point, but since fracking has been done safely for ages, many of the claims of the dangers are unfounded or confirmed only rarely, and because cases in which contamination occurred have seemingly always resulted from lax safety regimes, on balance I'd say: tighten up the rules, enforce them strictly, and move forward with fracking. Why? Because there's more to this debate than whether groundwater has been contaminated or not (or whether air pollution from it is dangerous, etc. etc.).
As my title suggests, there are massive benefits! By 2020, it is estimated that the American fracking boom will have generated 1.7 million jobs--"far more than the car industry provides." And these are the types of jobs that have been disappearing since the 1960s: They don't require a lot of skill or education, but they can lift those doing them solidly into the middle class. It's a force against the "hollowing out" of the American economy, whereby those in the middle class are either having to find some way to move up the income ladder--or accept sliding down it. Another benefit is to America's trade balance. America has run a trade deficit (importing more than it exports) since the 1970s (with just one exception). If you spend more money than you earn, you have to borrow the difference. The US has done just that for all that time. Its government is in hock to China and Japan, but the private sector has also seen foreign banks lending domestic banks money, which eventually has to be repaid. Many mortgages are held by banks in Germany, for example. This cannot continue forever (and was one big factor in the 2008-9 financial crisis). America either needs to import less or export more. Shale gas and oil found domestically mean the US can import less of both and export more, so the US could even start paying down its debts without having to spend less on other things (it's like a get-out-of-jail-free card).2 We should not underestimate this benefit. It could potentially mean lower borrowing costs (cheaper loans to homeowners, businesses, students) coupled with lower energy prices (saving people money) and more (and higher paying) jobs. It's a big deal.
Next, there are the environmental benefits. If fracking can be done safely, its ecological ledger could be on the positive side. Natural gas is cleaner than coal, both in terms of CO2 emissions and in terms of other forms of air pollution from coal (like particulates and sulfur oxides). US greenhouse gas emissions have already fallen by 300 million tons since 2000 (without even really trying--we didn't sign up to Kyoto, after all), and the pace looks to be quickening. Some of that is due to the recession, but some is due to natural gas replacing coal for electricity generation. Coupled with the benefits of lower energy bills, less foreign borrowing, more high-paying blue-collar jobs, and less American money going to unsavory regimes throughout the world in exchange for their oil (a point I haven't really made here but one that is highly significant if you're interested in how American foreign policy shapes the world), and fracking, carefully regulated, can be a very, very good thing.
1. McGraw, Seamus. “Is Fracking Safe? The Top 10 Myths About Natural Gas Drilling.” Popular Mechanics, February 2, 2012. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-2.
2. I should note here that Americans might continue to borrow just as much abroad because they feel richer and foreigners continue to like investing (lending) in America. It's a complicated equation and is not only under Americans' control.
2. I should note here that Americans might continue to borrow just as much abroad because they feel richer and foreigners continue to like investing (lending) in America. It's a complicated equation and is not only under Americans' control.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Is there such a thing as "reverse racism"? Yes, but it's probably not what you had in mind
Can white people be the targets of racism? Some say yes, of course. Others say that even if a black person disliked white people in general, it would make no difference because white people are still privileged, so this is not racism.
In a sense, both views are correct. First off, anyone who takes general beliefs about a group of people, whether based on facts or not, and applies these supposed attributes to someone they do not know, or wrongly imposes this perception on someone they do know, is guilty of prejudice. Period. If the group in question is a racial group, it is racism, but that sub-definition is secondary.
White people and others who are privileged need to be conscious, however, of institutional racism. This is the second argument from above, and it is also true. The system itself (laws, courts, police, the economy) in any society is always vulnerable to serving primarily the needs of those with the most power. This situation is ameliorated by democracy, but it is not eliminated. And the point above is quite right: If you hate someone, regardless of the reason, but are not in a position of power, that hate is mostly irrelevant (unless you decide to take the last into your own hands, perhaps, but that will not change what happens next). If a person with power, even a person who approves bank accounts or building permits, for example, hates someone, their position gives substance to that hate. What's more, it does this in a way that often make this hatred invisible: There are almost always reasons that can be found for denying a loan application or other request, allowing hate to be disguised, perhaps even to the hater. As far as institutions are concerned, then, white people cannot suffer racism. (Isolated cases would quickly be rectified by other parts of the system like judicial appeal, elections, lobbying, etc.).
As far as "reverse racism" goes, the term is mostly a misnomer. Disliking someone due to their race is racism, regardless of which race each person belongs to--there's nothing "reverse" about it. LIKING someone due to their race could be called reverse racism. This might be a side effect of plain old racism, though, if that like is a byproduct of dislike of other races. I think the best example of reverse racism is probably affirmative action. It is a race-based policy that gives advantages to a group based solely on race in order to counteract the prejudices that group experiences otherwise. I nearly called it a racist policy, but caught myself because, according to my own definition, racism is hate based on race. Since affirmative action is not hate, but advantage for those otherwise disadvantaged, it is not necessarily racist. It is racist if other disadvantaged groups become disadvantaged as a result (a form of institutional hate, you could argue).
Thoughts?
In a sense, both views are correct. First off, anyone who takes general beliefs about a group of people, whether based on facts or not, and applies these supposed attributes to someone they do not know, or wrongly imposes this perception on someone they do know, is guilty of prejudice. Period. If the group in question is a racial group, it is racism, but that sub-definition is secondary.
White people and others who are privileged need to be conscious, however, of institutional racism. This is the second argument from above, and it is also true. The system itself (laws, courts, police, the economy) in any society is always vulnerable to serving primarily the needs of those with the most power. This situation is ameliorated by democracy, but it is not eliminated. And the point above is quite right: If you hate someone, regardless of the reason, but are not in a position of power, that hate is mostly irrelevant (unless you decide to take the last into your own hands, perhaps, but that will not change what happens next). If a person with power, even a person who approves bank accounts or building permits, for example, hates someone, their position gives substance to that hate. What's more, it does this in a way that often make this hatred invisible: There are almost always reasons that can be found for denying a loan application or other request, allowing hate to be disguised, perhaps even to the hater. As far as institutions are concerned, then, white people cannot suffer racism. (Isolated cases would quickly be rectified by other parts of the system like judicial appeal, elections, lobbying, etc.).
As far as "reverse racism" goes, the term is mostly a misnomer. Disliking someone due to their race is racism, regardless of which race each person belongs to--there's nothing "reverse" about it. LIKING someone due to their race could be called reverse racism. This might be a side effect of plain old racism, though, if that like is a byproduct of dislike of other races. I think the best example of reverse racism is probably affirmative action. It is a race-based policy that gives advantages to a group based solely on race in order to counteract the prejudices that group experiences otherwise. I nearly called it a racist policy, but caught myself because, according to my own definition, racism is hate based on race. Since affirmative action is not hate, but advantage for those otherwise disadvantaged, it is not necessarily racist. It is racist if other disadvantaged groups become disadvantaged as a result (a form of institutional hate, you could argue).
Thoughts?
Thursday, October 3, 2013
When don't we have to respect others' opinions?
"I'm entitled to my opinion" is something people say when they've started to get offended. The correct response to this may be "sure, sorry," or "yes, you are. Now, as I was saying..." depending on what you're talking about. It should be the former if you find yourself in some stupid argument about taste, like "chocolate ice cream is definitely better than vanilla." If it's about something with objective elements, then fair game, as long as you're concentrating on those. But it's not so easy, right?
Since my readers are mostly liberal, I'll start of with an example in which a liberal shut down a discussion because he viewed it as offensive. There was an article about "new germ theory." The author argued that many diseases we believe are genetic cannot possibly be so because anything that reduces the likelihood that you will reproduce even by 1% will be eliminated from the gene pool within x (I don't remember the number) generations. He thus argued that diseases like MS, heart disease, and many cancers were caused by viruses. (By the way, he did present actual evidence of this, too, so there's something to the line of reasoning). Whether he is right is beside the point, for the crucial part came toward the end, when he mentioned that homosexuality ought to reduce the likelihood of reproduction and therefore ought not to exist. The fact that he does, he reasoned, suggested that it came from somewhere else, perhaps some sort of infection.
The person I mentioned commented in class that he found the article interesting up until that point, but then he stopped reading. He has many gay friends, he said, and this sort of bigoted talk was simply unacceptable. Stepping through the looking glass into bizarroworld, I, the gay man, spoke up to defend the author. Why? His idea was uncomfortable, to be sure. Gays have long fought not to be seen as "sick," and here was a guy trying to throw this back at them again. But the fact that I do not like where this is going does not mean that any such sort of line of investigation should be halted. There was no suggestion that the author was using this to, say, deprive gays of their rights or lower their status. He was a rebel in the world of disease research and was thus also asking a politically incorrect, but valid, question, "Why is there homosexuality?" while attempting to rule out certain reasons and put forth a more likely explanation, as he saw it. He is not (necessarily) a homophobe for asking any more than someone asking why blacks in America earn less than other racial groups is (necessarily) racist. It's the context (how he says it and why), yes, but also the substance (what he actually says).
Moving on, an opinion like "gun control is bad" is not immune to questioning because it is not a matter of taste. Liking guns may lie at the heart of the opinion, just as a dislike of them may underlie arguments for gun control. If it were about liking guns, there would be nothing more to talk about (like chocolate vs vanilla ice cream). But there IS more to talk about, because being for or against gun control involves loads of other aspects and opinions are built on "facts," many of which may not be true. Getting to these is what a discussion is about. One person may mean "banning guns" when they think gun control, the other may not. Some may be encouraged by statistics that show crime rates falling when bans on carrying handguns are removed (this does happen), while others are more concerned about the increased likelihood of accidents in the home. Still others may conclude that, since America will never be mostly gun free like Britain due to its constitution, it is unclear how most gun control measures, which would in effect restrict gun ownership by law abiding citizens rather than criminals, would really help. NONE of these issues is an opinion. If the two people in a discussion are on the same page with all of these but still have opposing viewpoints, THAT is an opinion, and that may be the end of the story. You may have to agree to disagree because you place value on different things (a matter of preference). In most cases, all the facts are not apparent to all people (or even most of them). Discussion is necessary to bring these to the forefront.
It is possible to question someone's views while still "respecting" them. If I come to the conclusion that fewer guns would reduce deaths and that would be good, while the other person concludes that crooks have guns and she wants to be able to protect herself, while we both know the same information, then it has become a matter of taste and no further discussion is necessary (in an idealized democracy of well-informed citizens, this is where voting would settle the matter).
We do not have to "respect" a person's opinion if it involves disliking black people, or gays, or thinking women should "know their place." You are entitled to that opinion in the sense that no one can stop you from having it and no legal action can be taken against you for having or expressing it unless it manifests itself physically (liking firing a black employee, beating your wife, or inciting violence), but that doesn't mean you have a right for everyone to "respect" your opinion by not questioning it. In the end, all opinions, ideas, and beliefs are up for debate. Conducting that debate in a respectful manner is the most useful way, in my opinion (being confrontational is unlikely to get the other person to listen and just isn't, well, nice), but debating itself is never disrespectful unless it is truly a matter of taste. Obviously, though, chocolate and vanilla ice cream together is best.
Since my readers are mostly liberal, I'll start of with an example in which a liberal shut down a discussion because he viewed it as offensive. There was an article about "new germ theory." The author argued that many diseases we believe are genetic cannot possibly be so because anything that reduces the likelihood that you will reproduce even by 1% will be eliminated from the gene pool within x (I don't remember the number) generations. He thus argued that diseases like MS, heart disease, and many cancers were caused by viruses. (By the way, he did present actual evidence of this, too, so there's something to the line of reasoning). Whether he is right is beside the point, for the crucial part came toward the end, when he mentioned that homosexuality ought to reduce the likelihood of reproduction and therefore ought not to exist. The fact that he does, he reasoned, suggested that it came from somewhere else, perhaps some sort of infection.
The person I mentioned commented in class that he found the article interesting up until that point, but then he stopped reading. He has many gay friends, he said, and this sort of bigoted talk was simply unacceptable. Stepping through the looking glass into bizarroworld, I, the gay man, spoke up to defend the author. Why? His idea was uncomfortable, to be sure. Gays have long fought not to be seen as "sick," and here was a guy trying to throw this back at them again. But the fact that I do not like where this is going does not mean that any such sort of line of investigation should be halted. There was no suggestion that the author was using this to, say, deprive gays of their rights or lower their status. He was a rebel in the world of disease research and was thus also asking a politically incorrect, but valid, question, "Why is there homosexuality?" while attempting to rule out certain reasons and put forth a more likely explanation, as he saw it. He is not (necessarily) a homophobe for asking any more than someone asking why blacks in America earn less than other racial groups is (necessarily) racist. It's the context (how he says it and why), yes, but also the substance (what he actually says).
Moving on, an opinion like "gun control is bad" is not immune to questioning because it is not a matter of taste. Liking guns may lie at the heart of the opinion, just as a dislike of them may underlie arguments for gun control. If it were about liking guns, there would be nothing more to talk about (like chocolate vs vanilla ice cream). But there IS more to talk about, because being for or against gun control involves loads of other aspects and opinions are built on "facts," many of which may not be true. Getting to these is what a discussion is about. One person may mean "banning guns" when they think gun control, the other may not. Some may be encouraged by statistics that show crime rates falling when bans on carrying handguns are removed (this does happen), while others are more concerned about the increased likelihood of accidents in the home. Still others may conclude that, since America will never be mostly gun free like Britain due to its constitution, it is unclear how most gun control measures, which would in effect restrict gun ownership by law abiding citizens rather than criminals, would really help. NONE of these issues is an opinion. If the two people in a discussion are on the same page with all of these but still have opposing viewpoints, THAT is an opinion, and that may be the end of the story. You may have to agree to disagree because you place value on different things (a matter of preference). In most cases, all the facts are not apparent to all people (or even most of them). Discussion is necessary to bring these to the forefront.
It is possible to question someone's views while still "respecting" them. If I come to the conclusion that fewer guns would reduce deaths and that would be good, while the other person concludes that crooks have guns and she wants to be able to protect herself, while we both know the same information, then it has become a matter of taste and no further discussion is necessary (in an idealized democracy of well-informed citizens, this is where voting would settle the matter).
We do not have to "respect" a person's opinion if it involves disliking black people, or gays, or thinking women should "know their place." You are entitled to that opinion in the sense that no one can stop you from having it and no legal action can be taken against you for having or expressing it unless it manifests itself physically (liking firing a black employee, beating your wife, or inciting violence), but that doesn't mean you have a right for everyone to "respect" your opinion by not questioning it. In the end, all opinions, ideas, and beliefs are up for debate. Conducting that debate in a respectful manner is the most useful way, in my opinion (being confrontational is unlikely to get the other person to listen and just isn't, well, nice), but debating itself is never disrespectful unless it is truly a matter of taste. Obviously, though, chocolate and vanilla ice cream together is best.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Want to Fight Extremism and Help Moves toward Middle East Peace? A Deal with Iran Might Help.
Photo: The Guardian - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/04/iran-suspend-uranium-enrichment
One of the reasons I have been arguing for action on Syria is because Iran is watching. If we're not willing to stop Syria from using chemical weapons, so the argument goes, Iran will know full well that we are not going to bomb it to stop it from getting a nuclear weapon. Now that our weak commitment to enforcing norms against weapons of mass destruction has become clear, however, it may be time to look for the bright side. In this case, the bright side has to do with the other half of the deterrence equation: the promise.
Most people focus on the threat side of deterrence because deterrence is, roughly, using contingent threats to prevent an adversary from taking a particular undesirable action. The "contingent" part (we will attack only if you do x) is often swiftly forgotten, but deterrence cannot work without it. "You won't like what we'll do to you if you do x" also means "if you DON'T do x, everything will be fine." Similarly, a lot of time is spent worrying about the credibility of threats, but almost no thought is given to the credibility of promises NOT to attack. This is a huge oversight, because if I believe you'll attack me either way, I have a strong incentive to hit you first, or do whatever it was you didn't like, in order to be stronger and appear defiant in the face of your threats.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Edward Snowden: Hero or Criminal?
I deliberately chose a bad title for this post because I think it gets to the heart of the matter while missing the point. Hero or criminal? Are the terms mutually exclusive? Of course not. And it's not just that "one man's hero is another man's criminal." To me, Snowden is both.
What is a hero? Someone who takes great risks to do something they believe is right in order to help others. Critically, I think others have to appreciate this in order for the act to be heroic. The Oklahoma City Bomber may well have thought he was doing the country a favor by blowing up a building and killing loads of people. I think nearly everyone can agree we don't need that kind of "help." So the term is subjective, but does have clear elements. Notice there is nothing about "the law" in the definition.
We all know what a criminal is: someone who breaks the law. We might even expand the definition to include social norms that aren't laws (many consider bank chiefs criminals, even though it seems we can't pin any actual offenses on them). Note that breaking the law is not subjective, nor do we generally allow for "good reasons." (For example, a woman who murders her husband because he abused her, while perhaps gaining some sympathy, is still a murderer and will rightly go to prison.)
Snowden? Is he a hero? He definitely took a risk to do something he believed was right. Is he self-righteous? Perhaps, but many heroes probably are, so I don't think that matters. The big question here is: Do the people he thinks he's helping appreciate the help? I think the answer is "yes." Apparently, Americans are fairly divided (despite the blog title, which suggests Americans are heavily opposed) on the issue of NSA data collection and there are a lot of Snowden supporters out there, to be sure. Also, I suspect that even many people who approve of the NSA's activities are secretly also happy that they know more about them now.
I personally knew of the NSA's metadata collection long before Snowden leaked it. It was public information. The extent to which the NSA was doing it was not clear, however, nor was some of the information about monitoring of emails, websites, and social media. I am against this level of surveillance, but I also am not aware that the US Government has broken any laws or done anything necessarily unconstitutional. The laws just allow too much.
I'm happy the information Snowden released has come to light. I'm also clear that his releasing it, especially his hacking into areas he was not legally granted access, was illegal. He is a criminal, but his flight around the world definitely has a strongly heroic vibe, which is why he as a person (the hero being pursued by the long arm of a global super power) has perhaps more potential to damage the US's reputation than the coming to light of US surveillance activities.
What is a hero? Someone who takes great risks to do something they believe is right in order to help others. Critically, I think others have to appreciate this in order for the act to be heroic. The Oklahoma City Bomber may well have thought he was doing the country a favor by blowing up a building and killing loads of people. I think nearly everyone can agree we don't need that kind of "help." So the term is subjective, but does have clear elements. Notice there is nothing about "the law" in the definition.
We all know what a criminal is: someone who breaks the law. We might even expand the definition to include social norms that aren't laws (many consider bank chiefs criminals, even though it seems we can't pin any actual offenses on them). Note that breaking the law is not subjective, nor do we generally allow for "good reasons." (For example, a woman who murders her husband because he abused her, while perhaps gaining some sympathy, is still a murderer and will rightly go to prison.)
Snowden? Is he a hero? He definitely took a risk to do something he believed was right. Is he self-righteous? Perhaps, but many heroes probably are, so I don't think that matters. The big question here is: Do the people he thinks he's helping appreciate the help? I think the answer is "yes." Apparently, Americans are fairly divided (despite the blog title, which suggests Americans are heavily opposed) on the issue of NSA data collection and there are a lot of Snowden supporters out there, to be sure. Also, I suspect that even many people who approve of the NSA's activities are secretly also happy that they know more about them now.
I personally knew of the NSA's metadata collection long before Snowden leaked it. It was public information. The extent to which the NSA was doing it was not clear, however, nor was some of the information about monitoring of emails, websites, and social media. I am against this level of surveillance, but I also am not aware that the US Government has broken any laws or done anything necessarily unconstitutional. The laws just allow too much.
I'm happy the information Snowden released has come to light. I'm also clear that his releasing it, especially his hacking into areas he was not legally granted access, was illegal. He is a criminal, but his flight around the world definitely has a strongly heroic vibe, which is why he as a person (the hero being pursued by the long arm of a global super power) has perhaps more potential to damage the US's reputation than the coming to light of US surveillance activities.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
America Should Support Democracy... Right?
Obama has good reasons for going against America's principles in favor of cynical pragmatism. That doesn't mean it's the right decision.
The situation in Egypt provides a great example of the ethical conundrums that await any leader when dealing with foreign policy. What just happened in Egypt can only reasonably be called a military coup. US law requires the US to cut off aid to any country in which a democratically elected leader is overthrown by undemocratic means. In Egypt, the military issued an ultimatum--a military giving order to an elected government (the opposite of how things ought to work). When the government didn't fulfill the military's demands, it seized the president and appointed a caretaker government of its choosing. It also shut down media outlets sympathetic to the elected government, trampling on an essential ingredient for a successful democracy: a free press. Legally, then, the case for cutting off the US's annual aid of $1.3 billion to the Egyptian military is pretty clear-cut. So far, Obama has shied away from declaring that the coup was, in fact, a coup, in order to keep his options open.
Beyond the legality of US aid to the Egyptian military, moreover, there are also myriad moral issues at stake. How can the US honestly claim to support democracy when it only does so if it likes the regime that was overthrown? Not cutting off aid makes the US look like a complete hypocrite and undermines its moral authority when trying to push for democracy elsewhere. This is particularly true in the Middle East, where Islam-inspired political parties may now conclude that democracy won't work and that the only way to get to power is to seize power and shut down all opposition. The Middle East's experiment with democracy could be over before it starts.
So why hasn't the US cut off aid? This is where it gets complicated. It started paying aid to Egypt in 1979 as part of its support of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Egypt agreed to sign the treaty and demilitarize the Sinai Peninsula, thereby fulfilling Israel's security needs. This was the right thing to do, as it supported peace, even though it was aid to the military of a dictatorship. It also helped shift Egypt out of the Soviet orbit during the Cold War. Over the years since, the US military has fostered close ties to its counterpart in Egypt. This is the strongest connection between the US and Egypt. During last year's uprising that brought down Mubarak, the US is said to have used the good relationship between the two countries' militaries to encourage, and to push for, democratic elections in Egypt. All good stuff, then.
The reasons for not cutting the aid are all related to this. Egypt has all the leverage with the aid. The aid is related to Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. It it's cut, Egypt might retaliate by abrogating the treaty. This doesn't necessarily mean war with Israel or even re-militarization of Sinai, but it could be the first step in rising instability between the two of them. The aid lies at the root of the cooperation between the militaries of the US and Egypt, and that cooperation is the greatest source of influence between the two. Canceling the aid would thus most likely end the cooperation and thus the US's last source of influence in Egypt. That would mean the US would have less ability to encourage a return to democracy or peace with Israel. This is why it's so tricky to stay involved and to stay "morally" clean in this case.
There are no easy answers, but I think I have to side with John McCain on this one: Suspend aid. Suspend, not terminate. It should be known that aid will be restored as soon as free and fair elections have been held and providing Egypt sticks to the peace treaty with Israel. When aid is restored, back payments should also be made, so Egypt suffers no loss in the long term.
It's a risky strategy, admittedly. Egypt has enough difficulties at home that it would make no sense to start problems with Israel. This oft-cited fact is little comfort, however. It is precisely during times of great internal turmoil that rulers do unexpected, illogical, and dangerous things. After all, what better way to unite the Egyptian people behind the government than by ditching an unpopular treaty with Israel and possibly making aggressive noises towards it? Israel can definitely defend itself, but an escalation of that kind would still be dangerous for Israel, Egypt, and the whole region. If Obama seems indecisive about whether to stick to America's principles or go with cynical pragmatism, this is why.
The situation in Egypt provides a great example of the ethical conundrums that await any leader when dealing with foreign policy. What just happened in Egypt can only reasonably be called a military coup. US law requires the US to cut off aid to any country in which a democratically elected leader is overthrown by undemocratic means. In Egypt, the military issued an ultimatum--a military giving order to an elected government (the opposite of how things ought to work). When the government didn't fulfill the military's demands, it seized the president and appointed a caretaker government of its choosing. It also shut down media outlets sympathetic to the elected government, trampling on an essential ingredient for a successful democracy: a free press. Legally, then, the case for cutting off the US's annual aid of $1.3 billion to the Egyptian military is pretty clear-cut. So far, Obama has shied away from declaring that the coup was, in fact, a coup, in order to keep his options open.
Beyond the legality of US aid to the Egyptian military, moreover, there are also myriad moral issues at stake. How can the US honestly claim to support democracy when it only does so if it likes the regime that was overthrown? Not cutting off aid makes the US look like a complete hypocrite and undermines its moral authority when trying to push for democracy elsewhere. This is particularly true in the Middle East, where Islam-inspired political parties may now conclude that democracy won't work and that the only way to get to power is to seize power and shut down all opposition. The Middle East's experiment with democracy could be over before it starts.
So why hasn't the US cut off aid? This is where it gets complicated. It started paying aid to Egypt in 1979 as part of its support of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Egypt agreed to sign the treaty and demilitarize the Sinai Peninsula, thereby fulfilling Israel's security needs. This was the right thing to do, as it supported peace, even though it was aid to the military of a dictatorship. It also helped shift Egypt out of the Soviet orbit during the Cold War. Over the years since, the US military has fostered close ties to its counterpart in Egypt. This is the strongest connection between the US and Egypt. During last year's uprising that brought down Mubarak, the US is said to have used the good relationship between the two countries' militaries to encourage, and to push for, democratic elections in Egypt. All good stuff, then.
The reasons for not cutting the aid are all related to this. Egypt has all the leverage with the aid. The aid is related to Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. It it's cut, Egypt might retaliate by abrogating the treaty. This doesn't necessarily mean war with Israel or even re-militarization of Sinai, but it could be the first step in rising instability between the two of them. The aid lies at the root of the cooperation between the militaries of the US and Egypt, and that cooperation is the greatest source of influence between the two. Canceling the aid would thus most likely end the cooperation and thus the US's last source of influence in Egypt. That would mean the US would have less ability to encourage a return to democracy or peace with Israel. This is why it's so tricky to stay involved and to stay "morally" clean in this case.
There are no easy answers, but I think I have to side with John McCain on this one: Suspend aid. Suspend, not terminate. It should be known that aid will be restored as soon as free and fair elections have been held and providing Egypt sticks to the peace treaty with Israel. When aid is restored, back payments should also be made, so Egypt suffers no loss in the long term.
It's a risky strategy, admittedly. Egypt has enough difficulties at home that it would make no sense to start problems with Israel. This oft-cited fact is little comfort, however. It is precisely during times of great internal turmoil that rulers do unexpected, illogical, and dangerous things. After all, what better way to unite the Egyptian people behind the government than by ditching an unpopular treaty with Israel and possibly making aggressive noises towards it? Israel can definitely defend itself, but an escalation of that kind would still be dangerous for Israel, Egypt, and the whole region. If Obama seems indecisive about whether to stick to America's principles or go with cynical pragmatism, this is why.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Conspiracyphilia and Vigilantism: Dangerous American Obsessions
I noticed
two related features of American society when I was last home: a
love of conspiracy theories and an approval of vigilante justice. I was appalled to see a "documentary" on the History (or Discovery?) Channel in which there were two explanations put forward for the loss of a squadron of air force planes: 1. The leader got cocky and led his partners astray, as evidenced by the strange things he said, confusion, and disagreement about what to do heard on the radio; or 2. That crystals from the lost city of Atlantis screwed up their navigation instruments and possibly inverted the horizon in order to lead the men astray. There was no conclusion and both stories were represented as equally plausible. This is despite the fact that such crystals have never been found nor is there any real evidence for anything like this. The fact that the second version sounds absurd should demand evidence (though it should not rule it out outright), but this was not given. No doubt most viewers are not fooled... but some may be. The two "theories" are NOT equally plausible to anyone with any sense.
Another example is continued skepticism about the moon landings. Read this for more details on the facts. Here's a quick summary of the most compelling stuff: Signals from the Apollo missions were received all over earth and triangulated by various scientists. One documentary I watched interviewed German scientists who did this. Triangulation allowed them to find out exactly where the craft was in three dimensions and follow its course. It is not possible to fake this. Another great one is some sort of radio array they set up on the moon which can be seen from earth. Setting up is a complex task that back then could only be done by humans. The technology required to send robots to the moon to set it up and do everything else required to pull off the hoax would have been more formidable than actually going there in person (which is what really happened). There's much more, but I won't get into it here. Suffice it to say that I was skeptical of the moon landing until I compared the conspiracy theories with the evidence and found the evidence to be overwhelming. The 9/11 conspiracy theories follow a similar pattern.
The second alarming trend is a desire for vigilante justice (going out and bringing "justice" to someone yourself). My own father went on a rant at one point about how the courts had let some guy off who had murdered two people. He said someone should just go and kill the murderer. Vigilante justice is also a common theme in American movies (where the hero "takes the law into his own hands"). My father, or anyone else not involved in the trial, is significantly less well-informed than the judges and jury at the trial. The idea that someone should be found guilty in the press "because everyone knows he did it" and then executed by some vigilante is frightening. It is also undemocratic, unlawful, and sure to cause more injustice than it fights, as innocent people get killed and emotions rather than reason determine punishments. This is mob rule and it is what exists in a completely barbaric society. Luckily, the fact that you'd be punished yourself for doing it, or perhaps some deeply held norms against it, have so far prevented vigilantism from getting out of control. These two ideas combined are dangerous, however.
America was founded on anti-establishment ideals. We are supposed to question those in power. This is undoubtedly a good thing to question authority. But it is bad when questioning is replace with an assumption that authority is incorrect as soon as one person claims it is, no matter how dubious the claims.
America also has self-reliance as a core ideal. This is also a good thing and is liberating for those who succeed in it. It can also be bad when it leads to an unwillingness to accept the outcomes of a democratic system, including its judiciary.
The result of these two ideas is, for one, a damaging gullibility. Most of the
people who believe various conspiracies do so with no further
research and no investigation of the other side of the (usually fake)
debate. Meanwhile, anti-establishment
sentiment, so integral to American culture, leads to an assumption
that any large organization (the federal government being the largest
of all) is bad until proven otherwise, while smaller organizations
and individuals are good until proven otherwise.
Again,
true skepticism would be a
good thing. But this is a fake skepticism composed of gullibility
about random claims from smaller groups assumed to be innocent
victims and an insurmountable skepticism towards larger
organizations assumed to be bad. The result is a lot of people all
too willing to believe utter nonsense and to justify this by the
fact that big, visible organizations are corrupt and have done bad
things (while the bad things and corruption of smaller, less
visible organizations is ignored or not seen). When
strong positive feelings about self-reliance are combined with a
natural predisposition toward believing anything someone says that
is bad about the government, for example, the solution may seem logical: Take the law into your own hands, question the government's legitimacy, and withdraw from political participation along normal lines (like calling your senator or voting). This perpetuates the cycle by leading to further disengagement and ignorance of the facts.
Mercifully,
vigilante justice has not been very common, but it may be only a matter of time.
The reason there is due process for criminals and that certain
types of evidence, or evidence obtained in certain ways, is
excluded in courts is precisely because
the judiciary must check executive power. Otherwise, it would be
too easy for the police to jail anyone they wanted to (or that they were ordered to). The
whole idea behind innocent until proven guilty is that it is
better, on the whole, to let a guilty person go free than to lock
up (or execute!) an innocent. One highly public case (per year or perhaps even more often) of a man assumed guilty going free is therefore not, by itself, evidence that the courts are not working, and certainly not that they are corrupt. Quite the opposite: If accused people were always convicted, that would be a sign of a corrupt court system!
The
shock people expressed about the NSA spying “scandal”
highlighted for me how people generally fail to inform themselves
about the actions of their government. The extent of information
gathering was a surprise, but the fact that it was going on was
not—for anyone paying attention. Conspiracy
theories contribute to this problem by clouding up debates with
nonsense. If people were a bit less gullible and spent less time
debating nonsensical conspiracy theories (by “sharing” items without further
reading on Facebook, for example), people
might be more aware of the real scandals going on around them and
be more involved in shaping the government and the
world they live in for the better. This is not a gossipy reality TV
show. This is just “plain” reality, which is full of real
scandals and excitement—again: for anyone paying attention.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
What is terrorism?
The murder of a British soldier was terrorism. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, viewed as a whole, are not. The Western coalition may have used acts of terror in specific incidents in those wars, however.
The brutal murder of a British soldier in broad daylight in London a few weeks ago has sent shock waves through the United Kingdom and the world. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, was quick to call the sickening attack a "terrorist incident," while the Times (London) called it "the first terrorist murder in mainland Britain since 2005." At the same time, a writer for the Guardian (also London) questioned whether this could be called an act of terrorism or not and, if it was, how we could then not call the Western coalition's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan terrorism.
It's a fair question, though a reading of the Guardian article is likely to make many people angry (I found his quoting of Michael Moore particularly unfortunate). The reason for that is that the term terrorism has negative connotations in itself. The assumption is that it is an unacceptable form of violence (as opposed to the more "honorable" form of meeting your enemy on the battlefield or defending yourself in your own home, for example). Defining terrorism is extremely difficult. Trust me. If you don't want to, I suggest you read Richard English's Terrorism: How to Respond or Smith and Neumann's The Strategy of Terrorism: How It Works and Why It Fails.
I'll sum up a difficult topic with the best answer I can muster (though one that is not immune to further debate, as I agree with English that coming up with a perfect definition of terrorism probably isn't possible). Terrorism is the use or threat of violence against mainly symbolic targets for political ends (this is a paraphrase of Smith and Neumann's definition). Notice the absence of a definition of targets as "civilian." This is because of the difficulty of defining who is a civilian and the questionable logic behind that restriction. (Why wouldn't a politically-motivated attack on a bunch of unsuspecting soldiers at a base in America be considered terrorism, for example? Is a terrorist attack with mixed victims only terrorism for those among them who are civilians? There are many more issues as well.) A further issue is that it contributes to the normative connotation terrorism brings with it (i.e. it is wrong), which will ALWAYS be subjective, making terrorism impossible to define. If terrorism is always considered "wrong" or "illegitimate," the tendency will be for the side that disliked the attack to call it terrorism and for the side supporting the attack to view it as something else more "honorable."
All violence is scary, which is why I left out the "causing terror" part of the definition, which is still important (after all, it forms the root of the word!). The most important aspect left is the target type. When is a target "mostly symbolic"? When striking it serves little or no "strategic" purpose. The WTC attack is a good example: the US could not be brought down by that one attack, and there would have been better targets for strategic purposes (power stations, airports, military bases, arms contractors, etc.). The main point for the Twin Towers was their powerful symbolism.
So how about the London attack?
How about the Guardian author's other question: Are the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan terrorism? Viewed as a whole, they are not. They are military operations in which targets are selected primarily for their strategic value in weakening the other side. Because terrorism is a tactic, however, that means that individual acts can be terrorism even if it cannot be said that the entire war in Iraq or Afghanistan is. The author mentions "Shock and Awe," the attack on Baghdad during the Second Iraq War. This was indeed meant to impress the Iraqi public and encourage them to help overthrow their leaders. It was a form of propaganda (often cited as an important secondary aspect of terrorism). Nevertheless, the operation's targets were not, I believe, primarily symbolic, so while there are some grounds for labeling this some sort of act of terror, I do not believe, on balance, that this was the case. Other incidents during the war, however, may very well fall under a label of terrorism by this definition. Each attack would have to be evaluated on its own.
The brutal murder of a British soldier in broad daylight in London a few weeks ago has sent shock waves through the United Kingdom and the world. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, was quick to call the sickening attack a "terrorist incident," while the Times (London) called it "the first terrorist murder in mainland Britain since 2005." At the same time, a writer for the Guardian (also London) questioned whether this could be called an act of terrorism or not and, if it was, how we could then not call the Western coalition's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan terrorism.
It's a fair question, though a reading of the Guardian article is likely to make many people angry (I found his quoting of Michael Moore particularly unfortunate). The reason for that is that the term terrorism has negative connotations in itself. The assumption is that it is an unacceptable form of violence (as opposed to the more "honorable" form of meeting your enemy on the battlefield or defending yourself in your own home, for example). Defining terrorism is extremely difficult. Trust me. If you don't want to, I suggest you read Richard English's Terrorism: How to Respond or Smith and Neumann's The Strategy of Terrorism: How It Works and Why It Fails.
I'll sum up a difficult topic with the best answer I can muster (though one that is not immune to further debate, as I agree with English that coming up with a perfect definition of terrorism probably isn't possible). Terrorism is the use or threat of violence against mainly symbolic targets for political ends (this is a paraphrase of Smith and Neumann's definition). Notice the absence of a definition of targets as "civilian." This is because of the difficulty of defining who is a civilian and the questionable logic behind that restriction. (Why wouldn't a politically-motivated attack on a bunch of unsuspecting soldiers at a base in America be considered terrorism, for example? Is a terrorist attack with mixed victims only terrorism for those among them who are civilians? There are many more issues as well.) A further issue is that it contributes to the normative connotation terrorism brings with it (i.e. it is wrong), which will ALWAYS be subjective, making terrorism impossible to define. If terrorism is always considered "wrong" or "illegitimate," the tendency will be for the side that disliked the attack to call it terrorism and for the side supporting the attack to view it as something else more "honorable."
All violence is scary, which is why I left out the "causing terror" part of the definition, which is still important (after all, it forms the root of the word!). The most important aspect left is the target type. When is a target "mostly symbolic"? When striking it serves little or no "strategic" purpose. The WTC attack is a good example: the US could not be brought down by that one attack, and there would have been better targets for strategic purposes (power stations, airports, military bases, arms contractors, etc.). The main point for the Twin Towers was their powerful symbolism.
So how about the London attack?
- It was certainly an act of violence
- It was for political reasons (the perpetrators were quoted as saying " The only reason we've done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day. ... You people will never be safe, remove your Government, they don't care about you."
- The target was not strategically significant, but was highly symbolic: a British soldier wearing a "Help for Heroes" shirt.
How about the Guardian author's other question: Are the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan terrorism? Viewed as a whole, they are not. They are military operations in which targets are selected primarily for their strategic value in weakening the other side. Because terrorism is a tactic, however, that means that individual acts can be terrorism even if it cannot be said that the entire war in Iraq or Afghanistan is. The author mentions "Shock and Awe," the attack on Baghdad during the Second Iraq War. This was indeed meant to impress the Iraqi public and encourage them to help overthrow their leaders. It was a form of propaganda (often cited as an important secondary aspect of terrorism). Nevertheless, the operation's targets were not, I believe, primarily symbolic, so while there are some grounds for labeling this some sort of act of terror, I do not believe, on balance, that this was the case. Other incidents during the war, however, may very well fall under a label of terrorism by this definition. Each attack would have to be evaluated on its own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)