Good Old Sensationalism

Seeing as my role as blogger is to correct the excesses and misapprehensions of the press (yeah right -- pub), I'm going to take a stab at this sensationalist title, which was frankly long overdue and we all knew was coming when word of this Bin Laden tape got out.

Here we have this headline from Msnbc that says, quite frighteningly, "Neither Bush nor Kerry can protect U.S., he says." That sounds like a presage of an attack or something, right? Well, if you read the actual statement it was excerpted from, the message is totally different: “...your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands.” By comparison the real message is much less sinister. It's almost kind of... empowering, but more on that later...

That being said, there are a few things worth noting about this tape. First, it's a rather undire message to be coming from the world's most wanted man. I mean, all his other tapes said things like "you will be attacked everywhere" and so on. Why would this one clearly not try to inspire the usual fear of his network's awesome capability to do harm to the United States and its interests?

In general, there are many good reasons, as a terrorist, to try to come off as frightening. For one it helps to accomplish your political agenda, whatever it may be. Given that terrorists, by definition, use fear as a means to accomplish a certain end, usually political, it would seem that part of the terrorist method would be to extend the fear as much as possible through the most efficient means possible. Now, no one can succeed at manipulating outcomes if they go on tape with their masks and AK-47s threatening to chop the head off of a voodoo doll representing the U.S., or something; you need to be able to back up your threats with credible evidence that you can cause damage. But, once you have already established yourself as a credible threat, what has, to put it in economic terms, the greater marginal return to marginal cost? Planning and executing another 20 year-long operation to blow up major skyscrapers within the United States, or appearing on TV with your guns behind you and making the threat, either explicitly or implicitly, that more attacks are possible or are already on the way? Now, the latter option is much cheaper (costing approximately 30 cents, assuming the guns are fake), and probably almost as effective at engendering fear as an actual attack, at least until it's overused.

But the second reason terrorists would want to appear intimidating is that it helps the network organizationally. Terrorist networks like Al Qaeda do not have the luxury of instituting a draft when membership gets low. They rely on there being a pool of people who want to join the network because they are impressed with the its effectiveness, power, intimidatingness, success, message or whatever. In order to inspire the proper jihad spirit in prospective recruits, the network must appear impressive, directed and formidable, and the only way to do that in today's global environment is to advertise it via these tapes that are sent to international news networks and played all over the world. So there are at least two really good reasons why Al Qaeda would want to appear on the offensive and intimidating, especially in these videos. So why do they not come off as intimidating in this latest video. I have a theory, but it's just a theory. Here it is:

The question of whether or not Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups wish to influence the election has been the topic of much speculation. Some say they want Kerry, some contend they want Bush, and it ususally depends on which side you're on. There are approximately equivalent, and stupid, reasons given in defense of each view: the terrorists want to see Kerry because he is weak and wishy-washy and terrorists love a flip-flopper (it makes all their terrorizing rewarding)! Or, equivalently, they want to see Bush win because he will almost certainly be more inflammatory to the Islamic world, which will help stoke the fire of dissension and anger that provides their organizations with an abundant flow of new recruits. Both of these assumptions seem farcical. Sometimes the argument is extended to "Osama bin Laden wants Kerry, therefore vote for Bush," which is when I usually tune out. After all, the rightly extolled idea of not letting terrorists influence domestic political events means it is equally reprehensible to vote based on which candidate a terrorist would allegedly not want.

The line of reasoning that says that whoever the terrorists want must be inherently against our interest assumes that we are living in a zero-sum world with the terrorists. I'm not so sure this is true. Setting aside the legitimate point that it is morally reprehensible to concede anything to terrorists (this is a kind of retribution argument), I'm not so sure it's correct to say that because the terrorists want something, that means its bad for us. Now, let me make clear what I mean: Insofar as the terrorists are unconditionally committed to our destruction this is obviously a zero-sum game. Similarly, insofar as terrorists are committed to the Islamist vision of a world-wide Islamic theocratic utopia, thereby making it impossible for the United States to exist, our interests are completely opposed. Sadly, I'm not a scholar in these things so I don't know to what extent terrorists are unequivocally committed to these goals. But when it comes to certain discrete demands made by terrorists, which are often also widespread throughout the muslim world, I'm not so sure how much the outcome is either they win or we win. For instance, one of Al Qaeda's big grievances is to ensure the rights of the Palestinians in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It's in our long-term best interest to be even-handed in the peace process, because the idea that we're not is poisonous when spread through the muslim world in particular. Some may argue that radical muslim clerics are going to preach in their maddrassas that the U.S. is partial and evil either way, but why don't we take a legitimate critique away from them? Why not at least have the objective facts on our side that we are doing our best to broker a deal with both sides' interests taken equally into account? Why not give the rest of the world reason to alienate these demagogues for what they are, hate-spewing liars? Or take Al Qaeda's demand that America remove troops from Saudi Arabia. While it may have some strategic value for us to have troops stationed there, it's their land, and if they don't want troops stationed on it for religious or nationalistic regions then that's their call. We may have lost a minor strategic asset, but it's worth the cost of pissing off hundreds of thousands or millions of muslims. Given the choice between keeping troops in Saudi Arabia or taking them out, I'd say taking them out is the correct policy. It has to be a very minor asset. So what I'm trying to say is that just because terrorists would want something doesn't necessarilly make it a bad policy. Therefore, the fact that a terrorist prefers a candidate should not make that candidate a bad choice.

But back to the tape...say for some reason Osama bin Laden did prefer one candidate, and did wish to influence the election in his favor...who would he likely favor? Of all the arguments for each side, which I won't list here and with which I am only vaguely familiar, the ones I find most compelling on the whole are the ones pointing to Kerry. Admittedly, this assumption is the weakest part of my argument and I can't defend it very well. But take for demonstration's sake that he would prefer Kerry; then the question is, if he desired to influence the elections toward Kerry, how would he go about effecting that outcome?

Speculators have long feared a similar situation here to what happened in Spain four days before their presidential election. But an attack isn't going to work, because it has already happened once, and the American people are prepared for it. The first time is sudden and everybody is confused and acting on emotions, but the event has been analyzed enough and people have been educated enough that, if the American people were to change who they elected based on a terrorist strike, they would be aware that they were capitulating to terrorism, and I doubt that's something the American people would accept. Plus, I'm not so sure the American people are capable like the Spaniards of being intimidated into changing their vote by a clearly manipulative attack. Secondly, if anything, a terrorist strike could only help Bush. Remember how Americans unified around the president when the first terrorist attacks happened...why wouldn't the same thing happen again if there was another terrorist attack? There would be arguments for both sides, and an infinite chain of reverse and counter-reverse psychological inference would ensue, but regardless of the real motivation, the perceived target of the attack would be Bush. He's the incumbent for one, and any attack perpetrated while he is in office is an attack on his country under his watch, regardless of how close election day is. So people would either resist being manipulated altogether or if anything further rally around Bush.

If you were trying to sway the election towards Kerry, I think it's safe to say that you would try as hard as possible to avoid the appearance that you were trying to intimidate into a particular result. Bush officials, who have greater prominence than Kerry's officials and thus greater sway, would use an attack as an opportunity to say "Look, they're trying to intimidate you, they're trying to manipulate your decisions. Don't let them. (Vote for George W. Bush)." Since if he tries to blow up people into submission or comes off in any was as trying to influence the outcome it's likely to either not work or backfire in this way, the only way Osama could influence the election for Kerry, it strikes me, is to make an indirect statement about George Bush's policies, and remind the public of George Bush's failures, without seeming to be trying to influence the election. And who better to remind the public of Bush's primary failures than Osama Bin Laden himself. It then also makes sense why this was the first tape in many years in which Osama Bin Laden appears in person, as if to add extra emphasis to the fact that he's still alive.

Really the whole tape is a criticism of Bush or his policies. I'll post a few of the relevant excerpts below:

"...the main reasons” for the Sept. 11 attacks “are still existing to repeat what happened before.”
...
“Do not play with our security, and spontaneously you will secure yourself.”
...
“We never thought that the high commander of the U.S. armies would leave 50,000 of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they most needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from listening to the girl telling him about her goat butting,” he says, referring to Bush’s decision to wait more than seven minutes after being informed of the attacks before leaving an elementary room classroom in Florida where a student was reading a story called “The Pet Goat.”
“It appeared to him that a little girl’s talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thank God.”

It's possible, however, that as most informed people agree bin Laden would not prefer either candidate over the other, because his visions are so extreme that nothing short of a complete Islamic revolution would satisfy them. This is certainly possible, but what would the purpose of releasing a tape right before election day be then?

Update: Everyone seems to concur that the release of this tape helps Bush. Fine, but if that's true, that means that if you take for granted
a) Osama does everything for a reason and knows what he's doing
b) the (mostly GOP) acknowledgements that the release of this tape helps Bush
then you conclude that Osama prefers Bush to Kerry, which is an interesting twist given the whole GOP "Osama prefers Kerry" demagoguery thing.

Report Your Conscience

For those of you who are considering voting for Ralph Nader this election, this may be of interest. Other will probably disregard it. HOWEVER, let me just first say that I personally would not vote for Nader because the number of votes he gets doesn't affect his ability to be heard, except perhaps in a negative light if he again sways a close election. However, the question of whether or not Ralph should be allowed to run is one I think everyone, except the most rabid liberal intelligentsia types, can agree on. Of course he has the right to run, and everyone has the right to vote for him! The more interesting and I think overlooked question is should he be given fair and commensurate coverage despite the unviability of his candidacy. Currently he is not, seeing as I have yet to see one serious piece of coverage of Ralph's platform, what he stands for, and his reasons for running produced by the mainstream media (note that I don't read many news sources very frequently though), and no one of any prominence seems to have a problem with this fact. This, to my mind, is very unfortunate. A visit to his site will show you, he's a serious man (Ok, this isn't serious, though it is quite amusing) with a serious message. Whereas George Bush is a not serious man who has a message, and John Kerry is a serious man who doesn't have a message.

In terms of substance, he has by far the most substantial platform of the three major candidates to draw on, with the most well-developed policies and most attention given to real solutions. Now, I should say at this point that I know many of his solutions aren't viable in the context of Washington and domestic politics. But that's not the point because, although a running candidate would never say such a thing, I think it's pretty clear that Nader is running a kind of campaign of osmosis, not to become the president.

Let's face it: at this point in history both major parties are pitifully poor at entertaining real solutions to real problems, or holding any kind of a discussion that could lead to better solutions to real problems. Both are too busy trying to discredit the other party while making sure they don't appear "un-American," or other things that could open them up to attack. Here's a perfect example from CNN of the kind of things that substitute for constructive discourse. It's not their fault, that's just what the voting public responds to, and each party wants to win. The current two-party status quo is a little like the prisoner's dilemma: both parties, trying to protect their rear-ends, choose an action that leads to a collectively less desirable outcome. The Democrats would prefer to talk about the orgins of Islamic extremism and how maybe a purely military policy doesn't address some of the factors causing it, or maybe how our unconditional support for Israel's current policies (which in itself I find an understandable and probably correct stance) without much offered in the way of explanation might not help the cause of winning over the hearts and minds of the next generation of Arab and Muslim leaders. But they can't, because when there's an element of fear at play in the issue, the Republicans can call them on it and paint them as the weaker party, and they will lose. Likewise, through some obscene distortion in reality, if the Republicans were to adopt such a stance, the Democrats would have just as much an incentive to exploit it for their own political gain. Further, if Kerry wanted to talk about things other than winning wars, the Republicans would accuse him of not being serious about terrorism, so he devotes an entire convention to talking about winning the war in Iraq which, admittedly is important, but is it really worth the entire convention? The end result is that in trying to make sure they win, the two parties create an outcome that is unduly focused on topics relevant to the fears of the American people. That's why I'm so much in favor of PUBLICIZING a candidacy like Nader's that has no chance of winning. There are plenty of ideas out there that make lots of sense but would otherwise never be introduced into the political arena because it is not in either party's interest to do so.

Third-parties are generally useful. With the status quo of campaigning, air-time is the great commodity for politicians, and it is available in limited quantities. Because there's too little exposure time and too much bickering, whenever a politician gets the chance to present himself and communicate something to the American people, he's going to use the time to cover his highest-priority issues, which will usually be defending his record and attacking the other guy's record, because there is a greater immediate return to time expended. The reality of politics is it seems if one side makes an accusation, the other side HAS to respond, or else they lose the exchange by default. Therefore, the more mudslinging there is, the more answering to mudslinging there is and the less time there is to bring up potentially more important issues. A third-party is immune to mudslinging because it has nothing to lose, and therefore won't have to subjugate political substance to expediency.

What's the point of this rant (I find myself asking that a lot)? I guess it's that there's nothing wrong with not voting for Nader, and there's nothing wrong with educating people about the possible consequences of voting for Nader, but there is something wrong with the complete lack of coverage he gets.

Fair and Fairly Unbalanced

So then there's this feature which explores political bias at The Times. The conclusion they come to: it's debatable, apparently. While I may often agree with the Times' position on political issues, I do not agree with the Times' position on its position on political issues. The contributor they have arguing for the "The Times does not have a liberal bias" side spends the entire article detailing all of the ways in which the paper could, but doesn't, scewer the Bush administration and its members, as an apparent implication that The Times is not nearly as liberally biased as it could be.

The way I see it, the question of does political bias exist has a few possible readings. One is asking, is there a political agenda? In the case of an operation like The Times, that's a very hard thing to specify. How do you measure it, by whether a political agenda is evidenced in the mission statement? Do you add up the political agendas of its workers, and take the corporate agenda to be the aggregate? Do you measure the political activity of its owners and its biggest funders? You clearly can't measure people's internal motivations.

The second interpretation is asking if something resides on one side of a posited political center point. The problem with this question is, say you could determine a political center empirically (I assume that the notion of an a priori political center point is meaningless). What use does that have? Sure, it will tell you, statistically, where one member of a population falls in relation to the entire population in respect to political affiliation. But in order for it to follow that the reltionship is meaningul, it must be assumed that there is some inherent wisdom in the political choices of the masses. What makes that true? What makes the average view intrinsically correct or significant. So in this sense, asking if something is biased is statistically, and perhaps socially, meaningful, but politically not meaningful.

A third reading of biased is, does the paper give fair coverage to both sides? This is a little harder to define. Fair coverage doesn't neccessarily mean equal coverage. If there is more evidence for Kerry's assertion A than Bush's assertion B, then a fair treatment of the matter would give more evidence for A than for B. Likewise, if X has more evidence than Y of being true, it's fairer to make a bigger deal out of X than of Y; that's simply a reflection of the party's confidence in its truth. Therefore, if Bush has much more credible damning evidence against him, then it is not biased for a paper to come down much harder on him.

So I don't know if I have a point in all this rambling. Is The Times biased or not? Well I do think it's curious that this article was printed on the same day as the editorial titled "John Kerry for President."In my mind that's a pretty clear answer. The Times is saying it's biased, there couldn't be any clearer answer than that.

Bush Is A Freaky Jesus Nutcase

Or so says Maureen Dowd in her columnm today, which I'll say a few things about. The topic of Dowd's editorial is religion, and I give her credit for not trying to delve into the depths of a major political figure's psyche for almost three quarters of a column. But then she starts going psychoanalytical, this time with Bush:

..."this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do." He continued: "This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them."

The president's certitude - the idea that he can see into people's souls and that God tells him what is right, then W. tells us if he feels like it - is disturbing. It equates disagreeing with him to disagreeing with Him.

The first thing is, I object strongly to the idea that Bush believes he is under a mandate from God. I think that is wacky. He might be religious, or even religiously-motivated, but arguing that he thinks he is God's earthly conduit - that's just ridiculous. There is no evidence that he thinks this, and if he does, then he has been smart enough to hide it really really well, and has done a perfect job. He makes occasional references to God blessing this, or God gives us that, but that's a common way of speaking, and it's something that's commonly said to invoke the idea of a Higher Being, all-inclusively. And John Kerry does the same thing, just listen to the debates! Does Bush feel he's on God's side? Probably. Does he try to do the things that he thinks God would think is right? Probably. Is he motivated by his faith and religion? I'm sure. Are some people going to support him and his policies simply because of his religious beliefs? Yes. But none of this bothers me because it is his personal prerogative to believe what he believes in, and other people's prerogative to support him for whatever reason. Many, many people of strong private faith operate this way, and there's no problem with that. It's just their way of approaching the world, and it doesn't mean they're going to impose their faith on other people, or think they believe they are receiving direct messages from God. When Bush starts refering to the Christian God or Jesus in his speeches, or starts talking about his divine mandate, then I'll start getting concerned.

The second thing about that quote is, Bush's approach to terror is an awfully weird example to use as evidence of Bush's alleged divine decree. Of all the potential issues out there to take a resolute stand on, that's the one that would least require the help of divine enlightenment. It doesn't take religious conviction to know that it's right to oppose ruthless terrorists who are committed to harming America and who will stop at nothing to do so. Even John Kerry has taken a firm stand on it: "I will hunt down and kill the terrorists wherever they are." Moreover, it's not some religious insight that informs Bush that terrorists "can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision." It's because that's the way they are. It doesn't take a prophet to figure that out. I haven't heard many calls to try to negotiate with terrorists before, but this has got to have the best argument of all of them - only a religious nut would believe that terrorists are motivated by a sinister, uncompromising agenda that is not amenable to reasonable negotiation.

The Times Gets Me Thinking

Lots of big surprises in the New York Times today. The Times has officially come out with the fact that they support John Kerry (over George Bush) for this election. Well at least I can sleep easier now that the suspense is over!

But this got me thinking. Really, it seems to me the only way to change anyone's mind about the Bush administration through persuasion is for it to come from a non-liberal. The whining from the left started the day this president took office, and has droned incessantly and unrelenting ever since. No amount of whining, no matter how fundamentally correct or well-corroborated with facts, will make one iota of difference coming from an established left-wing media outlet or a prominent liberal. It will just blend into the constant drone of very vocal Bush hatred that everyone has come to expect from these sources. The only way people's minds will be changed by persuasion is if someone who has not yet taken sides, or is not affiliated with the left, comes forward with a strong criticism of Bush. At this point for all people who genuinely, vocally do not like Bush it's like the boy who cried wolf: Bush could do the most terrible things imaginable and the anti-Bush crowd's whining wouldn't rise any higher than its current fever pitch. And no one would notice anything out of the ordinary. That's why I was so happy about the Democratic Convention. They realized that they weren't going to get anywhere complaining about Bush, that people were already tuning out. People already know where Democrats stand on George W. Bush.

http://links4krisk@blogspot.com

Pop-ups

You know all those pop-ups that try to get you to buy something or visit some website by using various attention-getting ploys, like shooting the ducks? What's with the ones now that show a picture of the president and say "Should he be reelected?" (sorry, no link available [no one links to a pop-up -- pub]). Half the country doesn't even vote, so why on earth would you expect a pop-up to generate interest on that question?

Kerry's Comment

Everyone's in a tizzy about the comment Kerry made about Dick Cheney's daughter. As Msnbc notes, "Mary Cheney finds herself in eye of political storm" (kudos to Msnbc though for the excellent metaphor... Everyone around her is making a big commotion, but she herself is silent [and probably doesn't even care]. See, she's like the eye of a storm...)" Let me give my honest, dispassionate view.

It was completely unnecessary, not in the sense of uncalled for or inappropriate, although some people are charging these things. It was unnecessary to any point Kerry was visibly trying to make. Like, if he was trying to bring things down to a personal level, to make a point that way, then it would have made some sense, because Cheney's daughter is common currency in the sense that she represents a well-known example of a homosexual child living in an all-heterosexual family. Or if he was trying to praise the Cheneys for their support for their daughter and wanted to extrapolate out from that some message about how we should handle gay rights issues in this country, then it would make some sense to mention her also. He could even mention her to argue that the vice president is terrible and insensitive toward homosexuals (which doesn't seem to be the case) therefore arguing he's somehow unfit for office, and though people would disagree, it would at least be a valid invocation of another politician's personal life.

The most coherent explanation I have heard so far, because it is really a stretch to associate the remark with any specific point, goes along the lines of that Kerry was trying to put a human face on the abstract issue of sexuality in America. If he was doing that, he could have done a much better job of it, by following with something like "And so none of us is removed from this issue. Gay people are in all of our families." I don't really buy the interpretation that the entire objective was just to bring up that Cheney had a gay daughter. First of all, how many people don't already know that his daughter is gay...probably a very small number. Second, what would possibly be the politically advantageous effect of just bringing up the fact that Cheney's daughter is gay? Was he hoping to turn off the homophobic demographic to Bush's ticket? Was he trying to embarass the vice president by insinuation that he supported anti-gay policies despite his daughter. Trying to arouse emotion against Bush's proposed marriage ammendment?

Of course this is all taking the remark out of context which is that Kerry was answering the question "Do you think homosexuality is a choice?" Assuming that politicians actually do answer questions (which is a pretty bad assumption -- pub), then Kerry was somehow answering whether he thinks homosexuality is a choice. To that end, the only relevance I can see is that he was trying to support his answer of no..."Of course not, would any rational person choose to be gay in a family like that?" But that would be pretty terrible. Kerry himself is explaining it as an attempt to praise the Cheneys for the way they dealt with their daughter being a lesbian, which is pretty laughable because he didn't mention the Cheneys at all.

Bush Campaign Gears Up For Major Offensive

Has anyone noticed that the offensives in Iraq seem to be kicking up around this time? Why might this be? Let's see what happens when the Bush administration launches a major offensive in Iraq:

• Soldiers die
• The news gives it coverage
• It's possible that they retake important holdouts, kill important insurgents, or accomplish other important strategic goals

How do these weigh on the Bush administration's interests?

Does the Bush administration want soldiers to die? Obviously not. But - hypothetically speaking - given the choice of having soldiers die now or three months ago, which would the Bush administration prefer? Well, if the deaths occur now, it's all over the TV around election time. That's bad. But if they occured all throughout the summer, that would add up to a lot of deaths around election time. That's bad. And if they had occured earlier, John Kerry could also have been able to use them against Bush in his campaign speeches and in debates. That's also bad.

The news gives it coverage? That's good. At least the Bush administration is doing everything it can to secure peace and liberty for the Iraqi people!

The army takes strategic positions? That's good. The tide is turning, we've got momentum. We're making progress. Victory is ours!

So, purely hypothetically, the Bush administration would prefer to wage risky offensives in Iraq just around this time, while not doing everything that's maybe militarilly called for earlier. I wonder if that tells us anything about what's going on now?

I should note that this illustrates the thing I dislike most about this administration: the way all of its daily behavior is about politics. It's true that Bush has made some independent choices, but when it comes to his administration's daily behavior it seems that politics outweighs every other consideration.

A Self-fulfilling Prophecy

Of all the things that have been said recently and during the debates on Iraq (the world is better without Saddam; he was a threat; it was a diversion...) there's one thing that president Bush says that always strikes me:

"If we stop fighting the terrorists in Iraq, they would be free to plot and plan attacks elsewhere, in America and other free nations," he said. "... If we wilt or leave, America's security will be much worse off."

Now on the surface, that seems like a reasonable case for staying the course in Iraq. But then I thought: is that a helpful thing for him to say? Isn't there something self-condemning about that fact?After all, were there terrorists plotting and planning attacks from Iraqi soil 2 years ago? Was that even a justification for going to war? And, if it's true that terrorists can now use Iraq as a planning base, or at least that there is now the danger of that happening, what has changed since two years ago? Now it is one of the main justifications for continuing the effort there. I don't see that as a very positive reflection of the Iraq plan and / or its execution.

I understand the view that the war has drawn terrorists from their hide-outs and into combat, the "fight them here so we don't have to fight them later" mentality. But in order to be valid, this view assumes that the insurgents are composed of all long-standing jihadists. The facts on the ground suggest that the insurgency is composed of these types, but also new jihadist recruits, along with Baathists, militant nationalists, and various other fanatical types unassociated with the jihadist movements.

Recently I've taken a step back and asked myself, is Iraq a necessary or effective part of the larger "War on Terror?" Here are my thoughts:

Looked at in terms of immediate state-sponsored terrorism, the answer is no, on two counts... 1) Iraq did not sponsor terrorists that directly affect us, and though it may be belied by the misnomer "war on terror," the reality is that the war is more narrowly directed at those who would use terror against us (2) Iraq did not have potential to aid enemy terrorists (except maybe monetarily), since it did not possess weapons of mass destruction, although it may have had potential to have potential to aid enemy terrorists ([and possibly also intent] this is where the justification for the war gets thin).

Looked at in terms of larger-scale and longer term reformative objectives, the Iraq war may have been an effective step in the "war on terror." It is pretty clear that a flourishing Arab democracy in the middle east would be an ideological blow to the creed of Islamic totalitarianism, which is known to feed terrorist recruitment. It's also arguable that a quick and successful strike on an antagonist country could set a valuable example for future countries who would consider sponsoring or aiding terrorism. However, the "Saddam was a terrorist" or "Saddam used terror as a tactic too" or "Saddam was a tyrant, which is basically like being a terrorist" pseudo-associative justification for the war is a rather distorted exploitation of the premise of "the war on terror." Of course, there are all sorts of reasons why the Iraq war could be prosecuted that have nothing to do with the war on terror, and frankly, I think these were more at play.

My personal take is that the neocons who tend to dominate Bush's foreign policy had their eyes on Iraq ever since the first Gulf War. If you go back and read some of their documents, you see that global preeminence was always a major goal of the neocons, and they saw control of the middle east as crucial to this end. Moreover, invading Iraq was a policy they pushed starting in the early nineties. For one the middle east largely was and still is highly undemocratic, and democratic states are easier to deal with than non-democratic states, and are more predictable in their foreign policy. Second, the middle east is the main source of the world's oil, which gives it control over the world economy, a control that pragmatic global dominance types see as too vital to be left up to the whim of countries increasingly antagonistic to the U.S. And third, Saddam was an aggressor who of all the middle east nations was the one who most overtly threatened the United States; whether he had the capability to carry out any threats is a separate issue. Also, being a proven aggressor towards other countries in the middle east, he had the potential of conquering other countries in the middles east and becoming the regional hegemon - which would make America's efforts at regional dominance significantly more difficult than if there were multiple, mutually competitive states.

And of course, Iraq was by far the most acceptable target for regime change in the middle east because of its record of international aggression, human rights abuses, international recalcitrance, and UN violations. Truly, the opportunity presented by Iraq for fulfilling the neocon vision was too good to be true: a large, secular Arab state with a dictator with a record of human rights abuses as president. If you combine this with the fact that the current president was the son of the president who led the first global coalition against Iraq during the Gulf War, and that 9/11 happened, pushing the country toward a defensive mode, then it seems practically inevitable that the Iraq War should occur.

I should make clear that I don't think the U.S. had imperial ambitions in Iraq, just the desire to change the regime to something remotely democratic, which would inevitably be much friendlier to the U.S. and less likely to dominate the entire region and thus hold a monopoly on the most important natural resource in the world. It's sad to say, but I think the entire terrorism rationale for invading Iraq is just political opportunism, and nothing more. This doesn't necessarily make it a bad choice though, just something that the American public was not ready to support on the basis of its real rationale.

If this analysis is correct, the natural implication is that the Bush administration was in fact not totally honest with the American people. But that's entirely consistent with they way they've operated in every aspect thus far. Executive privilege is sacred, loyalty and secrecy are most highly valued traits, the public is remarkably irrelevant to decision-making and kept remarkably in the dark about the debate and factors that go into making important decisions. Even in the presidential debates, the administration has permeated a "we know best" attitude and shown incredibly little tolerance for dissent.

So do I think the Iraq war was a good idea? Personally I view the whole thing as a trial in aggressive nation-building, the outcome of which will probably dictate U.S. foreign policy toward other countries which, for whatever reason, might warrant regime change in the future. Assuming that regime change is going to be a more useful tactic in the future, especially when dealing with state-sponsored terrorism, it's good that the method was tested out on Iraq where there were also independent factors that made regime change appropriate. On the other hand, the world is not America's test-tube, and I think this is made pretty clear by the unexpected level of resistance being encountered in Iraq now. I'm also against the way the Bush administration clearly was not forthright with the American people about the reasons for going to war, alternatively giving contradictory, absurd, or invalidated reasons for why it was important to go into Iraq. So I guess I'm for it in principle, but against the way it was conveyed and sold to the American people, the way the administration used 9/11 disproportionately to justify it, and the hasty way it was executed. That probably puts me closer to John Kerry's position on the war, for better or for worse. A more honest presentation, which probably would have meant that the whole process would have been slower, and that 9/11 couldn't have been used as the proximate cause, would have served the whole endeavor better I think.

Shameless Exhibitionism

I know I promised to never post anything like academic work here, and perhaps this is crossing the line, but I had an interesting exchange with this guy about the naturalness of science and thought that maybe someone would have something else to contribute to it. In the interest of intellectual discussion, I'll reprint the whole thing.

The original post:

...Science has been an actitivity as far back as man as been man. This does not mean that science is inherent within man (that is, genetically in our code). And I would not argue such a thing. Rather, I would say that this can imply that science is an emergent behavior (property?) of man. The individual is as an ant involved in the building of an ant hill, with the important difference that the ant is not aware of his behavior whereas the scientist is.

The basic view of cognitive science is that the fundamental cognitive processes that shape human thoughts are unchanged since man has become man (well, at least since the beginning of the historical record). I neither reject this nor embrace it. Instead, I find it more interesting to decide that the basic emergences (that is, those things that are allowed to emerge from man in society) have significantly changed.

I responded:

Hmm, so what exactly is the difference between arguing that science is ingrained genetically and arguing that a behavior's emergence is natural or inevitable (you may not be arguing this)? Wouldn't a strict cultural evolutionary theorist argue that major cultural or intellectual phenomena are, by virtue of their, existence genetically predisposed?

I'm not sure if by "emergent property" you mean to suggest that given human cognitive structure, the practice of science is an inevitable result of the formation of human society, such as, some might argue the appearance of an economy or the concept of law is.

Let me make an analogy to make a point. One might argue that art is an emergent property of human society, and I would agree with them on that. However, this doesn't mean that any given stylistic orthodoxy you might note today is inevitable. The appearance and popularization of any particular style of art is determined by the influence of a particular artist(s) and the historical factors that determine how the new style will be received.

Likewise, humans have assumedly always had the same cognitive apparatus and intellectual abilities which predisposes them to seek and acquire knowledge of the world around them. Science is one way of acquiring and organizing knowledge, but it isn't the only way. Long before the advent of strict empirical science, people had accumulated a base of crude how-to empirical knowledge related to the chemical products of certain substances, or series of engineering rules of thumb. In the last half of last millenium, it became fashionable to follow a "scientific method" and emphasize empirical knowledge. However, there is nothing emergent (in the way I understand the use of the word) in the naturalistic sense about this particular method of knowledge-production. It is a very useful intellectual method and a universal standard of examination, much like the metric system is a convenient and univeralized metric for measuring quantities.

The poster responds:

Adam - you make some good points (indeed, many cognitive scientists make these exact same points). It's hard to say that we've evolved much in the past couple thousand years and so our cognitive processes shouldn't have changed that much. Therefore, our very basic natural cognitive actions shouldn't have changed that much. But science, I think, is more than just acquiring and organizing the world. As you say, there are many ways to do that.

The main reason I get upset with people treating science and technology as if it started at the Renaissance is that I am a fan of medieval technology and there was a lot of what we would call science that was practiced then. Ancient Greece also seems to have practiced "science" in a sophisticated manner. However, it's hard for me to go back and look at the neanderthals or early hunting Homo sapiens and say that what they did (by watching the moon and discovering a pattern or by watching animal herd movements) is actually "science." It seems to me that some sophisticated level of culture and society (perhaps language) is needed in order for "science" to emerge. I also don't think that science is an entirely "natural" activity for humans quite the way that, say, religion is. Let me give a brief reason why (that I hope to return to). Almost all societies on Earth have developed some sort of religion (that is, something that we would recognize as religion). It isn't true that all cultures on Earth have developed something that we would call science. And it certainly isn't true that all cultures developed themselves something akin to western science. This to me suggests (albeit just suggests, not proves) that society and culture have a way of guiding the emergence of science from whatever basic cognitive processes bring it about. Even in the west, "science" has meant different things at different times. I understand the analogy you made to art, but I think that in what we call science, stylistic orthodoxy is very important.

Another reader:

I would argue that the distinction between science as we know it today and knowledge acquisition seen commonly in animals and most certainly practiced by early hominids lies in our ability and desire to construct new information based on previous knowledge. I agree that it is an emergent property to the degree that it became inevitable only once humans mastered basic language, just as law, religion (more on religion later) and other conventions became necessary to maintain larger and larger groups of humans. Why were there larger and larger groups of humans? Because science allowed us to mediate our environment such that survival of larger populations became possible.

Many mother animals teach their young individualistic survival techniques, not based on genetics or instinct. (Ask me about the Hilton Head dolphins.) In this way animals are acquiring knowledge and skills, and even teaching these to others, although like Daniel, I’d hardly call these behaviors science. Science most certainly evolved from the benefits of such survival strategies, however. Hominids who most accurately studied herd behaviors certainly benefited in survival. Later, as “men” and animals became more sophisticated, we used our knowledge of the world around us to alter it for our benefit. The cultivation of fire most certainly played a large part in the cognitive growth of our earliest ancestors as “men” had more time to pursueactivities other than say, fending off animal attacks, or skinning meat for more clothing. Creation of weapons, pots, and other tools would also qualify as purposeful alteration of the environment, although again I don’t believe one would argue that these constitute science.

The turning point, as in most cases of human sophistication, occurred at the time of language development. Now, not only were “men” able to teach their offspring a collection of survival techniques, but now their children could ask questions, think things out, and test possible solutions. (Written language certainly had an immense impact.) In fact, in the last few months Nature has been filled with papers indicating that it is language that makes complex thought possible even in present day humans. As one example, without the words to represent numbers, studies have found that humans have difficulty counting higher than about 7. (Although they still can acknowledge greater or less than in large groupings.) A vast majority of the human brain is dedicated to language, before which I believe, the emergence of science was no more inevitable to humans than it is to ants. (Ants by the way are probably a bad example since theirs is a very complex system of chemical communication, not to be scoffed at, and their survival record towers above humans’ measly few years on earth. )

Although by this definition, Western methods are not exclusive to science, the “scientific method” is very efficient in the manner in which knowledge bases are constructed, and uses several methods to help ensure that this structure is not poisoned by false information. Let us remember that it was the Greeks who first began using such constructive logic systems. Certainly then, the advent of science occurred well before the Renaissance. The middle ages I would argue, however, were years of scientific backsliding. Thousands of books were lost or ignored. Rather than testing theory and constructing devices to improve comfort and society, most people were concerned with day-to-day survival. Little addition to our knowledge base occurred during this time, and in fact much was lost. (As I understand it anyway, I’m sure I’ll hear a differing viewpoint) It was the Renaissance that re-instated the science and progress of the Greeks and Romans. Without some period like the Renaissance, I doubt that we would have a science that resembled anything like what we have today.

Now on religion. I don’t agree that one can entirely separate the evolution of science from religion. Take for example the early Norse, Greek, and Roman myths in which religion and science are indistinguishable. Even Christian doctrine is heavily doped with attempts to explain basic scientific questions such as how did we get here, why is the universe like it is, etc. Science stems from our need/desire to understand our external landscape and the world we presently live it. Religion stems from our need to understand and mediate ourselves, and from our realization of our own mortality. Often, the two get intertwined. Medicine and sociology are the study of ourselves. The pope supports the Big Bang Theory. If science and religion were two distinct entities, why would there be so many disputes between the two? They are trying to do the same thing, just going about it differently. One might argue that one of the faults of religion is the lack of a parallel to the scientific method of testing, improving, and protecting knowledge. Of course how do you test the theories of Religion? And if you could, would you want to?

I responded:

What I was asserting before (speculatively) was that when you analyze these "emergent" properties of human behavior in the context of evolutionary arguments, I think you have to think in terms of the function of what you're observing, and categorize it accordingly. Because when it comes down to it, evolutionary arguments all depend on function. Science has the function of expanding knowledge, although it is clearly not the only way to organize and derive knowledge (this is why I cited engineering and alchemist rules of thumb earlier - or more ethereally, myths are another way to derive knowledge). Religion fulfills the function of being an outlet for spirituality (I don't buy that its purpose is to inform us about the world. You may be thinking of Greek and Roman religions where myths were prevelant, but all of judeochristian religion aims at determining normative ethical matters like what should be, rather than explicitly what is true). But religion, by virtue of the way it is defined, is the all-inclusive entity that encompasses the complete spiritual behavior of man. Science, being only one way of managing knowledge, is not all-encompassing in respect to its function. Therefore, when looked at in terms of function, it becomes clear why religion is universal and science is not. So I agree with Dan that the fact that religion is universal and science is not is signifigant in terms of naturality. I will say as a side note that it's true, religion wasn't always about ethics. Ancient religion as I understand it was primarily an attempt to explain unknown things. However that's not the point. The point is that science itself is not evolutionarily or biologically natural in the way that other human constructs like law, religion and perhaps even community are.

About the difference between science and more primitive forms of knowledge acquisition...science is a method, it is not a "desire to construct new knowledge." It's also not synonymous with manipulating the environment to your benefit. Lists detailing the chemical result of mixing various substances does not constitue science, and indeed these sorts of lists did exist as sorts of how-to guides before the scientific method did. The whole point of science is that it takes knowledge beyond the "this is true" level and posits an explanation for why it's true, which is then subsequently tested for validity by other knowledge. To the extent that the level of abstract thought required to even conceive of the idea of an abstract or secondary explanation for things is dependent on the development of higher mental functions like language, then perhaps the emergence of science is dependent on the development of language. But that's a correlational relationship, not an essential one, as you imply.

You say the advent of science occured in the Greek ages, because that's when logic was born. That's like me saying the birth of Christianity was when man first started praying to his coterie of idols...true in a sense, but not very meaningful. Then you say that religion tries to answer the same questions as science. Religion attempts to answer only those questions in common with science that have some direct human interest, such as why are we here, and what is the world made of. Except science and religion are always going to be at odds because religion just asserts stuff and science calls for flexibility and constant adjustments to fact. Therefore, although they may have historically co-evolved, there is no fundamental harmony or cooperation between science and religion.

Any thoughts?

The Debate

Having a blog and not covering some aspect of the debates is like having a 60 inch flat screen TV and not watching the Super Bowl. So I'm going to give my impressions, observations, and thoughts on the second presidential debate below. Hopefully some people will find them interesting.

As in the first debate, I thought the debate did a good job of highlighting the differences between the two candidates position-wise. This is more important for Kerry than for Bush I think because people already know where Bush stands, but aren't so sure about where Kerry stands. Any contrast with the incumbent will help to define his positions better. I thought that the "town-hall" forum was a much better one for Bush, but Kerry also managed to be personable for him and not stiff.

I was not entirely surprised that in the foreign policy section of the debate, Bush was clearly repeating all of his stuff from the first debate. It was especially annoying when he started with "you can't be the commander in chief if you waver" and "I know how the world works; these foreign leaders aren't going to listen to a president who shows indecisiveness...wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time..." Whatever validity there may be in the criticism of Kerry's incoherence on the Iraq issue seems to be nullified by the fact that Bush repeated it so many times. A point that stood out to me as particularly interesting was when Bush answered the question about the draft, which was probably the only time in the debate that caused me to think. After promising that there would be no need to reinstate a draft, he made an interesting statement that a smaller all-volunteer army is better suited to fighting the new kind of war on terror. I assume that's because the new kind of war doesn't require sheer manpower in order to overwhelm an enemy in the battlefield by numbers but rather relies heavily on intelligence and small-scale operations.

As before, Kerry was better at citing specific facts to argue his points, which on a pure debating basis has to gain him some merit. I was also happy to see that he finally seems to have come up with a politically functionable "stance"(I put it in quotes because it's not so much a stance in that it's something he has adhered to with conviction, but rather a successful formulation that is both consistent with his previous positions, and is politically viable) on the Iraq issue. Basically he acknowledges that Saddam was a threat, he needed to be dealt with, he gave George Bush the power to deal with him which he used unwisely thus causing the current troubles there, and that a less hasty, more carefully thought out, and more multilateral (at least in terms of support) effort would have been more successful. He can assert that the war was a mistake because 1) the president didn't go about it in the "right" way that he would have and 2) ex post facto we know there aren't any weapons of mass destruction, which undermines the primary rationale for the war, and thus making it a mistake. At the same time, he can commit to winning the war because a loss would create an even bigger mess. It's an ideal position for Senator Kerry because he can be both the anti-war and pro-war candidate and have some justification for it; he's anti-war in principle, but pro-war as a realist. Note that I don't know if Kerry actually believes in his stance, let alone "has always held it consistently," but politically, it's a smart formulation that utilizes the current troubles there now to his advantage. Kerry's point about the importance of having strong alliances for securing the intelligence which is vital to winning war we're currently fighting also struck me as a very good point.

On domestic policy Kerry did worse I thought. He said something about the Patriot Act, which got me listening, but then it wasn't clear what his position was. Although he has said he supports the Patriot Act in the past, he spent the full minute talking about not eroding civil liberties and I wasn't sure what that meant in terms of actual policy change. Also when asked about embryonic stem cells I felt he was pandering and hedging as he acknowledged the feeling of the issue, or something to that effect, but refused to answer what he believes and whether he would ban it or not. In contrast, Bush's answer was much more definite, and he was much better at conveying what he believes about the issue. In answering this question, I think that stating personal belief is quite important because of the moral and religious dimensions to it.

In the beginning, Bush was still trying to attack Kerry's character which I find off-putting, but I was impressed that at one point Kerry countered it by directly calling him on it, after which I don't think Bush did it anymore. Actually I'm surprised that so far, both debates have been remarkably good-spirited, and honest, in the sense that each candidate is honestly portraying his stances - not necessarily in terms of factuality and accuracy.

In terms of the closing statements, I thought Kerry's was better. Bush of course emphasized the importance of having a resolute president to lead during a war like the one we're involved in now. This got me thinking: why is that necessarily true any more for an intelligence-based war than for a more conventional old-fashioned war, which seems to have been the implication? I wished he would give more specifics on that, but like in most of the debate he seems unable or unwilling to provide them. Maybe in the future I'll do a post on what I think of that.

From The Complaints Dept.

I just finished watching the second "town hall style" debate and before I say what I thought, let me make one complaint. Everyone in the country is obsessed with determining who won the debate, which is fundamentally stupid in my opinion.

In my understanding the debate was originally used as a forum for educating the voters about the issues and helping them to see the differences in the candidates' stances on the issues. The debates used to be informational affairs where candidates truly extemporaneously engaged the issues and debated stances and solutions. Today, can anyone honestly say that after a debate their understanding of the issues is deepened? Of course there will be some people for whom the debates will be their only exposure to the issues. But for the rest of the people, for whom the issues addressed in the debate will be predictable and nothing new, there are no great breakthroughs or revelations to be made in watching the debates. It's simply candidate A reciting the same stump speech talking points that everyone has already heard and candidate B reciting his while asserting that his are better. Today it is just one more test at which the candidates must succeed in order to prove themselves presidential material.

Now, I'm all for subjecting the candidates to challenges to see what they're made of, but one must ask, exactly what does the process of going through the debate prove in a candidate? Will it elucidate their knowledge and grasp of policy issues? Not the way the debates work now, with candidates robotically recycling stump speeches or regurgitating pre-learned, prefabricated answers to generic questions. Does it demonstrate their ability to hold up under pressure? Yes, but in the context of public speaking! And frankly that doesn't mean that much. Does it demonstrate, their ability to compete? Given that the format discourages any kind of direct confrontation I'd say no. It would be another thing if the debates took place in a roundtable-like setting, where they were actually allowed to address the other candidate, or ask and answer direct questions. Unfortunately, the way it is now candidates have at most the opportunity to request a thirty second rebuttal in which to expound on something the other candidate said.

Then the other question is, what does it even mean to win the debate? It's not as if the debate is being scored by impartial judges (unless you think that the media are effective impartial judges) according to a set of definite criteria and therefore there is a clear objective winner and loser. There are, I'm sure, lots of criteria floating around out there used by different people, like "The winner is the one who most persuasively argued his positions" or "The winner was the one who attacked the other candidate's arguments most effectively" or "The winner is the one who appeared most self-contained and self-assured," "The winner was the one who came off more presidential." The potential for all sorts of stupid criteria is vast. Even wading out the stupid stuff, the more common, accepted criteria would seem to be the same as those used to define a good debater in general: making strong, clear arguments. Showing obvious preparation and knowledge of the subject matter and not straying from the topic. Citing numerous and relevant facts to support those arguments. Good counter-responses to the opponent's arguments. Finally, maybe you'd find some things about style such as overall persuasiveness and facility with using language. So, the most optimistic view of how we evaluate the candidates would suggest that winning the debate confirms that you are a good debater, which has no bearing in my opinion on your ability to be president.

In reality, unless we are judging a debate competition according to debate rules, there is no meaningful way to say that one of the candidates won the debate. John Kerry could "win" because he had more at stake, and he pulled through the debate without totally messing it up and ruining his chances altogether. He could also "win" because he successfully countered allegations that he was a flip-flopper, which while a political liability for him, is external to and has nothing to do with the debates. George Bush could "win" because everyone's expectations of him were so low that when he managed to integrate his memorized lines relatively seamlessly without producing anything incoherent he was considered a success. He could also "win" because he stood on stage and maintained a minimum level of likeability while his opponent said and did destructive things (read: Bush/Gore debate).

Therefore, the whole business of establishing who won the debate is dumb and meaningless. You could say that Kerry used more facts and statistics to back up his points, or that Bush did a better job of making clear exactly where he stood on the issues. You could say that Kerry had more information at his fingertips, and that he was able to fill his speaking time with fresh and relevant material, or that Bush won over more of the audience. To base a win on any one of these things is limited and stupid, and unless we're using an array of sensible and objective criteria to evaluate the performances, there's no point in trying to determine a winner. Rather I think the debates should be refocused on the essential parameters, which are, what are the candidates' positions? how well did they explain their rationale for having these positions? who has the better positions? were they able to debunk their opponent's positions? how good of a grasp did they demonstrate of the topics of the questions? Clearly if one candidate performed miserably in all of these areas, you could say he lost the debate, in the sense that the debate has not served him favorably. But the idea that the debate is some kind of matchup zero-sum competition is just dumb.

Specializing In The Specialized

Bloggers take a certain pride in knowing that their blog is serving a wider purpose in the world than just being an outlet for their indulgence and an amusement to their friends. Today, I can also say my blog is a part of the wider network of abundant information sources that makes the internet so great. Just earlier, someone did an AskJeeves search for "from where does corned beef hash originate" and arrived at my blog. Clearly, you can see from the provided description that my blog has nothing to do with corned beef hash, so I like to think that the person decided to visit it just because it looked interesting. I hope they weren't disappointed.

Spin Award Nominee

David Brooks has an unusually balanced column today. Still he manages to get in a marvel of pro-Bush spin, calling Bush's mind "more abstracted from day-to-day reality" than Kerry's. Wow. You'd think Bush is applying to be the Dalai Llama or a buddhist monk or something. "Abstracted" over "he doesn't pay attention to reality" is quite the spin accomplishment.

Andrew Sullivan makes an excellent point about the whole abstracted thing:

...it is Kerry who is the practical conservative in this race; and Bush who is the airy-fairy idealist. If Bush didn't have the abstract theological support of evangelical Christians, he wouldn't have a, well, prayer.

The Brooks column was also notable (or not notable perhaps) for its usage of a cultural or professional stereotype to make a point.

The atmosphere of Kerry's mind is rationalistic. He thinks about how to get things done. He talks like a manager or an engineer.

The atmosphere of Bush's mind is more creedal or ethical. He talks about moral challenges. He talks about the sort of personal and national character we need in order to triumph over our enemies. His mind is less coldly secular than Kerry's...

But I thought Bush was the manager president? I'm all confused.