Month: December 2008

By Patrick Appel
A group of teachers and scientists argue in favor of cognitive-enhancing drugs:

Human ingenuity has given us means of enhancing our brains through inventions such as written language, printing and the Internet. Most authors of this Commentary are teachers and strive to enhance the minds of their students, both by adding substantive information and by showing them new and better ways to process that information. And we are all aware of the abilities to enhance our brains with adequate exercise, nutrition and sleep. The drugs just reviewed, along with newer technologies such as brain stimulation and prosthetic brain chips, should be viewed in the same general category as education, good health habits, and information technology — ways that our uniquely innovative species tries to improve itself.

By Patrick Appel
Rob Spence breaks new ground:

The eye he’s considering replacing is not a working one — it’s a prosthetic eye he’s worn for several years. Spence, a 36-year-old Canadian filmmaker, is not content with having one blind eye. He wants a wireless video camera inside his prosthetic, giving him the ability to make movies wherever he is, all the time, just by looking around.

"If you lose your eye and have a hole in your head, then why not stick a camera in there?" he asks.

by Chris Bodenner
In reaction to Columbia Univ. voting in a referendum last week to keep ROTC off campus, gay undergrad Learned Foote writes an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:

A Columbia education provides a nuanced view of our complex global society. As an elite institution, we could help bring balance to our military, which is underrepresented both in the Northeast and among the wealthy. … University President Lee Bollinger stated that to invite ROTC back to campus would violate the university’s nondiscrimination policy.

I found myself torn between two sets of values. I wanted to fight discrimination, but I also wanted Columbia to restore its relationship with a fundamental American institution. My conversations with gay veterans helped resolve these differences. They too believe that "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" is discriminatory. But rather than boycott the military until matters improved, they decided to prove that they too could serve their nation.

by Chris Bodenner
Time has a video report profiling gay couples in Iowa awaiting a State Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage set to release hear arguments today.

By Patrick Appel
Peter Suderman stokes a perennial debate:

In the ongoing NY/DC wars, I’m one of the very few who prefer Washington. Sure, the food is bland, and the Adams-Morgan subway stop is inconveniently located, but the malls are free, and everyone you meet is an expert on something. It’s smaller, friendlier, cheaper, nerdier, and, for those who appreciate such things, grittier in its own charming way, having not gone through the full NYC-style Disneylandization.

I have similar feelings, though I love both cities.

By Patrick Appel
A reader thinks Justice Scalia was saying "collywobbles" rather than "golly waddles."

By Patrick Appel
A reader writes:

I think it’s a great idea for whoever is paying someone to do a job to get to say what that person does.   In the original WPA, journalists/writers/etc. were given specific assignments (record the memories of surviving slaves and Civil War soldiers, record music being sung in the TN mountains, compile thorough guides to US cities, and so forth). Any journalist who works for a "boss" (media outlet, interest group, investigatory board or whatever) works on assignment – unless they want to free lance, which they are still free to do. But if the government is going to be paying them for their work, the government – like any other boss – should have the right to give assignments. There are any number of assignments (like making the utterly valuable and irreplaceable recording of slaves’ memories) that are historical in nature and of great value to the public (who would, in a sense, be the ‘boss’)

By Patrick Appel
A reader writes:

I have contended that McCain took Wright off the table to somehow convince people, even himself, that he wouldn’t sell his soul to win an election.  He felt he could say things like "Senator Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election" and imply that Obama hangs around with terrorists.  But as long as he didn’t bring Wright into it, he hadn’t gone too far.  Now, by releasing this video, he confirms contention.  This is McCain’s way of saying "see, I could have done this, but I’m above it."

I have no doubt that McCain would have released the Wright ad had he thought it would do any good.

By Patrick Appel
Publius reviews Jane Mayer’s brilliant book:

In reading Mayer, one striking aspect of the administration’s anti-terrorism policies is how completely haphazard and impetuous they were. There was practically no deliberation within the government, particularly among the branches who (1) actually knew something about this stuff; and (2) were, you know, statutorily authorized to do something.

Instead, a lawless cabal of ignorant people – Yoo, Addington, etc. – decided to craft national anti-terrorism policy having basically no experience in the relevant fields (military, terrorism, etc.). The disparity between (1) the magnitude of decisions being made, and (2) the relative ignorance of the people making them is simply staggering. The Geneva Convention – one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind, and US policy for decades – was gone with a stroke of John Yoo’s pen (noted military expert John Yoo). A decision to free the CIA from laws against torture, and to break with decades of precedent and opt for kangaroo court military commissions over courts martial – all gone, all upon an uninformed whim.

I had a similar epiphany while reading Mayer’s book. The Bush administration took an agency, the CIA, with little history of interrogation and made it the de facto interrogator for terrorists and "terrorists." FBI agents, who were trained, competent interrogators with decades of experience, wanted nothing to do with the torture techniques outlined by Rumsfield – because experienced interrogators knew better. Not only did the government violate the law, they put our national security in unexperienced hands at the very moment when good intelligence was needed most. Here’s part of an interview with Mayer from earlier this year:

[Zubaydah] was questioned first by the FBI. And in fact when the FBI saw what was going on and how the CIA intended to treat him, they withdrew, because they were afraid that it was criminal. And in fact one of the FBI agents told headquarters of the FBI he thought that the CIA interrogators should be arrested.

After 9/11 the Bush administration was obcessed, unstandably, with preventing another attack. But they failed to understand that going harder – authorizing torture – doesn’t create better intel. Cheney et al wanted to torture these detainees and they shoved the most experienced operators out of the way to do so. It’s unbelieveably reckless.

by Chris Bodenner
Some unsettling news out of London:

Tough economic times have Britons eating their hearts out and swallowing their tongues. Not literally, of course. But offal, or "variety meats" as the food category is euphemistically called in the U.K., is experiencing a surge in popularity, with sales up 67% over the past five years. Retail and food experts say that worry over the high cost of prime meat cuts and the economic downturn have more shoppers checking out supermarket offal offerings.