My interview with the NYT Dealbook is now up.
Month: January 2013
Paying For Torture
Ten years after the fact, L-3 Services, the American defense contractor on site at Abu Ghraib, is paying $5 million to 71 former detainees. Robert Beckhusen provides background:
Until the settlement, the only response to torture and abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison was the military’s criminal convictions of 11 former soldiers. But L-3 Services allowed “scores of its employees to participate in torturing and abusing prisoners over an extended period of time,” the lawsuit stated. Not only that, but the company “willfully failed to report L-3 employees’ repeated assaults and other criminal conduct” to the United States and Iraq.
Among the claims against the company:
According to the lawsuit, one former inmate said he was forced to drink water until he vomited blood. Other allegations include rape, beatings, being slammed into a wall, and one man alleged he was subject to a mock execution at gunpoint. Many reportedly said they were forced to stand naked for long periods.
All I can say is how remarkable it is that a contractor is forced to pay damages for torture, while the US government refuses even to acknowledge that it authorized and implemented it, that it tortured at least a score of prisoners to death, that no one – no one – involved in the authorization of these war crimes has faced any legal or professional consequences and that war criminals, like Stanley McChrystal, who presided over one of the worst torture camps in Iraq, Camp Nama, ("Nasty-Ass Military Area"), can go on the Daily Show as if he is just another general. No he isn't. Under his command some of the worst incidents of torture took place. Why did Jon Stewart not ask him about that? When will these people be publicly challenged to defend their history of crimes against humanity?
If we can hold contractors accountable, why not the public sector which paid them?
A Poem For The President
This week saw the announcement of Richard Blanco, who is both Cuban-American and gay, as the Inaugural poet. Katy Waldman describes the task before him as perhaps "the trickiest of all" for a poet, "requiring a kind of ringing, triumphal, sentimental tone that seems at odds with the evasions and double-backs of so much good poetry." She elaborates:
Blanco must address not only Obama but the entire world. He confided in an NPR interview that his main hurdle will be to "maintain sort of that sense of intimacy and that conversational tone in a poem that obviously has to sort of encompass a whole lot more than just my family and my experience." Walking such a tightrope—the poet as creative individual, the poet as mouthpiece for something bigger—should test Blanco in interesting ways, especially given that his self-image as an outsider provides a through line for much of his work.
Well he couldn't be worse than Maya Angelou. In an interview with the Poetry Society of America, Blanco described how he approaches politics:
Being a Cuban-American from Miami many people presume that I am a hard-core right-wing conservative; on the other hand, as a queer poet, many immediately think I am a total left-wing liberal.
I resent these assumptions; and—like most artists, I suppose—I rebel against expectations and stereotypes…My poetry and I are not exclusively aligned with any one particular group—Latino, Cuban, queer, or "white." Though I embrace and respect each one, I prefer wading in the middle where I can examine and question all sides of all "stories."
I was inclined to say that my poetry is apolitical, but thinking about it more carefully here, instead I would say my work may be pan-political. By this I mean that I am interested in many political angles, often contradictory ones, whether describing my destitute Tía Ida living in a Cuba crippled by Socialism, or the broken spirit of a small town in Italy erased by run-a-muck Capitalism. Regardless, one thing is clear to me: rather than "talk" politics in my work, I prefer to "show" the consequences of politics through portraits of people and places. I am more interested in the effects than the causes, in discovering how we survive and make sense of all the suffering the world throws in our faces over and over again, rather than finding a politicized reason for the chaos or pointing a finger at someone or something. For me, it's not about finding blame or solutions; it's narrating the stories of survival and, hopefully, triumph of the human spirit.
Covering Up Climate Change
Jill Fitzsimmons delivers the results of a Media Matters study on climate change coverage in 2012:
Together, the nightly news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC devoted only 12 segments to climate change in 2012. PBS' coverage stood out, with its nightly news program dedicating 23 segments to the issue.
Sunday morning was even worse:
Since 2009, climate coverage on the Sunday shows has declined every year. In 2012, the Sunday shows spent less than 8 minutes on climate change, down from 9 minutes in 2011, 21 minutes in 2010, and over an hour in 2009. The vast majority of coverage — 89 percent — was driven by politics, and none was driven by scientific findings.
This video is the first mention of the record-setting 2012 temperatures on Fox News – "before [host] Gutfeld interjected by shouting: 'Lies.'" One day, I suspect, people will look back on that attitude and wonder why this kind of denialism only exists in any serious institutional form on the American right – anywhere in the world. No other major party of the right in the West is that crazy.
A Note On The Leveretts
I totally understand my reader's reaction to the series of reader interviews. There were times in these interviews when I found myself at a loss for words when I think of the murderous state apparatus I saw gunning kids down in the street and sending in thugs to break and torture them later. But obviously, we do not pick our Ask Anything guests on the basis of agreeing with them. Precisely the opposite. We're not afraid of real debate. We think it's been absent for quite some time.
Part of what we're trying to here is to widen the debate so all parties can be heard, to expand the public policy debate beyond the confines of the Beltway Consensus. And the absence of comments does not prevent readers directly responding to the interviewees. Because readers get to pick the questions they get asked. I don't know of many other crowd-sourced interviews out there and the point is to evoke candid questions that the often wimpy MSM won't ask.
Ask The Leveretts Anything: How Should Obama Deal With Iran?
brightcove.createExperiences();
During the Iranian uprising of 2009, the Dish continuously clashed with Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett, the most well-known skeptics of the Green Movement. The husband and wife team continue to blog at Going to Tehran, in addition to Flynt’s role as Penn State Professor of International Affairs and Hillary’s role as Professorial Lecturer at American University and CEO of the political risk consultancy, Stratega. In 2011, they argued “there has been no Nixon to China moment under Obama.” Watch their previous videos here, here, here and here. A reader dissents to the series:
As a long-time follower of The Dish – it was instrumental to me as I was launching EA WorldView (then Enduring America) in 2008 and especially during the post-election crisis in Iran in 2009 – I have been unsettled by the platform you have given the Leveretts to push their book and their portrayal of life in Iran. While I fully agree that a well-rounded view of Iran and of US-Iran relations is essential to avoid military conflict and to find a way out of the punishing economic warfare, the Leveretts do not serve this purpose for me. Instead, they are pro-regime polemicists putting forth under-informed, rose-coloured caricatures of the leadership and the internal situation.
I would have responded directly on The Dish if it had a Disqus facility. I did try to respond on Going to Tehran, but the Leveretts have blocked any substantial questioning of their comments. For what it’s worth, this was my reaction:
A post reinforcing the hope that Going to Tehran will focus solely on the US approach to Iran and not venture any “analysis” on the Islamic Republic’s “internal dynamics” … .
A few questions to cut through the superficial reply and condescension about “how Americans been conditioned”:
1. While the introduction to how the system works in principle is useful, can the Leveretts explain – beyond an elegy of “populist” Ahmadinejad – how the current government established legitimacy in 2009? There’s nothing here in this answer.
2. If Ahmadinejad is the triumphant “populist”, with overwhelming public support, can the Leveretts explain the hostility of most elements of the regime – including, at times, the Supreme Leader’s office – towards him?
3. If the Ahmadinejad economic legacy is so successful, can the Leveretts explain why he was only able to pass one stage of his subsidy reforms, and then after great delay? Can they explain why the second stage has been blocked by Parliament and is unlikely to see the light of day?
4. Can the Leveretts explain a current inflation rate which, by official figures, is almost 30% and – according to some MPs and Iranian economists – between 40 and 60%? Can they explain the 40% drop in oil exports? The 70% drop in the value of the currency? The rise in unemployment, especially among those under 30?
I am even more distressed by the elegy given by the Leveretts in the second video. While recognising the advances of women in the Islamic Republic, any observer should also note the limitations on women’s rights – for example, the recent legislation further restricting women’s right to travel outside Iran and their “family rights” – and the detentions of women such as attorney Nasrine Sotoudeh and student activist Bahareh Hedayat, thrown in prison for daring to represent clients and for calling for political reform.
By the way, very best wishes on your Big Adventure with the new site – I am rooting for you.
Another also takes issue with the second video about women in Iran:
First off, all the educational programs put in place for women were put in place during the Shah. If the Mullahs had their way, women would not have be permitted to receive a higher education (as women even today are not allowed to major in certain fields that are deemed inappropriate for them). And watching and listening to the rant of the Leveretts, one would blindly think they were talking about a utopia in which the rights of women were equal and actually embraced. Oh yes, a regime in which women are worth ½ of men in court “embraces” women’s rights. A regime that has stoned women to death. A regime that has raped young girls before their executions so that they don’t “die as virgins” as “virgins go straight to heaven”. Such a “utopia” that women have had under the Islamic Republic.
It is a shame that such drivel is espoused by so-called “intellectuals”. A true travesty. The Leveretts are not only the greatest apologists for a tyrannical and oppressive regime, they consistently host Islamic Republic regime agents on their site such as Mohammad Mirandi. In addition, they travel to Iran on behalf of the regime. Not to mention that they have openly admitted members of the Basiji and Revolutionary Guards on their “blog”. Anyhow, I just wanted to voice my displeasure in hearing their rant on your page. We have freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but I found this to be uncharacteristic of you to give a voice to two people who bank on a totalitarian regime through sheer utter lies and Islamic Republic apologia.
Another:
I was born and raised in Iran. I’ve been watching the few videos you put up of these IRI sympathizers, and I’m trying to keep a level head, but it’s hard to watch. You can’t just put lopsided opinions up without balancing them. Iran also stones women to death. Although the majority of students in Iran are females (which started in the ’80s because a lot of young men were at war), their salaries, authority, and positions come nowhere near men’s. Women have no right to divorce. Women have very limited rights. Really, can you balance the gibberish? It’s hard to watch.
Cannabis Kills No One
A reader challenges my assertion that overdosing on marijuana is a "physical impossibility":
Do you have any actual evidence that dying from smoking marijuana violates one or more laws of physics?
Exhibit A: Judge Young's findings from the 1988 DEA hearing [pdf] that considered reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule 2 drug:
Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world… Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death…
In a 2009 paper [pdf] on non-medical use of cannabis, Wayne Hall and Louisa Degenhardt round up the literature on its short- and long-term health effects. On the acute effects:
A dose of 2–3 mg of THC will produce a high in occasional users who typically share a single joint with others. Regular users might smoke up to 3–5 joints of potent cannabis a day for several reasons, including development of tolerance and to experience stronger e?ects… The dose of THC that kills rodents is very high and the estimated fatal human dose is between 15 g and 70 g, which is much higher than that smoked by a heavy user.
Note that the fatal dose is at least 5,000 times the dose that will produce a high in occasional users. On driving while high:
Studies of the e?ects of cannabis upon on-road driving found more modest impairments than those caused by intoxicating doses of alcohol because cannabis-a?ected people drive more slowly and take fewer risks. Nonetheless, some experimental studies have shown diminished driving performance in response to emergency situations… Driving after having taken cannabis might increase the risk of motor vehicle crashes 2–3 times compared with 6–15 times with alcohol.
On the effects of chronic use, "defined as almost daily use over a period of years":
In Australia, Canada, and the USA, cannabis dependence is the most common type of drug dependence after that on alcohol and tobacco… The lifetime risk of dependence in cannabis users has been estimated at about 9%, rising to one in six in those who initiate use in adolescence. The equivalent lifetime risks are 32% for nicotine, 23% for heroin, 17% for cocaine, 15% for alcohol, and 11% for stimulant users.
The Dish’s Core Strength, Ctd
Nat Worden gets our readers:
The complex but natural reporting process that is generated by [online journalism] has a certain organic authenticity that is rarely found on TV or radio or in newspapers
or magazines. More expertise and perspective is typically brought to bear. The pretense of objectivity is abandoned, making for a more honest forum, and everything is generally much more transparent.
Online journalists like Sullivan invite their audience into the reporting process and bring them along for the ride, while many traditional journalists keep the reporting process between them and their sources, leaving their audience in the dark about how they came upon the information they're reporting. Naturally then, traditional journalists often put the interests of their sources above their audience — a major problem in the corporate media — whereas the new breed of online journalist is reestablishing a genuine connection with readers and earning their trust in an age where distrust of the media is probably more rampant than distrust of government.
One of the best examples of reverse-reporting on the Dish was our "It's So Personal" series, a spontaneous outpouring of first-hand accounts from readers confronting late-term abortions, triggered by the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller. My impression at the time:
I've never seen the power of this medium so clearly and up-close: one personal account caused a stream of others. How could old-school reporting have found all these women? How could any third-person account compete with the rawness and honesty and pain of these testimonials? It was a revelation to me about what this medium could do.
Coincidentally, a reader wrote in yesterday to praise the series:
I first became a regular reader of your blog in 2008-9, in the lead up and aftermath of Obama's first victory, during the financial crisis, and as you covered the Green Rebellion in Iran. I became particularly taken with the Dish, however, when you started posting letters you were receiving following the murder of George Tiller.
I am a philosophy professor and often teach bioethics. For the past few years, when I've been introducing the topic of abortion by reviewing the different methods of abortion (on the premise that getting the empirical facts right is the obvious starting point for philosophical progress), and mentioned late-term abortions ("intact dilation and extraction" aka "partial birth abortion"), I've ended up talking about the "It's so Personal" posts. I've then posted a link on my course website for the students to read themselves. So thank you for offering my students a resource for understanding one of life's most complex moral decisions.
P.S. I haven't yet subscribed to the Dish, but that's just because I'm a procrastinator, and probably will wait until I'm forced to subscribe before getting myself officially signed up!
Previous commentary about our readership here. The full discussion thread on the Dish model and its new independence here.
The Platinum Coin’s Originator
Brian Beutler tracked him down:
Its origin can be traced back to the comments section of a blog. An American lawyer writing under the pseudonym Beowulf first explained the platinum coin concept in the comments section of a post titled "Repeat After Me: The USA Does Not Have A ‘Greece Problem’," written by Marshall Auerback and published on a blog called The Center of the Universe. His comments caught the attention of other writers, including management consultant Joe Firestone (.pdf), who pressured him to expand on the idea.
The Question Obama Ducked, Ctd
Readers tackle the critical duck/horse question:
I would take on the 100 duck-sized horses any day. Horses are prey animals and their first instinct is to run from any danger so there would be little, if any, fighting involved as long as they were not cornered. Horses also are very hierarchical, so if you can assert your dominance then they will give way to you. And asserting that dominance usually just means projecting confidence and fearlessness around them.
A horse-sized duck on the other hand? I don't know much about ducks but I've seen some nasty geese that were very territorial. Maybe they had a nest nearby but a large duck with a huge beak? No thanks.
But another notes, "You can't distract a hundred duck-sized horses with a couple slices of stale bread." Another:
Those Obama staffers are crazy. I know they're busy, but have none of them played StarCraft? If I had art skills, I'd draw or photoshop a picture of a person surrounded by 100 duck-sized horses to scale; they might think differently. You can only deal with one, maybe two at a time. Meanwhile they're free to come at you from every direction. It just takes a few of them biting and charging your legs to knock you down, then you're screwed. Those tiny hoofs would hurt.
The horse-sized duck? No hooves or teeth (ever been bitten by a duck?).
It could bite your head and maybe snap your neck, or trample you, or clock you with a wing. For your options, you can trap it somewhere or jump onto its back and snap its skinny neck. You can probably outrun it or outmaneuver it, or escape into a building or up a tree. Evade it and set a trap maybe – depends on where you are. I'm betting anyone with any martial arts or military hand-to-hand training could probably take it in close quarters. Unless I'm missing something, it's far less dangerous than 100 tiny horses.
Another disagrees:
Not to be a killjoy, but whoever came up with this duck-and-horse business clearly has never been close to a duck. I've raised ducks for years, and when they choose to they can wallop you with a wing so hard that it leaves a welt for days. A mother protecting her young will hit so hard she breaks not just the bones in your hand but those in her own wing. So a duck the size of a horse? It could kill a human in a single second with one blow, easy. Give me the 100 duck-sized horses any day.
Another duck expert weighs in:
Having grown up spending summers on my parents' farms, I can only conclude: the White House staffers who debated this question are not farm people. The answer to the question, obviously, is "100 duck-sized horses." And, just as obviously, not because you can stomp on them. Have you been in close proximity to ducks? And have you paid attention recently to the size of your foot and the strength of your leg? No, you grab a few of the closest ones, snap their necks, and then use them as weapons. With their longish legs and their centered body mass, they'll function decently as equine-style maces.
That horrible image aside, yes, I get the political metaphor. The temptation in life is to think that there is the duck-horse just around the corner – one decisive battle (which you'll win) and then it's all over. The reality, almost always, is the small set of annoyances that must be attended to in small batches. And if they're ignored, they have a tendency to swarm.
Another:
Long-time reader, from Canada, also a redditor. I'm sure someone has sent you this already, but the reddit community was pretty much unanimous in agreeing that Preston Manning, founder of the Reform Party and leader of the official opposition during most of Prime Minister Jean Chretien's time in office, gave the best-ever answer to the "100 duck-sized horses or one horse-sized duck" question:
I prefer the horse-sized duck. I like horses, period. After subduing the horse-sized duck, I would then have an animal which I could fly as well as ride.
But that response is now rivaled by a Dish reader:
After reading your post, I couldn’t help but think of the terror of a Trojan horse-sized duck filled with duck-sized horses.
The Dish 