Some Rare Good News About War

Contrary to conventional wisdom, rape in conflict zones is far from universal:

recent study by the Peace Research Institute of Oslo of all 48 conflicts and all 236 armed groups – including state, rebel groups, and pro-government militias – in Africa between 1989 and 2009 found that 64 percent of armed groups were not reported to have engaged in any form of sexual violence. Of course, in most contexts, especially war, sexual violence is underreported. But even after 2000, when wartime rape became a highly salient public issue actively investigated by NGOs, more than half of armed groups were not reported to have engaged in sexual violence.

Why does this matter? Instead of framing rape as an inevitable outcome of war, by understanding which groups engage in sexual violence – and which do not – and what accounts for the difference, advocates and policy makers will be far better positioned to limit – and perhaps even to end – this scourge of war.

The above video is the trailer for the Oscar-nominated live-action short film “Aquel No Era Yo” (That Wasn’t Me), which contains a brutal rape scene. Update from a reader:

While everyone can agree that raising awareness of the horrible physical and sexual abuse of child soldiers and women in civil wars, particularly in Africa over the past 30 years, is a good thing, my partner and I just had to write in to let you know that Aquel no era yo has major, major issues.

We attended a screening of all of the Oscar-nominated shorts a few weeks ago, and while four of them were very interesting and well-done (our pick for the winner is the French Avant que tout perdre, an amazingly tense snapshot of a woman and her children fleeing an abusive husband/father), Aquel left an extremely bad taste in our mouths.

Awareness is a good thing, but not this type of awareness. Not a film which – spoiler alerts – so crudely portrays African blacks as aggressors and European whites as victims; not one in which the white man screams “You have lost your humanity!” just before the black child shoots him; not one where the army storms in and shoots all the rebels, but, apparently to keep from offending an audience’s sensitivities, we see no bodies of children among the slain; and not one where the young black protagonist and narrator, a child “saved” by the courageous white woman who overcomes her rape to take him to safety, redeems himself only by telling his story, contrite and eventually understanding of the “wrong” he did, to an auditorium full of white/Spanish teenagers while his benevolent saviour looks on, smiles, and knows she did the right thing.

This story should not be about the white woman who gets raped by a black man in the Congo. It should be about the children. Though it would no doubt have been agonizing, in that movie theater at that moment, we would have far preferred to see documentary footage of the multiple recovery programs for child soldiers in Africa – or perhaps, yes, even footage of the horrible events themselves if such a thing existed.

Aquel is propaganda, pure and simple. At first we were very surprised to see from the credits that Save The Children and Amnesty International had attached their names and presumably their funding to it; in hindsight, it feels like the cynicism and scaremongering of Kony 2012 all over again. The victims deserve better.

Translating Emotion

Cristina Soriano researches how people describe feelings across different languages and cultures:

[W]e use a questionnaire and ask people around the world about the meaning of their emotion words. Questions are made about the various “components of emotion”, that is, the basic aspects of experience commonly believed to compose an emotional episode. These include, among others, the way we perceive events around us (was this intentional? is it controllable?), the way our body reacts (e.g. increased heart rate, shivers, blushing), or the way we express our feelings (e.g. frowning, smiling, crying). The responses allow us to compose a mean semantic profile for those words that we can then compare across languages and countries. So far we have investigated the meaning of 24 emotion terms in 23 languages and 27 countries.

She has found a lot of overlap, but the differences are fascinating:

For example, Spanish “despair” (“desesperación”) designates a more excited emotion than English “despair.” The latter means, for instance, that when I say I feel “despair,” I may be clenching my teeth and pulling my hair out. By contrast, when my husband says he feels “despair,” he is more likely to have bowed his head and covered his face with his hands.

Interestingly, differences can also be found between countries that speak the same language. For example, the meaning of French “serenité” (serenity) seems to be more positive in Canada than Gabon, and indeed the facial expression of “serenité” in Canada has been found to include a smile, whereas in the African country, “serenity” has more of a neutral face.

“Dictatorship By Cartography”

Aerial view on May 23, 2008 of the purpo

Matt Ford considers the relationship between city planning and social unrest:

In many ways, France pioneered the conscious use of urban design for political purposes. Paris in the early 19th century was essentially a medieval city, suffocating from overcrowding and poor infrastructure. Baron Haussmann’s urban renovations under Napoleon III in the 1850s and 1860s gave the City of Light a modern sewage system, beautiful suburban parks, and a network of train stations. He also took the opportunity to demolish unruly lower-class neighborhoods, banish their impoverished inhabitants to suburbs, and replace their cramped, narrow alleys with spacious, grand boulevards. In the event of an uprising, like those that took place in 1789, 1830, and 1848, French authorities hoped the wider streets would be both harder for revolutionary Parisians to barricade and easier for columns of French soldiers to march through to suppress revolts.

Similar calculations are still made today.

In 2005, Burma’s ruling junta moved the government from Yangon, a sprawling metropolis of 5 million people, to the new inland capital at Naypyidaw for security reasons. Isolated from other population centers, Naypyidaw is populated mostly by government functionaries and military officials who spend as little time as possible in the eerily desolate city. Burmese officials claim almost a million people live there, although the true population is likely far, far lower than that. When the Saffron Revolution erupted two years later, in 2007, the large-scale protests that rocked other Burmese cities never took hold in Naypyidaw, and the country’s military rulers remained in power after a brief but brutal crackdown.

Even if the city’s population had been large enough for demonstrations, where would they have taken place? Broad boulevards demarcate the specially designated neighborhoods where officials live, with no public square or central space for residents, unruly or otherwise, to congregate. A moat even surrounds the presidential palace. One journalist described the city as “dictatorship by cartography.”

Update from a reader:

Just a quick note from a working cartographer: this is dictatorship by geography, not cartography. While there are many instances of maps as tools for propaganda (Monmonier and de Blij is a good start for this), and as much as someone like me would be flattered by that type of power, dictatorship by cartography is a highly inaccurate turn of phrase.

(Photo: Aerial view of the purposefully-built capital city of Naypyidaw, Myanmar on May 23, 2008. By Stan Honda/AFP/Getty Images)

Should AGs Ignore Laws They Don’t Like?

Eric Holder on Monday tossed some live bait to right-wing critics by telling state attorneys general that they don’t have to defend state laws they believe are discriminatory:

Comparing today’s gay rights fight to the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s, Holder said he would have challenged discriminatory laws on the books during the time of racial segregation. “If I were attorney general in Kansas in 1953, I would not have defended a Kansas statute that put in place separate-but-equal facilities,” Holder said.

While Holder later clarified that AGs should appoint independent counsel to represent the state in such cases, Byron York still finds fault with his argument:

So the full version of Holder’s position on one-man, one-woman marriage laws is: State attorneys general should not defend them, but they should hire private lawyers who will. It was a much more nuanced opinion than what was reported in the headlines. And it left some attorneys general pretty unhappy. They have sworn to uphold the laws and constitutions of their states, and there has been no Supreme Court decision invalidating those state laws and constitutions. So they should just make a judgment on their own not to defend?

“It’s troubling to have the attorney general advise you that you can ignore your oath to uphold and defend the constitution and laws of your state,” said Luther Strange, the attorney general of Alabama, who was at the meeting. “We certainly don’t advise him how to enforce federal laws, how to do his duty — so that was a little unusual, to say the least.”

Morrissey is also troubled:

It’s not necessarily unusual to bring in outside counsel, certainly for corporations (who don’t usually keep litigators on salary), and occasionally for public-sector agencies. It might be a little more unusual to see that in an AG office, which presumably has a plethora of capable litigators available for assignment. However, the retention of outside counsel for any legal effort usually comes in response to a gap in skills or specialties, not in a primary area such as defense of existing statutes for an AG. That’s a key part of the job, after all — what the clients (voters) hired the AG to do. Forcing a client to pay for additional counsel just because an attorney doesn’t particularly like the issue should raise significant ethical questions about lawyers who make that kind of choice. The ethical choice would be to resign from the case, or in this context, to resign from the office so that the client can hire an attorney that wants the job.

Barbie’s Feminist Figure?

Ann Friedman recalls how her childhood Barbies were a part of “a lot of plastic dry-humping”:

This is one of the rarely acknowledged benefits of a doll mostly singled out for her downsides: Barbie is a safe way for girls to explore dangerously adult concepts like sexuality. “Little girls are starting to understand their own sexuality but also what it means to be a grown woman, and Barbie is the perfect vehicle for that,” says Joyce McFadden, a psychoanalyst and author of Your Daughter’s Bedroom: Insights for Raising Confident Women. She likens young girls’ play-acting Barbie sex with them trying on their mothers’ makeup or bras. They’re trying to imagine what life is like for grown-ups.

Anti-Barbie arguments have a tired ring to them — even among feminists, we’re in backlash-to-the-backlash mode. There’s also some research to back up the claim that Barbie affects girls’ body image and their views on gender roles. Yet when I look back at my own Barbie-influenced youth, I have a hard time pointing to anything but positive effects. “The feminist perspective is she has this unattainable figure,” McFadden says. “But Barbie was the only doll that had breasts, the only one to create a space where girls could start to fantasize about that.”

China’s Social Network Of Choice

LinkedIn:

At first glance, the platform looks well positioned to become the only major U.S. social network to succeed in China. Twitter, for example, has been blocked in China ever since July 2009 riots in the Western Chinese region of Xinjiang, when news of police violence there first leaked via tweet. Facebook started having problems earlier, in July 2008, after launching a Chinese-language version. (The Chinese government has never admitted to blocking either of them.)

By contrast, the California-based LinkedIn bills itself as the “world’s largest professional network,” and doesn’t appear to aspire to much more than fulfilling that core competency. Its sharp focus surely lends some comfort to Chinese authorities wary of speech-and-information-freedom advocates like Twitter. LinkedIn’s emphasis on helping members make professional connections — all communicated through a barrage of red status alerts and email invitations to congratulate a connection on tweaks to their profile — seems a perfect fit for what many Chinese would agree is a status-obsessed society, some of whose members suffer from Internet addiction.

George Anders wonders whether Chinese censors will give LinkedIn trouble:

[LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner] says his company will implement Chinese restrictions on content “to the extent required,” while also undertaking “extensive measure to protect the rights and data of our members.” Given that LinkedIn’s main news feed is a haven for articles like “The Secret to Never Being Tired at Work,” Chinese authorities may clap their hands with joy when they read most content. But back corners of the LinkedIn site still might stir controversy. It’s possible to imagine the site in a tougher spot if China’s censors objected to specific user groups or personal profiles created by social activists.

Lily Hay Newman notes that “even before the Simplified Chinese site, LinkedIn was one of the only U.S.-based social networks that the Chinese government allowed access to in China”:

Twitter, Facebook, and Foursquare are all blocked, among others. It seems that LinkedIn was blocked for a day in February 2011, though there was never an official government statement about it, because the government was concerned that information about pro-democracy protests were spreading too quickly, inspired by action contributing to the Arab Spring. But the site was back the next day.

The Psychology Of Hoarding, Ctd

David Wallis looks into research on the disorder:

[S]ome of the same brain areas that are underactive under normal circumstances become hyperactive when hoarders are confronted with their possessions. David F. Tolin of the Yale University School of Medicine asked participants in a study to decide whether their old papers can be shredded, while monitoring their brain activity. He found that hoarders’ brains zoomed into overdrive like a seismograph measuring an earthquake—compared to healthy controls. (That didn’t happen when they watched someone else’s papers being ditched.) “The parts of the brain involved in helping you gauge that something is important are kicked into such overdrive that they are maxed out, so everything seems important,” Tolin explains.

Monika Eckfield, a professor of physiological nursing at California State University, San Francisco, concurs that many hoarding patients struggle with processing information. To avoid the anxiety of throwing something away, they simply put off the decision to do so. “This is common to all of us,” Eckfield says. Like the neuroscientists, she believes hoarding becomes abnormal as a result of “mis-wiring” in the brain’s executive functions. Chronic hoarders “have a much harder time following through,” she says. “They get distracted. They get disorganized. They end up adding to the pile, and the idea of sorting through those piles is very overwhelming.”

Previous Dish on hoarding here.

Fake Affection? There’s An App For That

BroApp allows Android users to schedule texts to send to their significant others:

In response, Evan Selinger worries that apps are “beginning to automate and outsource our humanity”:

In our correspondence, [BroApp creators] James and Tom focus on managing subjective perceptions as opposed to realities. The key, they say, is that a girlfriend will be happy because she’ll “perceive her boyfriend as more engaged”. But focusing on perception misses the point. When we commit to someone, we basically promise to do our best to be aware of their needs and desires — to be sensitive to signs of distress and respond accordingly, not give the appearance of this fidelity and sensitivity. Time-delayed notes do just the opposite: They allow the sender to focus on other things, while simulating a narrow range of attention that obscures the person’s real priorities.

It’s easy to think of technologies like BroApp as helpful assistants that just do our bidding and make our lives better. But the more we outsource, the more of ourselves we lose.

Jenny McCartney thinks the app might be a joke:

I suspect that the BroApp is, in fact, an amusing spoof (the list of “contacts” on its phone in the promotional picture include Germaine Greer and Jordan Belfort, the original model for the rogue trader in The Wolf of Wall Street). Yet the technology industry has so far been unable to pronounce for certain on whether this “innovation” is a clever satire or a sorry statement on the mechanisation of human relationships.

“Bring The Light Of The Heavens To Earth”

Raffi Khatchadourian traveled to France to visit an unfinished reactor intended to produce thermonuclear energy by reaching temperatures “more than ten times as hot as the sun at its blazing core”:

No one knows [the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor]’s true cost, which may be incalculable, but estimates have been rising steadily, and a conservative figure rests at twenty billion dollars—a sum that makes ITER the most expensive scientific instrument on Earth. But if it is truly possible to bottle up a star, and to do so economically, the technology could solve the world’s energy problems for the next thirty million years, and help save the planet from environmental catastrophe. Hydrogen, a primordial element, is the most abundant atom in the universe, a potential fuel that poses little risk of scarcity. Eventually, physicists hope, commercial reactors modelled on ITER will be built, too—generating terawatts of power with no carbon, virtually no pollution, and scant radioactive waste. The reactor would run on no more than seawater and lithium. It would never melt down. It would realize a yearning, as old as the story of Prometheus, to bring the light of the heavens to Earth, and bend it to humanity’s will. ITER, in Latin, means “the way.”

But the reactor hit its latest snag this summer, after repeated delays:

In the previous year, ITER had met barely half its goals. The latest target date for turning on the machine—2020—was again slipping. Officials were now quietly talking about 2023 or 2024. What if the schedule continued to slide? Engineers operate in a world of strictly measured loads and heat fluxes, but political forces are impervious to precise measurement. Still, the ultimate repercussions were obvious: there would come a point, eventually, when frustrated politicians decided that ITER was simply not worth the increasing expense of delay.

In June, the ITER Council gathered in Tokyo, and it was evident that the organization was grappling with its own inner turbulence. At one point, the council member from Korea picked up his papers and stormed out. Ned Sauthoff, the U.S. project manager, bluntly made it known that he thought the project’s nuclear-safety culture was lacking. America’s involvement was growing more tenuous. The Department of Energy had cut funding for a tokamak at M.I.T. to help pay for ITER, and the decision had familiar implications; members of Congress were invited to view the inert machine, and they returned to the Hill expressing outrage. (“ITER is going to eat our whole domestic program.”) Official estimates of the U.S. contribution had doubled, to a billion dollars, and then rose again, to $2.4 billion, merely to get to “first plasma”—essentially, just turning on the machine. Before summer’s end, Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate subcommittee that handles appropriations for energy development, announced that she would discontinue all funding for ITER until the Department of Energy provided a detailed assessment of the total American financial commitment. The request was both logical and impossible to answer accurately; even people at ITER did not know. The department was reluctant to provide a number, and [Ned] Sauthoff told me, “We are in unknown territory.”

Update from a reader:

A somewhat more hopeful example of the pursuit of fusion is the National Ignition Facility here in the States. As I understand it – and I am only an observer from the wings – the Dep’t of Energy largely threw its chips in with this plan for producing and capturing fusion energy, which involves compressing supercooled hydrogen with powerful lasers, rather than superheating it with huge electrical jolts, to create Sun-like conditions. There was big news from the NIF earlier this month: the first energy-positive firings, where more energy came out than went in. Not an end by any means, but a start. A really solid and sober report on NIF is here.

Also too, the thing looks badass.

Update from a reader:

As a physicist working on magnetically confined fusion (but not working on the Iter project), I think the piece gives an unfair view of the project. The US involvement in it has been nothing but trouble: when the Iter project was first considered to be built in the end of ’90s, with major US involvement, it was brought to a halt when US suddenly withdrew support. It took more than 10 years to reconsolidate funding, with additional reductions in design specifications and budget (the original design was decidedly badass, as a sure-fire approach). Currently the US has a 9% stake in the project (like India, Russia, Korea, China and Japan), while the EU funds 45% of it. EU and Japan have an additional bilateral agreement on additional funding for supporting projects such as the IFMIF project. So, the US involvement currently is at best marginal. Is this the best we can do?

While any approach to fusion research is important, I think your reader’s evaluation of the NIF project is lacking. The energy produced in this instance is compared to the energy delivered to the fusion fuel pellet, not total energy used to power the machine. The lasers are about 8% efficient, can be fired about three times per day (when they can), and are used for indirect drive by producing a plasma around the pellet. This means that the energy delivered to the fuel pellet is a tiny fraction of the total, so as a power plant it’s a bust. It does give great insights on what’s happening in a thermonuclear explosion, and appropriately about 5% of the research is highly classified. Not really a fair comparison.

If the Iter fails due to politics and bureaucracy, fusion will be set back probably at least several decades. While it has a lot of detractors, the tokamak is basically the only device so far that has come near engineering break-even, and Iter is projected to produce about 10 times as much as it takes in. Some of the criticism is valid, but it’s still our best shot. Let’s not ruin it.