This story outlines what ought to be one of the most difficult decisions in journalism, that of whether to publish secret war plans. Unfortunately, from my experience in journalism school, most in the profession answer that question with a default "yes."
From the story:
"ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
"Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear 'bunker-busters', according to several Israeli military sources.
"The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb."
People are bound to make a big deal of the attack being "nuclear," but these are tactical weapons designed for use on a battlefield, not strategic ones meant to annihilate cities. (Thanks to The Sunday Times for explaining that distinction -- not. Though at least they compared the force to that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.)
This is a unique situation to my experience, with journalists from one country (the UK) breaking the plans of another country (Israel). Typically, it's journalists in liberal democracies aching to undermine their own countries' security.
(In one journalism class, I said it was "traitorous" to undermine your own country's military on the field. The professor looked at me, dumbfounded, and said something like "but it's the government." In another class a professor recounted a panel discussion where a group of journalists announced that they, if embedded, would not give information they gathered on enemies to the troops they were embedded with -- that professor, however, wasn't so keen on sedition.)
Back to this case -- it's so bizarre it's hard to decide how one would weigh the pros and cons. For domestic plans, one could weigh the public interest in knowing government actions versus the public interest in the government being able to carry out important plans. But here, there's no way for journalists to even know whether Israel's plans, if executed, would benefit or hurt the people of Britain. And to what degree should the journalists consider Israel's interests, Iran's interests and the diplomatic ties between the three countries?
It would be great to have the weapons gone, but the risks to stability in the region are huge.
I would be very interested in learning about the behind-the-scenes discussions of this story. Presuming any took place beyond, "we have this information, so run it."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Friday, January 05, 2007
Krauthammer: Saddam hanging a 'travesty'
In an earlier post I argued that the Saddam hanging was poorly executed, a frat house hazing that showed how lightly the new Iraqi government was taking its responsibilities. Few made the same point until Charles Krauthammer's column today, which gives much more detail and knowledge than I ever could:
"Consider the timing. It was carried out on a religious holiday. We would not ordinarily care about this, except for the fact that it is in contravention of Iraqi law. It was done on the first day of Eid al-Adha as celebrated by Sunnis. The Shiite Eid began the next day, which tells you in whose name the execution was performed.
"It was also carried out extra-constitutionally. The constitution requires a death sentence to have the signature of the president and two vice presidents, each representing the three major ethnic groups in the country (Sunni, Shiite and Kurd). That provision is meant to prevent sectarian killings. The president did not sign. Maliki contrived some work-around.
"True, Saddam's hanging was just and, in principle, nonsectarian. But the next hanging might not be...
"Moreover, Maliki's rush to execute short-circuited the judicial process that was at the time considering Saddam's crimes against the Kurds. He was hanged for the killing of 148 men and boys in the Shiite village of Dujail. This was a perfectly good starting point -- a specific incident as a prelude to an inquiry into the larger canvas of his crimes. The trial for his genocidal campaign against the Kurds was just beginning.
...
"Finally, there was the motley crew -- handpicked by the government -- that constituted the hanging party. They turned what was an act of national justice into a scene of sectarian vengeance."
Read the whole thing.
Once again: If anyone had the death penalty coming, Saddam did, and he did not deserve in any way to die with dignity. But with Iraq hanging by a thread -- and the whole world watching -- this should have been carried out with the utmost professionalism. It was not, and that's an embarrassment.
In the larger Iraq debate, the U.S. must decide between taking its hands off the cycle seat (as Rumsfeld put it before his departure) and further helping Iraq along. This incident is evidence the former tactic is necessary -- Iraqis won't take their responsibilities seriously until we make it clear we won't always be there to bail them out.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
"Consider the timing. It was carried out on a religious holiday. We would not ordinarily care about this, except for the fact that it is in contravention of Iraqi law. It was done on the first day of Eid al-Adha as celebrated by Sunnis. The Shiite Eid began the next day, which tells you in whose name the execution was performed.
"It was also carried out extra-constitutionally. The constitution requires a death sentence to have the signature of the president and two vice presidents, each representing the three major ethnic groups in the country (Sunni, Shiite and Kurd). That provision is meant to prevent sectarian killings. The president did not sign. Maliki contrived some work-around.
"True, Saddam's hanging was just and, in principle, nonsectarian. But the next hanging might not be...
"Moreover, Maliki's rush to execute short-circuited the judicial process that was at the time considering Saddam's crimes against the Kurds. He was hanged for the killing of 148 men and boys in the Shiite village of Dujail. This was a perfectly good starting point -- a specific incident as a prelude to an inquiry into the larger canvas of his crimes. The trial for his genocidal campaign against the Kurds was just beginning.
...
"Finally, there was the motley crew -- handpicked by the government -- that constituted the hanging party. They turned what was an act of national justice into a scene of sectarian vengeance."
Read the whole thing.
Once again: If anyone had the death penalty coming, Saddam did, and he did not deserve in any way to die with dignity. But with Iraq hanging by a thread -- and the whole world watching -- this should have been carried out with the utmost professionalism. It was not, and that's an embarrassment.
In the larger Iraq debate, the U.S. must decide between taking its hands off the cycle seat (as Rumsfeld put it before his departure) and further helping Iraq along. This incident is evidence the former tactic is necessary -- Iraqis won't take their responsibilities seriously until we make it clear we won't always be there to bail them out.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Joke for the new Congress
Q: What did the Deadhead say when she ran out of pot?
A: Why am I listening to this sh*t?
A: Why am I listening to this sh*t?
Thursday, January 04, 2007
New piece up at antiMusic
antiMusic has my review of Stuck Mojo's Southern Born Killers.
Main points:
"One can't help but notice that Southern Born Killers came out five years too late - it takes the trophy for Best 9/11 Record of 2006...It's nice to see an entertainer who doesn't hate the U.S., but a more thoughtful approach to the country's problems would be easier to take seriously.
...
"In the end, though, Stuck Mojo is a band like no other. Eleven years after Snappin' Necks, they remain the only act to combine real rapping talent with real metal guitar riffs."
Main points:
"One can't help but notice that Southern Born Killers came out five years too late - it takes the trophy for Best 9/11 Record of 2006...It's nice to see an entertainer who doesn't hate the U.S., but a more thoughtful approach to the country's problems would be easier to take seriously.
...
"In the end, though, Stuck Mojo is a band like no other. Eleven years after Snappin' Necks, they remain the only act to combine real rapping talent with real metal guitar riffs."
Parents give child treatments to stunt growth
It took me quite awhile to make up my mind about this story. Parents of a disabled nine-year old decided to have surgery and hormone treatments done on their child -- now she will not become fertile, grow taller or develop breasts. I'm going to tentatively defend the parents.
From the story:
"She cannot sit up, walk or talk, is fed by tube, and, as her parents put it, 'stays right where we place her - usually on a pillow.'"
There are some risks with the surgery, so I think there is some burden on the parents to demonstrate the procedure is necessary in some way. They say she will be smaller and easier to take along on trips, etc. The lack of breasts and a menstrual cycle will relieve discomfort. I do think it's important to defer to them in many ways, as few of us realize the responsibility and reality a developmentally disabled child would pose.
The child is a human life, with autonomy and all that goes along with it. Since she cannot communicate, her parents must do what's in her best interest. Again, there are certain limits here -- they cannot abuse her or kill her.
So the question is, what harm does the operation do? What would fertility, more height, etc., mean to someone who cannot walk or talk? The biggest objection seems to be from people who compare these procedures to the same procedures performed on a normal child.
My argument here is that, from the child's perspective, the only meaningful change is the removal of excess weight. As far as this specific child is concerned, it is basically the same as lyposuction. So the question is, if extra weight poses no real health risk, and a child cannot communicate whether she wants it removed, can parents have it taken off? Bear in mind the parents have to lift her wherever she goes, and that a heavier child will have lower mobility.
Thought of in this way, the issue no longer "smacks of eugenics," as one critic quoted in the article exclaims. The tradeoff is now between a risky surgery and a lifetime of difficult lifts and, occasionally, a child left in others' care while the parents travel. Since the risks are (presumably) minor, I would have to say the decision should be left to the parents.
This quote, however, does make me a little uncomfortable:
"'It was easy...We clearly saw the benefits to Ashley's quality of life. We have also been criticised for harming Ashley's dignity. But for us, what would be grotesque would be to allow a fully formed woman to grow up, lying helplessly and with the mentality of a three-month-old.''
The parents have a Web site here.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
From the story:
"She cannot sit up, walk or talk, is fed by tube, and, as her parents put it, 'stays right where we place her - usually on a pillow.'"
There are some risks with the surgery, so I think there is some burden on the parents to demonstrate the procedure is necessary in some way. They say she will be smaller and easier to take along on trips, etc. The lack of breasts and a menstrual cycle will relieve discomfort. I do think it's important to defer to them in many ways, as few of us realize the responsibility and reality a developmentally disabled child would pose.
The child is a human life, with autonomy and all that goes along with it. Since she cannot communicate, her parents must do what's in her best interest. Again, there are certain limits here -- they cannot abuse her or kill her.
So the question is, what harm does the operation do? What would fertility, more height, etc., mean to someone who cannot walk or talk? The biggest objection seems to be from people who compare these procedures to the same procedures performed on a normal child.
My argument here is that, from the child's perspective, the only meaningful change is the removal of excess weight. As far as this specific child is concerned, it is basically the same as lyposuction. So the question is, if extra weight poses no real health risk, and a child cannot communicate whether she wants it removed, can parents have it taken off? Bear in mind the parents have to lift her wherever she goes, and that a heavier child will have lower mobility.
Thought of in this way, the issue no longer "smacks of eugenics," as one critic quoted in the article exclaims. The tradeoff is now between a risky surgery and a lifetime of difficult lifts and, occasionally, a child left in others' care while the parents travel. Since the risks are (presumably) minor, I would have to say the decision should be left to the parents.
This quote, however, does make me a little uncomfortable:
"'It was easy...We clearly saw the benefits to Ashley's quality of life. We have also been criticised for harming Ashley's dignity. But for us, what would be grotesque would be to allow a fully formed woman to grow up, lying helplessly and with the mentality of a three-month-old.''
The parents have a Web site here.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Toyota to develop anti-drunk driving car
Very cool news from Toyota: The company is developing a car that could detect drunk driving and shut down.
From the AP story:
"Cars fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream, according to a report carried by the mass-circulation daily, Asahi Shimbun."
Question, though. Cars are already made so you can turn on the ignition electronically with a remote -- why not just attach said remote to a breathalyzer? You'd have to blow below the legal limit for the car to turn on, no bizarre sensors needed.
And this sounds just plain dangerous:
"The system could also kick in if the sensors detect abnormal steering, or if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus. The car is then slowed to a halt, the report said."
Hope that never happens on a bridge in bad weather!
On the whole the car could be quite helpful, however, as drunk driving is a huge cause of death in many states. People who know they have problems could buy the cars to keep them safe when they're not thinking clearly. Particularly if Toyota comes up with an installable system (as opposed to one you'd have to buy a new car to get), it could even be a parole requirement or punishment for those caught driving drunk.
Also, you have to love private enterprise. States have been playing around with drunk driving laws for decades -- lowering the legal blood alcohol content limit to .08, occasionally hiking penalties, etc. -- but it's a commercial product that might prove most effective. This chart is helpful for state-by-state driving penalties; it seems most drunk drivers just get fines for severely endangering the lives of others.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
From the AP story:
"Cars fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream, according to a report carried by the mass-circulation daily, Asahi Shimbun."
Question, though. Cars are already made so you can turn on the ignition electronically with a remote -- why not just attach said remote to a breathalyzer? You'd have to blow below the legal limit for the car to turn on, no bizarre sensors needed.
And this sounds just plain dangerous:
"The system could also kick in if the sensors detect abnormal steering, or if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus. The car is then slowed to a halt, the report said."
Hope that never happens on a bridge in bad weather!
On the whole the car could be quite helpful, however, as drunk driving is a huge cause of death in many states. People who know they have problems could buy the cars to keep them safe when they're not thinking clearly. Particularly if Toyota comes up with an installable system (as opposed to one you'd have to buy a new car to get), it could even be a parole requirement or punishment for those caught driving drunk.
Also, you have to love private enterprise. States have been playing around with drunk driving laws for decades -- lowering the legal blood alcohol content limit to .08, occasionally hiking penalties, etc. -- but it's a commercial product that might prove most effective. This chart is helpful for state-by-state driving penalties; it seems most drunk drivers just get fines for severely endangering the lives of others.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Pat Robertson: Terrorist attack will come in '07
I have to give the AP credit for making this story as straightforward as it is, even if you can see the writer laughing his butt off if you read between the lines. Pat Robertson has predicted a major terrorist attack on the U.S. in late 2007.
The best paragraphs come at the end:
"Predicting events for the coming year is an annual tradition for Robertson.
"He predicted in January 2004 that President George W. Bush would easily win re-election. Bush won 51 percent of the vote that fall, beating Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
"In 2005, Robertson predicted that Bush would have victory after victory in his second term. He said Social Security reform proposals would be approved and Bush would nominate conservative judges to federal courts.
"Lawmakers confirmed Bush's 2005 nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. But the president's Social Security initiative was stalled by widespread opposition.
"'I have a relatively good track record,' he said. 'Sometimes I miss.'
"In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America's coastline in 2006. Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring's heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction."
Hmm..."I have a relatively good track record"? Doesn't he mean God has a relatively good track record? And how can God miss? Maybe it's the Wisconsin boy in me, but the whole thing smacks of Reggie White.
Meanwhile, my current job expires September 1. I'll keep the terrorist threat in mind when I decide whether or not to stay in D.C.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
The best paragraphs come at the end:
"Predicting events for the coming year is an annual tradition for Robertson.
"He predicted in January 2004 that President George W. Bush would easily win re-election. Bush won 51 percent of the vote that fall, beating Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
"In 2005, Robertson predicted that Bush would have victory after victory in his second term. He said Social Security reform proposals would be approved and Bush would nominate conservative judges to federal courts.
"Lawmakers confirmed Bush's 2005 nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. But the president's Social Security initiative was stalled by widespread opposition.
"'I have a relatively good track record,' he said. 'Sometimes I miss.'
"In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America's coastline in 2006. Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring's heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction."
Hmm..."I have a relatively good track record"? Doesn't he mean God has a relatively good track record? And how can God miss? Maybe it's the Wisconsin boy in me, but the whole thing smacks of Reggie White.
Meanwhile, my current job expires September 1. I'll keep the terrorist threat in mind when I decide whether or not to stay in D.C.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Teens move from MySpace to no-rules sites
In the past I've been critical of sites like MySpace for allowing 14-year-olds to join, posting personal information for all to see. Well, the New York Times reports the problem is getting worse in some ways:
"Popular Web sites like YouTube and MySpace have hired the equivalent of school hallway monitors to police what visitors to their sites can see and do by cracking down on piracy and depictions of nudity and violence.
"So where do the young thrill-seekers go?
"Increasingly, to new Web sites like Stickam.com, which is building a business by going where others fear to tread: into the realm of unfiltered live broadcasts from Web cameras.
"The site combines elements of more popular sites, but with a twist. In addition to designing their own pages and uploading video clips, its users broadcast live video of themselves and conduct face-to-face video chats with other users, often from their bedrooms and all without monitoring by any of Stickam’s 35 employees."
It's easy to get angry at Stickam here, but I think we're fast approaching the bottom line: Technology is spreading to the degree that children will have access to webcams and personal networking sites. The biggest Web sites can behave responsibly, as MySpace and YouTube increasingly are, but there will always be upstarts with small budgets and little regard for safety.
It falls to parents to handle the problem -- though many are not technologically capable enough, and many others simply don't care. Supervision and good filtering are key here, but I won't be holding my breath.
One small upside to webcams:
"Mr. Kihioka of Stickam said that in some respects, his site was actually safer than other social networks. Live video feeds let users 'know who they are talking to,' he said. 'Unlike MySpace, it is hard to disguise yourself.' But he added that his company had the same concerns about child safety as MySpace and was working on an automated system that would monitor live video feeds for indecency."
But:
"Other companies that offer Web cam chats say that the technology seems to attract abuse. 'There are just some people who, if you give them a Web cam, are going to take off their clothes,' said Jason Katz, founder of PalTalk, an eight-year-old service that lets users converse over Web cams on various topics. Unlike Stickam, PalTalk asks for a credit card and charges a monthly fee, which it says prevents minors from signing up."
Credit card age verification, with an 18-plus restriction on membership? Sounds like a plan.
It's amazing how much has changed in 10 years. When I was in middle school, a friend's brother used his mom's credit card to buy access to pornography. He got in trouble, and it was all quite amusing. Chat rooms were primitive, and we never really used them.
Now, unsupervised Internet meddling can get kids seriously hurt.
Disclosure: I have a MySpace page.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
"Popular Web sites like YouTube and MySpace have hired the equivalent of school hallway monitors to police what visitors to their sites can see and do by cracking down on piracy and depictions of nudity and violence.
"So where do the young thrill-seekers go?
"Increasingly, to new Web sites like Stickam.com, which is building a business by going where others fear to tread: into the realm of unfiltered live broadcasts from Web cameras.
"The site combines elements of more popular sites, but with a twist. In addition to designing their own pages and uploading video clips, its users broadcast live video of themselves and conduct face-to-face video chats with other users, often from their bedrooms and all without monitoring by any of Stickam’s 35 employees."
It's easy to get angry at Stickam here, but I think we're fast approaching the bottom line: Technology is spreading to the degree that children will have access to webcams and personal networking sites. The biggest Web sites can behave responsibly, as MySpace and YouTube increasingly are, but there will always be upstarts with small budgets and little regard for safety.
It falls to parents to handle the problem -- though many are not technologically capable enough, and many others simply don't care. Supervision and good filtering are key here, but I won't be holding my breath.
One small upside to webcams:
"Mr. Kihioka of Stickam said that in some respects, his site was actually safer than other social networks. Live video feeds let users 'know who they are talking to,' he said. 'Unlike MySpace, it is hard to disguise yourself.' But he added that his company had the same concerns about child safety as MySpace and was working on an automated system that would monitor live video feeds for indecency."
But:
"Other companies that offer Web cam chats say that the technology seems to attract abuse. 'There are just some people who, if you give them a Web cam, are going to take off their clothes,' said Jason Katz, founder of PalTalk, an eight-year-old service that lets users converse over Web cams on various topics. Unlike Stickam, PalTalk asks for a credit card and charges a monthly fee, which it says prevents minors from signing up."
Credit card age verification, with an 18-plus restriction on membership? Sounds like a plan.
It's amazing how much has changed in 10 years. When I was in middle school, a friend's brother used his mom's credit card to buy access to pornography. He got in trouble, and it was all quite amusing. Chat rooms were primitive, and we never really used them.
Now, unsupervised Internet meddling can get kids seriously hurt.
Disclosure: I have a MySpace page.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Saddam execution: The fallout
It can't be a good sign when Iraq's new government can't even get an execution right. Judging from a graphic cell phone video available on the Internet, the whole thing took place on the set of Saw III.
From Reuters:
"The Iraqi government launched an inquiry on Monday into how guards filmed and taunted Saddam Hussein on the gallows, turning his execution into a televised spectacle that has inflamed sectarian anger.
...
"But mobile phone footage on the Web showed guards shouting 'Go to hell!', chanting the name of a Shi'ite militia leader and exchanging insults with Saddam before he fell through the trap in mid-prayer and his body swung, broken-necked, on the rope."
Afterwards, some danced a jig, and when a TV reporter wore black to cover the event, the government cracked down on the station.
Of course, the problem here isn't that Saddam didn't die with dignity; he didn't deserve to. The problem is that the hanging and its aftermath were high-profile events that should have been carried out with professionalism. The fact they weren't indicates the Iraqi government isn't taking its responsibilities seriously.
As the midterm elections showed, the American public is growing impatient with this war. Every strategy for Iraq involves transfering power to the Iraqis at some pace or another -- and trusting the officials fear anarchy enough to use said power wisely. This trust is misplaced if they reason that, well, the U.S. will step in if things get too bad. I can see no other reason they'd have put so little effort into this.
All this comes amidst strife in the country that isn't dying down. An execution run like a frat house hazing will do nothing to help matters.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
From Reuters:
"The Iraqi government launched an inquiry on Monday into how guards filmed and taunted Saddam Hussein on the gallows, turning his execution into a televised spectacle that has inflamed sectarian anger.
...
"But mobile phone footage on the Web showed guards shouting 'Go to hell!', chanting the name of a Shi'ite militia leader and exchanging insults with Saddam before he fell through the trap in mid-prayer and his body swung, broken-necked, on the rope."
Afterwards, some danced a jig, and when a TV reporter wore black to cover the event, the government cracked down on the station.
Of course, the problem here isn't that Saddam didn't die with dignity; he didn't deserve to. The problem is that the hanging and its aftermath were high-profile events that should have been carried out with professionalism. The fact they weren't indicates the Iraqi government isn't taking its responsibilities seriously.
As the midterm elections showed, the American public is growing impatient with this war. Every strategy for Iraq involves transfering power to the Iraqis at some pace or another -- and trusting the officials fear anarchy enough to use said power wisely. This trust is misplaced if they reason that, well, the U.S. will step in if things get too bad. I can see no other reason they'd have put so little effort into this.
All this comes amidst strife in the country that isn't dying down. An execution run like a frat house hazing will do nothing to help matters.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
