A friend asked that I do a post on torture. I’ve been avoiding this, not because I don’t have strong feelings on the subject, but rather, because perhaps my feelings are too strong.
My strongest feeling is one of disappointment, both in those who would conduct such acts, and also in the large number of apologists throughout our society. I recall a conversation we had at work shortly after the Abu Ghraib scandal, and I was literally one voice against many condemning the actions of the guards, the military, and whoever authorized such behavior (although we were not certain at the time.)
Many will advocate torture based upon its efficacy. I hold that is not even the proper question. I’m not an ‘Ends justifies the Means’ sort of person. There is always more than one path to achieve our desired goals, and there are frequently paths that should not be taken, if we want to promote civilization and cooperation.
I recall well my feelings on Sept 11, 2001. The initial shock gave way to fear and frustration: Fear for our future, and frustration that we could seemingly do so little to prevent it (and catch those responsible outside of the ones who died.) Those emotions gave way to anger – anger that someone had caused fear, anger that someone could see it as a life fulfilling action to destroy so much, anger again at our own seeming impotence.
In those moments of extreme anger, I entertained thoughts of counter destruction. We are America, we are powerful, don’t mess with us! We could destroy so much if we chose – We don’t need to find and remove Osama Bin-Laden, we could destroy the entire countryside where he hid, and ensure that he would not survive.
But, we know better. Wholesale destruction is not the answer – it would make us exactly one and the same as those who carried out the terrorism of 9/11, exactly the same as those who would plot and carry out future acts. They felt justified in killing – how would it be any different if we built up justification for our own killing, and then carried it out?
The only way out is for us to remain true to our ideals: Our belief in the Rule of Law, our belief in the innate goodness of people, our belief that we can lead lives that others will desire to emulate, and in so doing, peacefully bring others (people and nations) into alliance.
The terrorist acts were criminal acts. Since they involved the indiscriminate taking of human life, they were the most heinous and immoral of all criminal acts. We are justified in prosecuting those responsible, justified in unearthing the evidence necessary to convict them, justified in hunting them throughout the world.
But, we are not justified in committing criminal acts of our own. We have established standards of conduct to ensure that evidence is properly obtained, that accused are treated decently, that individual rights of freedom are only curtailed when we have evidence, not at our whim.
“This is war!” cry the apologists. “This is different!”
What is war, except the coordinated criminal activity of a nation? Instead of one or a few individuals, it is thousands participating in the destruction of property, the discriminate and indiscriminate killing of people (homicide!). Those are criminal acts, and there can be no justification. Individuals captured during the prosecution of a war are deemed the same rights as other criminals: Captivity, but fair protection from the elements, food, and their captors will refrain from causing bodily harm. We’ve upheld these beliefs by signing international treaties.
Specifically, we have agreed to refrain from torturing our prisoners.
The argument has been floated that, technically, we didn’t engage in torture. But, that misses the point. At the company where I work, we have a saying: Not only should we not engage in improper behavior, but we should avoid any behavior that gives the appearance of impropriety. In other words, even if it is technically legal, but would give the appearance that we might be doing something illegal, or covering up something illegal, we should refrain.
There is no justification for torture. If we hold to that, then we have done something to improve the condition of the world. There are other methods of obtaining information. By imprisoning suspected criminals indefinitely, with no prospect for release or charges, we greatly reduced our options. Torture perhaps appeared as the only way. That was a mistake – a mistake of our own making.
That our leaders lacked the moral conviction to avoid torture and also lacked the courage to revise their approach is a mistake that we will have to put behind us. The very fact that they sought opinions to allow their behavior shows that they were concerned about how it would appear; that they were concerned that it may not be legal or justifiable. They gave the appearance of impropriety. They opened the door for the world’s condemnation of us.
To close that door, we must say ‘Never again’. We must re-iterate to our military and our police that torture will not be accepted. We must raise up our voices to our leaders and let them know that the America we want to be does not engage in questionable behavior, does not skirt the law, but upholds the law, not only for our citizens but for people everywhere. If we want to be a country worthy of emulation, then we must hold ourselves to higher standards – even when we are fearful.
There probably is nothing to be gained by attempted prosecution of those responsible. They’ve covered themselves well enough that any legal action would likely be long, drawn out, and of questionable benefit. We could do much more by silencing them and those like them by loudly condemning them, by turning the tide of public opinion against them, thus banishing them from public life; by passing legislation to prohibit specifically the behavior we, and the world, find so reprehensible.
And then we have to live up to it.
I’ll always be disappointed in this chapter of our history. However, if we increase our resolve to adhere to the standards we proclaim, if we realize that sanctioning such actions is wrong, if we bravely follow the laws we set, then we can take pride that we have learned and grown as a nation, as a people, as individuals.
There would be no cause for disappointment in that.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Banish Larry Summers?
Too often, I feel that very little original work gets published: Bloggers just link, add a few comments, and that passes for commentary. It's easy, and tempting, however, I promise to not allow my blog to slip down into that. I'd like to create thought provoking originals of my own.
That said: Sometimes, someone just comes along and says what I've been thinking but does it so much better, with more wit and style than I can generate, that you should just read the original.
(Thanks to Naomi Klein!)
That said: Sometimes, someone just comes along and says what I've been thinking but does it so much better, with more wit and style than I can generate, that you should just read the original.
(Thanks to Naomi Klein!)
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Causes of Population Growth
While reading 'The End of Poverty' by Jeffrey Sachs some time ago, a world population chart that he presented got me to thinking. The chart shows a nearly stable world population from 1 CE to around 1000 CE, a slight increase in growth until 1500 CE, accelerated growth from 1500 to 1700 CE, and then the 'hockey stick' of growth: 900 million people in 1700 to 6.5 billion people today - a scant 300 years later.
In other reading, two significant events occurred that appear to coincide with the increases in growth rate: After 1500 the exploitation of coal as an energy source, and after 1700, the exploitation of oil. It seems a perfectly causal event: More exploited energy leads to more food production which leads in turn to more population. We did see the mechanization of farming, especially after 1800 in the US, which allowed 1 farmer to produce food to feed much more than just his family.
However, something about this explanation doesn't appear to fit the facts: As far as I am aware, the exploitation of coal and oil did not occur at the same rate in China and India, the two world population leaders. According to statistics, China's population rose from around 100 million people in 1735 to 300 million by 1785, rose to 400 million by the middle of the 19th century, and stands above 1 billion people today.
Rose George, in her book 'The Big Necessity', offers a clue. She writes that the Chinese have a 4000 year history of spreading their excrement on their fields as fertilizer, and, despite its offensive odor, it is very, very good at renewing the productivity of the farm. As the value of 'night soil' rose, so did the efficiency with which it was collected and distributed (until very recently the majority of Chinese used buckets to collect their waste, which was set out in the morning for collection, rather than dumped in the street like Europe). She continues: "In the vicious circle of night-soil fertilizer production, more people were produced and more people produced more night soil, which produced more crops, which fed more people. (p118)"
As their population has outstripped this method of fertilization, China has moved to rely on petroleum based fertilizers, further increasing food production and population. But it does provide another piece of the puzzle related to our massive population expansion worldwide.
In other reading, two significant events occurred that appear to coincide with the increases in growth rate: After 1500 the exploitation of coal as an energy source, and after 1700, the exploitation of oil. It seems a perfectly causal event: More exploited energy leads to more food production which leads in turn to more population. We did see the mechanization of farming, especially after 1800 in the US, which allowed 1 farmer to produce food to feed much more than just his family.
However, something about this explanation doesn't appear to fit the facts: As far as I am aware, the exploitation of coal and oil did not occur at the same rate in China and India, the two world population leaders. According to statistics, China's population rose from around 100 million people in 1735 to 300 million by 1785, rose to 400 million by the middle of the 19th century, and stands above 1 billion people today.
Rose George, in her book 'The Big Necessity', offers a clue. She writes that the Chinese have a 4000 year history of spreading their excrement on their fields as fertilizer, and, despite its offensive odor, it is very, very good at renewing the productivity of the farm. As the value of 'night soil' rose, so did the efficiency with which it was collected and distributed (until very recently the majority of Chinese used buckets to collect their waste, which was set out in the morning for collection, rather than dumped in the street like Europe). She continues: "In the vicious circle of night-soil fertilizer production, more people were produced and more people produced more night soil, which produced more crops, which fed more people. (p118)"
As their population has outstripped this method of fertilization, China has moved to rely on petroleum based fertilizers, further increasing food production and population. But it does provide another piece of the puzzle related to our massive population expansion worldwide.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Bigger Than Greenspan
Can we blame Alan Greenspan for failing to take action during the bubble economy of 2002-2007? The basic evidence presented earlier would indicate that we could. But, I'd like to point out a few things that might make us change our mind.
The first is the very nature of inflation itself. Inflation is especially bad to a lender, and actually pretty kind to a borrower. If the value of the dollar is falling (inflation), then the value of a loan is also falling, and the balance sheet of a lender is taking a hit. This seems to me a primary reason that banks hate inflation, and why congress has given the Federal Reserve a mandate to keep it under control.
The second is the falling stock market. During the period from late 2000 into 2004, the stock market was in a generally downward trend. It was coming off its unsustainable highs of the late nineties, when p/e ratios had risen to over 40 to 1. The stock market value should track fairly closely with the economy has a whole: The value of a stock is exactly the expected future value of its dividends, and those in turn, in the aggregate, are a reading of the future value of the economy. Unless the economy is growing at 8-10%, the Dow Average shouldn't be, either.
And the third reason is what would have happened if Mr. Greenspan had taken stronger action, especially by raising the interest rates. First off, he would have slowed economic growth even more. Second, he would have lowered the value of the dollar, diminishing exports. And third, he would have caused many Americans to lose their jobs.
And, if he had done as Joseph Stiglitz advocates by controlling the 'liars loans', and the complex derivatives, he would done even more to raise the ire of the nations new wealthy.
As if the uproar that would have come from all of that wouldn't have been enough, he would have trampled, at least to some degree, the profits of the financial industry who were busy creating new debt instruments and enriching themselves by taking an ever larger share of the new money that was being created. I think that Mr. Greenspan would have found himself thrown out of office, and vilified for damaging an already 'weak' economy. Alan Greenspan had very little (if any!) incentive to do the things that needed to be done.
So, blaming the individual, although it often makes us feel good, is counter-productive in this particular case. Instead of holding out hope that the 'right' individual will be able to make the system work, we need to blame the office. And, it appears that we need a change in the office of the Federal Reserve so that it's chairperson can be the regulator that we need them to be to oversee a sustainable economy. I would be very curious to see ideas and debate on how Congress (for the Reserve is a creation of Congress) could change the charter of the Federal Reserve to strengthen it so that it supports the interests of all America, rather than just the Financial Sector.
Sources:
http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=after_the_fall
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/stiglitz200901?currentPage=1
The first is the very nature of inflation itself. Inflation is especially bad to a lender, and actually pretty kind to a borrower. If the value of the dollar is falling (inflation), then the value of a loan is also falling, and the balance sheet of a lender is taking a hit. This seems to me a primary reason that banks hate inflation, and why congress has given the Federal Reserve a mandate to keep it under control.
The second is the falling stock market. During the period from late 2000 into 2004, the stock market was in a generally downward trend. It was coming off its unsustainable highs of the late nineties, when p/e ratios had risen to over 40 to 1. The stock market value should track fairly closely with the economy has a whole: The value of a stock is exactly the expected future value of its dividends, and those in turn, in the aggregate, are a reading of the future value of the economy. Unless the economy is growing at 8-10%, the Dow Average shouldn't be, either.
And the third reason is what would have happened if Mr. Greenspan had taken stronger action, especially by raising the interest rates. First off, he would have slowed economic growth even more. Second, he would have lowered the value of the dollar, diminishing exports. And third, he would have caused many Americans to lose their jobs.
And, if he had done as Joseph Stiglitz advocates by controlling the 'liars loans', and the complex derivatives, he would done even more to raise the ire of the nations new wealthy.
As if the uproar that would have come from all of that wouldn't have been enough, he would have trampled, at least to some degree, the profits of the financial industry who were busy creating new debt instruments and enriching themselves by taking an ever larger share of the new money that was being created. I think that Mr. Greenspan would have found himself thrown out of office, and vilified for damaging an already 'weak' economy. Alan Greenspan had very little (if any!) incentive to do the things that needed to be done.
So, blaming the individual, although it often makes us feel good, is counter-productive in this particular case. Instead of holding out hope that the 'right' individual will be able to make the system work, we need to blame the office. And, it appears that we need a change in the office of the Federal Reserve so that it's chairperson can be the regulator that we need them to be to oversee a sustainable economy. I would be very curious to see ideas and debate on how Congress (for the Reserve is a creation of Congress) could change the charter of the Federal Reserve to strengthen it so that it supports the interests of all America, rather than just the Financial Sector.
Sources:
http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=after_the_fall
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/stiglitz200901?currentPage=1
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Get Mad!
William K. Black was on Bill Moyers last week, and had this to say.
For those of you, like me, who don't know who William K. Black is, he was a regulator during the 1980's S & L crisis (or scandal), and has just written a book "The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One."
He is observant and sharp in his criticism of the Financial Industry. He calls it for what it was: A massive fraud perpetrated by the heads of the banks and investment houses on America. And he wants congress and America to get outraged and get them out.
If for some reason you still think that people who took the loans are to blame (either wholly or partially), you really need to read this interview.
My favorite exchange (emphasis mine):
Read the whole thing. It's worth it. Then let's figure out together how to get the wheels of justice turning. Maybe Elizabeth Warren will get madder and help us out.
For those of you, like me, who don't know who William K. Black is, he was a regulator during the 1980's S & L crisis (or scandal), and has just written a book "The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One."
He is observant and sharp in his criticism of the Financial Industry. He calls it for what it was: A massive fraud perpetrated by the heads of the banks and investment houses on America. And he wants congress and America to get outraged and get them out.
If for some reason you still think that people who took the loans are to blame (either wholly or partially), you really need to read this interview.
My favorite exchange (emphasis mine):
BILL MOYERS: This wound that you say has been inflicted on American life. The loss of worker's income. And security and pensions and future happened, because of the misconduct of a relatively few, very well-heeled people, in very well-decorated corporate suites, right?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Right.
BILL MOYERS: It was relatively a handful of people.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: And their ideologies, which swept away regulation. So, in the example, regulation means that cheaters don't prosper. So, instead of being bad for capitalism, it's what saves capitalism. "Honest purveyors prosper" is what we want. And you need regulation and law enforcement to be able to do this. The tragedy of this crisis is it didn't need to happen at all.
Read the whole thing. It's worth it. Then let's figure out together how to get the wheels of justice turning. Maybe Elizabeth Warren will get madder and help us out.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Curiosity
Curiosity overcame the little girl. Grasping the first banister picket, she pulled herself up onto the outside ledge of the staircase. Hand over hand, she climbed higher and higher, towards the plant perched six feet up on top of the display case.
Just before the stairway reached the case, a transition occurs, and the ledge, previously rising on a continuous slope, takes a vertical step of its own. Reaching this, the girl stopped. She looked down, and realized just how high she was. Fear replaced curiosity, and she screamed.
Her Dad came running, and retrieved the young girl from her perch. Her arms now clasped tightly and securely around his neck, she whispered, “I was scary, Daddy.”
“Yes, honey, sometimes you are,” he thought. “But I love you anyway.”
Just before the stairway reached the case, a transition occurs, and the ledge, previously rising on a continuous slope, takes a vertical step of its own. Reaching this, the girl stopped. She looked down, and realized just how high she was. Fear replaced curiosity, and she screamed.
Her Dad came running, and retrieved the young girl from her perch. Her arms now clasped tightly and securely around his neck, she whispered, “I was scary, Daddy.”
“Yes, honey, sometimes you are,” he thought. “But I love you anyway.”
Monday, April 6, 2009
Genes and Culture
This article caught my eye today, likely because I just finished a book on genetic detective work. It would appear that using genetics to map movements of prehistoric people will likely become more common, and certainly overturn more long held ideas. As Sykes points out in the Seven Daughters of Eve, the long held belief that early farmers spread across Europe and displaced the indigenous population is wrong from the genetic evidence: Only 17% of current Europeans can trace their mitochondrial DNA to those early farmers in the fertile crescent. Instead, as the farmers spread, their ideas spread even faster through cultural transmission, and everyone became farmers.
I would predict that we will see more of this as previous archeology that traced people movements based upon pottery and other artifacts will also be displaced by new genetic information that the ideas for the designs and tools spread faster than the actual people (except, of course, to regions where there were no people inhabiting.)
I also predict that we will see a vocalization of bigotry and racial prejudice as genetic evidence uncovers more of the inter-connected web of humanity, and breaks down concepts like race and (racially driven) superiority. Those who want to hold onto the conceit that they are descended exclusively from some superior ancestor will resist the new information, perhaps even speak out against this new science, attempting to block it in some way.
Humanity just hasn't been around long enough to develop sufficient genetic changes to actually make groups genetically different. And superior just doesn't even make sense when talking about genetics. As Richard Dawkins so aptly points out in “The Ancestor's Tale”, one cannot say that any species is more evolved than any other: All current non-extinct species have had just as much time to evolve, indeed, are all evolved to the same extent that 4 billion years of evolution can give them. Each is fit for its niche. It is human arrogance that projects a design and a hierarchy onto the species of the planet. It is plain conceit that places humanity at the culmination of all evolution.
And so the attacks on this that I anticipate are unfortunate. For as we come to understand more about how we came to be dispersed upon the world and how similar we are, the more we will recognize the power of culture to spread ideas and shape thinking. This should give us more reason to discard our old myths about innate superiority, with all their attendant injustice, and work towards more reasonable culture-wide and world-wide solutions to the various problems we face.
I would predict that we will see more of this as previous archeology that traced people movements based upon pottery and other artifacts will also be displaced by new genetic information that the ideas for the designs and tools spread faster than the actual people (except, of course, to regions where there were no people inhabiting.)
I also predict that we will see a vocalization of bigotry and racial prejudice as genetic evidence uncovers more of the inter-connected web of humanity, and breaks down concepts like race and (racially driven) superiority. Those who want to hold onto the conceit that they are descended exclusively from some superior ancestor will resist the new information, perhaps even speak out against this new science, attempting to block it in some way.
Humanity just hasn't been around long enough to develop sufficient genetic changes to actually make groups genetically different. And superior just doesn't even make sense when talking about genetics. As Richard Dawkins so aptly points out in “The Ancestor's Tale”, one cannot say that any species is more evolved than any other: All current non-extinct species have had just as much time to evolve, indeed, are all evolved to the same extent that 4 billion years of evolution can give them. Each is fit for its niche. It is human arrogance that projects a design and a hierarchy onto the species of the planet. It is plain conceit that places humanity at the culmination of all evolution.
And so the attacks on this that I anticipate are unfortunate. For as we come to understand more about how we came to be dispersed upon the world and how similar we are, the more we will recognize the power of culture to spread ideas and shape thinking. This should give us more reason to discard our old myths about innate superiority, with all their attendant injustice, and work towards more reasonable culture-wide and world-wide solutions to the various problems we face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)