What Blackwater should do

Fundamentally, the bodyguards' mission differed from that of the U.S. military, noted Hammes. "The contractor was hired to protect the principal. He had no stake in pacifying the country. Therefore, they often ran Iraqis off the roads, reconned by fire, and generally treated locals as expendable." Yet Iraqis saw them as acting under American authority. "You have loosed an unaccountable, deadly force into their society, and they have no recourse."

— Thomas Ricks, Fiasco

The annual Electronic Entertainment Expo continues, producing a deluge of coverage and critique as journalists and bloggers debate the merits of this hotly-anticipated sequel and that oddly-named, overpriced new platform. All the games get some coverage, but many sink beneath the tide of information. The announcement by Backbreaker publisher 505 Games' upcoming "FPX" Blackwater seems to be one such. For those who recall the outrage that greeted the announcement of Atomic Games' still-unreleased Six Days in Fallujah this might come as a surprise. Blackwater Worldwide (now renamed Xe) was one of the most infamous of the private military contractors employed in Iraq, involved in several incidents that remain a sore point with Iraqis, and has been accused of violating both federal and international law. Yet the mainstream press, which frothed at the mouth at the thought of a legitimate attempt to portray the struggles of actual U.S. soldiers, seems content to let slide a game where you play as a mercenary in an organization that has murdered civilians and smuggled weapons, doing real harm to U.S. interests in the process. 505 Games does not owe the world a game that criticizes Blackwater, but it should produce a game that engages criticisms of the organization in a more-than-superficial way.

Read the rest...

Those punks felt lucky

I can't imagine how anyone can vote for Rand Paul. I'm not even talking about his moronic take on the Civil Rights Act. I mean, that's pitiably foolish, and his whole "I"m not a racist, but..." act doesn't excuse his adopting the position that government must never interfere with private business even in the face of egregious social injustice. But at least if the people of Kentucky are fools enough to elect the man, the CRA is in no danger of being undone by Paul's idiocy. We might not be so lucky when it comes to his potential choices for dealing with the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, which he recently had the goddamn gall to characterize as an "accident". Paul even criticized the anger towards BP as un-American. To which I say: Fuck you, sir, and the political philosophy you rode in on.

Read the rest...

Larry the bilker

Matt Taibbi has an article about the destruction of Jefferson County up at Rolling Stone. I strongly recommend you read it, but take your blood pressure medicine first. I would like to be able to say that this story, in which crooked banks and corrupt politicians conspire to inflate the price of a public works project more than 1000 percent, saddling a county with billions of dollars of debt it will take a generation to pay off, is an elaborate April Fool's joke. Unfortunately, as the residents of Birmingham know, it's all too real. Like countless city councilmen, county commissioners, and mayors before him, Larry Langford played the city like a long con, adding the ruinous sewer project to his other notable failures, such as VisionLand. One wonders how much of his talent for failing upward was due to the assistance of men who knew he could be bought.

Read the rest...

Massachusetts, vote NO on Question 1

Ballot Question 1: A YES vote would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for the tax year beginning on January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010.

I know, I know. I hate paying income tax, too. I dislike government waste, too. It would be nice to have a little extra money in my pocket. It would be nice to see the state get leaner. In a world full of magical money fairies that preserved essential state programs in the absence of revenue, the Question 1 proposal might be a good idea. But there are no magical money fairies, and the only rational vote in response to question 1 is No.

I freely admit that I don't dislike taxes as much as the next guy might. The State provides me services that protect my meager wealth and support my standard of living. Accordingly, I favor the support of those services through fair taxation and fiscal responsibility. However, virtually every state in the nation, in addition to programs that support the public good, also funds programs that do little more than support public servants. Massachusetts, like any other state, is beset by waste, corruption, and appalling incompetence. Perhaps if we put the state on a starvation diet by squeezing off one of its chief revenue sources, it would force the government to trim unnecessary programs and waste.

Perhaps.

But you, and I, and anyone who has ever encountered government in any of its forms, know that's not going to happen. Oh, there may be some trimming here, some squeezing there, but the deep cut, the major restructuring, is not going to happen. What's going to happen instead is a restructuring of the tax system. Money that used to flow into state and community coffers from the income tax system will now be obtained via increased sales and property taxes.

"Higher sales taxes don't matter," you say, "I'll just drive up to New Hampshire to shop." And maybe you will, but that's not an option for everyone. Those who do their shopping in-state will end up paying more for less. Retailers will either have to cut prices to compensate, or just accept reduced sales. More people go out of state to shop, and those who stay will have reduced purchasing power.

"Property taxes don't matter," you say, "I rent, anyway." But somebody owns the property you lease, and when their taxes go up, so will your monthly rent. The heightened cost of ownership will drive some people to sell their property, increasing demand in the rental market and driving up prices that way. And even if your landlord doesn't hike your rate, the squeeze means something, be it maintenance, landscaping, or snow removal, will have to go. Moreover, the higher property taxes will be passed along to Massachusetts businesses that own or rent their stores. Higher prices or staffing cuts will follow.

The government of Massachusetts could and perhaps should be smaller. The tax burden of state citizens should perhaps also be lower. Getting there by eliminating the income tax, however, is akin to trying to lose weight by cutting off your legs. Precipitous, intemperate action of this kind will only raise the cost of living in Massachusetts, while adversely affecting the economy and standard of life. No matter how much you hate taxes, the only responsible vote on Question 1 is "No".

Read the rest...

Hit the road, Jack

Schadenfreude and gloating pervaded the online gaming world last week when the news broke that prominent anti-gaming crusader Jack Thompson would be permanently disbarred on or before October 25. While Thompson has challenged this decision in Federal court (accusing the justices of the Florida Supreme Court of persecuting him), it seems unlikely that he can do anything to save his right to practice law in Florida. Some optimists in the larger gaming community seem to feel that Thompson will be gone for good after this, but grandstanders of his ilk rarely depart so easily. Legally, Thompson is still entitled to file lawsuits like anyone else, and because he has become so notorious it is doubtful that he will be pushed out of the public square. This is much to the detriment of the debate on video game violence, because he did, and does, far more to harm the cause of those concerned about graphic violence than he ever did to help.

Of course, the critics of video game violence are legion, but few, if any, of them could rival Thompson for sheer volume or nastiness. Like many such critics he had a tendency to play fast and loose with the facts, famously asserting that the Virginia Tech massacre had been inspired by first-person shooter games and holding to this view in the face of definitive evidence to the contrary. His partaking in the brain-dead excesses of conservative punditry was not nearly as troublesome as Thompson's deep, almost disturbing lack of professionalism, good taste, and basic decency. His demand that Janet Reno tell him whether or not she was a lesbian is a well-known matter of public record. Less famous, but just as unsettling, was his conduct towards judges and fellow lawyers, carefully described in his bar trial (of which you can read selected transcripts at Gamepolitics). It is clear from the record that no boundary of decency or good behavior deterred Thompson from the pursuit of litigation based on the idea that video game violence caused real life violence.

That isn't a completely absurd contention like creationism. The psychological effects of violent media (including video games) constitute a serious area of scientific study. While reasonable people can disagree on the quality of particular experiments and the proper interpretation of their results, there is no serious scientific disagreement that violent media produce at least short-term changes in feelings of aggression and attitudes towards violence. The long-term effects of violent video games on normal people are still disputed, and there are a number of moral, economic, and artistic considerations that have an important bearing on the subject. Nonetheless, it should be possible to have a rational, constructive dialogue about whether and how much violence in games ought to be acceptable to the audience, the creators, and yes, even the government.

But constructive dialogue is precisely the sort of thing people like Jack Thompson prevent. The bullying attack mentality at the core of his behavior turns the issue into an emotional one, making every side too angry to engage in a calm, rational assessment of evidence. Because of this, Jack Thompson got in the way of addressing the violence issue every time he showed his face. Admittedly, if the court has a remedy for your harm these tactics can pay off in some instances. However, suppressing video game violence through legal means has not been, and will never be, a viable strategy in America. Thompson's attitude poisoned any chance that he could personally effect a change in the quantity of violence in video games. Even if he had been effective in recovering money from video game developers, the end result would have been an interminable process of swatting flies; attempting to punish the games industry for violence every time an exemplar showed its head. Profitable for a professional litigator, perhaps, but not a way to effectively change the industry's attitude towards the portrayal of violence.

Thompson also poisoned the larger debate by being a kook and a villain. He made himself easy to hate, a figurehead for gamers to revile, and also did his best to demonize both gamers and his personal critics. In this way he brought a needlessly adversarial relationship to the various sides of the issue. Because his attacks were accompanied by distasteful personal behavior and a fundamental unwillingness to deal in fact, Thompson also made himself a ready caricature. He enabled gamers and game developers to regard everyone who held his position as being just as out of touch, hateful, and ridiculous as he was. Hatred and ridicule both have the effect of dehumanizing the other side, and ending any serious effort at consideration or collaboration.

So I'm glad that Thompson has been disbarred. I'm not glad because it hurts Thompson, and it doesn't matter to me that the dignity of the Florida Bar has been upheld. I'm happy about this result because it discredits Mr. Thompson and is the first step towards removing him from the debate entirely. That's the best possible outcome for gamers, game developers, and organizations that are genuinely interested in decreasing the violent content of games and keeping violent games out of the hands of children. Jack Thompson did nothing but harm to those efforts; it is to be hoped that in his absence a friendlier environment, in which the participants in the discussion seek common ground rather than mutual destruction, will develop.

Read the rest...

Bailing into the lifeboat

A few weeks back, when I posted about the necessity of raising taxes and cutting spending in order to reign in the national debt, I did not anticipate that the market would force us to take such an enormous step towards insolvency. The bailout proposed by the Bush administration would cost us $700 billion, but many predict that its actual cost, after Congress adds its own trimmings and attempts to include some relief for homeowners in danger of default, will reach $1 trillion or more of money that we don't have. The irony of paying for bad debt with more debt might inspire a grim sort of humor if we weren't in such a big hole already. The plan as initially proposed is completely outrageous, but I have little doubt that Congress will find some way to make it worse.

The fundamental problem is that a mortgage-backed security is not a mortgage. The holder of a mortgage has the right to foreclose on the property (thus recovering real assets) if the loan is not repaid, but the holder of a MBS does not appear to necessarily have this right. The security spreads the risk from a pool of mortgages among a pool of investors; as such, no single investor can be said to "own" a particular mortgage (except in the case that he owns all the securities from a given pool). It's not clear whether the owners of MBS own anything other than debt; it is possible that they do not own the underlying loans. And these are the simplest vehicles assembled from residential mortgages... the real value of more exotic derivatives may be impossible to assess. This has serious implications for the proposed bailout, because there is a very real chance that we taxpayers will end up paying billions of dollars for smoke and mirrors. Before we release one penny from the Treasury for this rescue effort we must ensure that what we purchase with our money will give us a right to the underlying property, as well as the authority to modify the mortgages so as to diminish the default rate. We must not be left holding a bag of air.

The uncertain relationship between the securities and the actual mortgages underscores the unseemly nature of the whole affair. People who did not have the wherewithal to own homes got mortages from unscrupulous lenders who should never have given them out. These mortgages were packaged into vehicles that were treated like gold by credit raters, and then purchased by investors who probably should have known better. Only a fool could have imagined that the housing boom would continue indefinitely. The push by credit providers to make bankruptcy declarations more difficult for individuals had the unexpected side effect of increasing defaults. Holding negative equity on their homes in a plunging market, homeowners simply turned off the lights and walked out. The invisible hand failed to reign in the cascade of short-sightedness, stupidity, and outright malfeasance, and the credit market landed on its head with an audible crunch.

This would be bad enough on its own, but it set off a chain reaction leading to ever more violent flailing on the part of the Treasury department and the market players themselves. Because the securities had been insured, AIG took a hit and needed billions of dollars of government money just to die quietly. The failure of Lehman Brothers left money market funds holding worthless paper; the Reserve Primary Fund broke the buck and skittish investors started to flee. With all business in danger of grinding to a halt because of the shortage, the Treasury insured these investments with the Exchange Stabilization Fund. Because this insurance is not capped, small banks are now worried that panicked customers may move all assets in excess of $100,000 into the money market, leaving them short on cash.

Keating Five member John McCain, long a friend to unscrupulous financiers and enemy to the kinds of regulatory oversight that might have prevented this crisis, has been difficult to pin down on this issue, in large part because his position changes every time the sun comes up. His initial position, that we should stop bailing out financial giants, is understandable and at least has the virtue of being consistent with his free-market philosophy. His later attitude, an acceptance of the reality that these companies must be bailed out in order to protect the investors who acted in good faith, was more realistic. Exposure to the toxic mortgage-based securities put the other assets of these companies at risk, and it would be unconscionable to destroy the investments of good actors as punishment for the deeds of bad actors who had already escaped on golden parachutes.

(In McCain's defense, at least he said something, even if it was insane, and Joe Biden's response tracked a similar trajectory. As for the other presidential candidate, Barack Obama couldn't manage anything better than "I'll get back to you on that." Who will you choose in November: the madman or the slacker?)

Bailing out rich people stinks, but it stinks more when we don't really have any money to do it with. Section 10 of the proposed legislation increases our national debt limit for the fiscal year to $11,315,000,000,000. Given the authority to hit that ceiling, I have no doubt that the Treasury department will do so, meaning that our interest outlay in the next budget will be even higher than previously anticipated. Every new program you've heard politicians mention during this election cycle has just evaporated. The cost of a bailout is a credit crunch on the government, at the worst possible time. I've already proposed the solution to the problem: we must increase income and cut outlays. Otherwise, we're just bailing water from the yacht into the lifeboat. Specifically, the wealthiest Americans must be willing to pay higher taxes, because it is they that benefit most from the financial institutions the rest of us will be breaking the bank to rescue, and it was their exploitation of those markets that got us into this mess.

Of course, I haven't yet gotten to the most malodorous part of the whole proposal. It's bad that we don't know whether what we're buying will be worth anything, and it's worse that we'll significantly increase the national debt to do so. But the really despicable part of the legislation is this:

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

You know, at least with the absurdly-named Patriot Act these Republican pricks had some kind of flimsy excuse for their totalitarian actions. This is sticking a thumb in the eye of Democracy just to show you can. It was a lack of transparency and honesty that got us into this whole mess; we cannot get out of it by spending $700,000,000,000 at the sole discretion of faceless bureaucrats from an abominably opaque and secretive administration. The estimated cost of the Iraq War to date is around $582 billion, a massive number but still less than the amount proposed in this legislation. It defies reason and sense to insulate the choices made with this massive amount of money from oversight and accountability. The very request for opacity suggests that the whole operation is being undertaken in bad faith.

Bernanke and Paulson continue to insist that Congress must act immediately. Nothing in their past behavior, however, suggests that they possess the competence to make this analysis, or the honesty to accurately convey their analysis to the media or to the legislature. Clearly, something must be done, but handing out $700 billion to the same nitwits that got us into this mess, without anything even resembling appropriate oversight, is more likely to bring economic disaster than salvation.

Read the rest...

Upside down

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

—George Washington, Farewell Address

The next President and Congress of the United States must raise taxes and cut spending.

The last time I checked, the national debt was about $9.6 trillion, but it's probably higher now. The interest on this debt presently amounts to nearly 10% of the federal budget, which admittedly is less than half of we spend on defense, but still easily exceeds $200,000,000,000. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the interest outlay in 2007 could have covered the entire federal expenditure on supplemental security income, child tax credits, unemployment, food stamps, family support, child nutrition, and foster care, with almost enough left over to pay for veteran's benefits. Of course, the magnitude of the debt (and the associated interest payments) will only increase when Medicare and Social Security payments start to exceed revenues. The federal government has run a deficit every year since 2001, and none of the people running for office now have done enough to stop it. Nor do they propose to do enough to stop it.

Instead, our candidates propose hosts of new projects, proposing no financing beyond the sunshine and rainbows that adorn their professionally-coiffed speeches. They shoo away the petty earmarks while the great consumers — Medicare, Social Security, Defense — gnaw the budget to the bone, unmolested in their gluttony. Most candidates who are willing to tax are unwilling to stop spending; most candidates who are willing to cut expenditures also want to lower taxes. Either way is insane, but many candidates want the whole pie: more spending, less taxes, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

It has become almost obligatory, especially among those seeking office for the first time, to blame the present excesses on fat cats in the capital, but simply pointing the finger at Washington doesn't cut it. Irresponsible big spenders do not reach office by magic; they get there because we elect them. This is not a problem of other people in other districts who have bad judgment and choose lousy representatives. This is your problem in your district, and it is a problem because we have failed to do as George Washington asked. A man who tells you that our budget problems can be solved without any pain is either a fool, or a liar who thinks that you are a fool. But when a candidate gets up and acknowledges that taxes must be raised, that favored spending must be restrained, he is hated by an electorate that ought to applaud him for his honesty.

So the politicians lie. They cut taxes and spend more. They raise taxes and outspend that. And all along we grumble and complain about "Washington insiders" and "Beltway bandits". Well, throw the bums out! That's in your power, isn't it? If you're reading this post you have access to the internet. Find out how your congressman voted during his term. Read the text of the bills he voted on. Find out what questions he asked in committee and what speeches he made on the floor. Dig up the things that interest you, no matter how obscure. The behavior of state legislators and other officials is often more difficult to track, but these records exist. You as a voter have a duty to find and evaluate them, because terribly few politicians are honest about their record or intentions. Even if they are inclined to tell the truth, they dare not speak it because we voters are all too happy to punish harsh truths and reward pleasant lies.

Paying down the national debt is a personal obligation. We owe it to our children and grandchildren, our nieces and nephews, not to leave them a country upside down on its loans. More than that, however, it is a patriotic obligation. We owe it to our parents and grandparents, our soldiers and our founders, not to let the country they worked so diligently to build and preserve crumble due to debt and dissipation.

The next President and Congress of the United States must raise taxes and cut spending. Any candidate for any national office who refuses to acknowledge this truth does not deserve your vote.

Read the rest...

It really isn't

"I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."—Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.)

I'm finding it difficult to see why this statement is considered to be at all controversial, despite the firestorm it has ignited in the conservative set. It is not an attack on John McCain's service nor is it a smear against him. I could almost find the outraged Republican blowback on this quote to be funny, if I didn't have a memory. Instead, I find it positively revolting.

It amazes me that anyone has to defend this quote at all, as our history has amply demonstrated that military service has no bearing on Presidential quality. Yes, the Army gave us Washington and Eisenhower. It also gave us such perennial entries on the shortlist for worst President in U.S. history as Franklin Pierce and Ulysses S. Grant. Even successful leadership at the rank of General does not indicate that one will perform admirably as a President. For Clark, a military man (and former Presidential candidate) himself, to point this out hardly qualifies as a smear. It's fair to say this comment is unnecessary, but absent any additional context, the histrionics of the McCain campaign are just unwarranted foolishness.

However, we are not without additional context, because in an amazing coincidence, one of the men delivering those histrionics was Bud Day. Yes, the very same Bud Day who was a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and appeared in one of their commercials. This man, who through ignorance or foolishness attacked Clark's perfectly sensible statement, had the gall to follow it up with a defense of the Swift Boat smears as "the truth".

That's why I can't just dismiss the McCain response as a good laugh. The outrage, feigned or not, of conservatives is positively revolting in light of the Swift Boat campaign. To see those who winked at the SBVT's outright slander of an American serviceman treat Clark's statement as some kind of blood libel is a repellent display of hypocrisy. For McCain, who claimed to repudiate the SBVT tactics, to employ SBVT members and take their money in this campaign only heightens my disgust. The maverick, the straight-talker, the man for whom I felt a good deal of respect all seem to have perished in the pursuit of the Presidency.

McCain's experiences in the Vietnam War, heroic as they were, have no bearing on his qualifications for the Presidency. His reaction to Clark's statement of this obvious fact, however, has me more firmly convinced than ever that he lacks the judgment, the restraint, and the integrity to lead this nation.

Read the rest...

Is Multiculturalism to Blame for Iraq?

Well, today I had the misfortune of reading an article so transparently silly it amazes me that editors at the Christian Science Monitor allowed it to be printed. I begin to wonder if its author, Lawrence Harrison even read what he was writing, or simply ignored the obvious contradictions of his position in order to serve his point. In the opinion piece, "The End of Multiculturalism", Harrison asserts that the two great failures of the Bush administration—Iraq and immigration—have their roots in multiculturalism. He goes on to prescribe some actions by the government to nip that there multiculturalism in the bud. The whole article is built on an inane straw man, and consequently its merits are nil.

Harrison stuffs his scarecrow relatively quickly. By his second paragraph he is saying:

But multiculturalism rests on a frail foundation: cultural relativism, the notion that no culture is better or worse than any other – it is merely different.

First of all, this sort of statement is primed to elicit a reaction, as it implies an attack on the reader (the reader is assumed to hold his own culture in high regard). However, the central tenet of normative cultural relativism is not the same as the central tenet of a multiculturalism, which is that every culture has some value. Because the multiculturalist seeks to construct a single coherent society out of diverse cultures he implicitly accepts a set of external norms. Without such norms a coherent multicultural society cannot be constructed.

This is not an insignificant difference: the multiculturalist is still in a position to, say, oppose female genital mutilation, while a bona fide cultural relativist is not. The normative cultural relativist must reject the notion that there are any external norms by which a given culture can be judged, while the multiculturalist is not obliged to such an extreme position.

Harrison acknowledges this non-equivalence as well when he asks:

What, then, are the implications for a foreign policy based on the doctrine that "These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society"? The Bush administration has staked huge human, financial, diplomatic, and prestige resources on this doctrine's applicability in Iraq. It is now apparent that the doctrine is fallacious.

The stated doctrine is an explicit rejection of normative cultural relativism. Yet Harrison attributes it to a multicultural worldview. If these words truly reflect some kind of multiculturalism (as Harrison claims they do), then multiculturalism cannot be the same as cultural relativism. Moreover, if the failures of this 'multicultural' foreign policy arise from this sentiment then they are a result of cultural aboslutism ("right and true for every person") rather than cultural relativism. Harrison seems to be arguing that the flaw of 'multiculturalism' in this case was the invalid application of external norms—in other words, his is the argument of a relativist. Of course, I don't mean to suggest that Harrison is a relativist; rather, I mean to suggest that he is an idiot.

The reality is that the Bush foreign policy is not 'multicultural' in any intelligible sense. And to be honest, its failures were not so much philosophical as practical. Examining the war policy in the light of multiculturalism is nonsensical because they are not related. This is probably why Harrison doesn't spend a great deal of time trying to explain why it is. Instead he skips on to immigration, which at least seems like it could be intelligently framed in terms of multiculturalism.

Once again, however, Harrison utterly fails to deliver. The best he can offer is to sloppily and inanely equate bilingual education with values that perpetuate underachievement. However, it is totally unreasonable to suggest that multiculturalism requires us to uncritically accept cultural values that are at odds with particular norms. One can legitimately argue that Mexican customs, language, food, and literature are worth celebrating in America without being committed to the idea that the educational failings of immigrants ought be tolerated or encouraged. Only a hard-line normative cultural relativist is bound to such an odd outlook, and, of course, multiculturalism is not the same as cultural relativism. Harrison triumphs over his idiotic straw man, but produces no arguments relevant to the stated topic. The delayed assimilation and continued poverty of Hispanic immigrants are of major concern to everyone, not just monoculturalists.

There are other reasons to despise this article—among them Harrison's creepy adulation for 'Nordic' values and 'Anglo-Protestantism'. However, the chief reason to reject his argument is that he isn't talking about multiculturalism at all. While acculturation and economic opportunity for the Hispanic minority are a pressing concern for the nation, Harrison's extreme and distorted views of multiculturalism do nothing to inform the debate.

Read the rest...

Dear gamers: please stop buying crap

Yesterday Kotaku put up an article about Barack Obama's line in which he says people "...are going to have to parent better, and turn off the television sets, and put the video games away, and instill a sense of excellence in our children..." The particular editor at Kotaku clearly overreacted by seeing this as Obama using games a metaphor for underachievment. That's clearly not the point. But if it were, it would be a largely valid point, and more importantly a point with which most Americans would agree for mostly correct reasons. Anyone who has read this blog for more than a week knows I am not saying this because I believe games to be devoid of artistic content. Quite the opposite: I earnestly believe games have the power to convey stimulating stories and emotions in a uniquely powerful way. Unfortunately, most video games, and especially the video games that have the most impact on popular culture, fall far short of this ideal. True video gaming enthusiasts are not the only ones to blame for this problem. However, they are well-placed to do something about it.

The main features supporting Obama's (and the larger public's) view are pretty obvious. For the most part, games are not a physical activity, although the Wii is changing that to some extent. They generally do not convey enlightening or even interesting stories. Because they divorce themselves so totally from the science, history, or mythology on which they occasionally claim to be based, the vast majority of games are not even slightly educational. Indeed, in this regard they are usually so far off base they aren't even wrong. It is at least possible, even likely, that shooters and gory games desensitize their players to violence (though not necessarily uniquely so), especially if those players are young. The majority of television and movies are at least as bad and probably worse. However, video games shouldn't make a negative case versus competing media; they should try to stand positively on their own. This, at present, they cannot do, particularly not as they are perceived in the larger culture. Given what the average person knows, a parent promoting any alternative activity, be it reading books or playing with sticks, over video games would be acting reasonably. At least the sticks won't make your kids dumber.

What makes this so upsetting to me is that it need not be so. Many games rely on critical thinking and problem solving skills. Games largely do not possess the "quick cuts" common in commercials and film that are suspected to adversely affect attention span and concentration. In fact, most games reward concentration and careful observation. And despite the generally grim situation, there are many games that include interesting and stimulating narratives. Even the first-person shooter genre, justifiably reviled for its generally awful writing, recently developed entries that featured a genuinely interesting story (BioShock) and an extremely clever and novel mechanic (Portal). Games like these, that favor inventiveness and storytelling over crystal-clear graphics of aliens' heads getting blown to bits, are rare gems to be celebrated.

But why? Why is BioShock the revelation, instead of being the status quo? Why is Shadow of the Colossus the exception rather than the rule? The reason is that the low (intellectual) quality muzzle-flash-and-gore spectacles sell. They sell spectacularly, and the simple fact is that companies have not just a desire, but an obligation (to their shareholders) to maximize their profits. If cow manure sold like candy bars, you'd never see another Snickers vending machine. The reason gamers don't get candy is that they're willing to buy crap.

Why are there great artistic movies, despite the triumphant profits of summer blockbuster pablum? Because there are people that believe in movies as an art form, who support artistic movies, who tell their friends about the emotionally moving films they see and encourage those people to support them. Some of these buffs also enjoy the occasional schlock film, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with schlock films or watching them, as long as you don't confuse Transformers with Citizen Kane. Look, Halo isn't art. It's got art—perhaps even really good art—in it, but hey, Face/Off had some great cinematography and set design. That doesn't mean Face/Off isn't schlock—nobody in film confused dual-wielding Nic Cage with Nic Cage in Leaving Las Vegas. Halo is great fun, but the perception of the broader culture is that we see Halo and Gears of War as the pinnacle of the gaming artform, while I think the genuine perception of gamers is that these are the easily-discarded summer blockbusters.

Game publishers appear to be content to let the public perception stand. Thus, it falls to the enthusiasts to help elevate the form. We can do that in many ways. The most obvious, and the one most likely to directly impact the choices made by publishers, is to shift our purchasing habits. When you come across a game that makes an artistic statement, buy it; when you want to play a game that doesn't, rent (or ignore) instead. Stop pre-ordering games—require publishers to demonstrate quality and artistry before you buy. When it becomes favorable to a company's bottom line to push artistry over flash, they will do so. Why? Because they love money.

In that same vein, reward reviewers (with your traffic) if they focus their greatest attention on the artistic merits of games. I know the initial reaction to this is to say that reviewers should review games for "what they're trying to be" rather than focusing on the artistic aspects. That's a bunch of crap. Roger Ebert, Leonard Maltin, and that funny-looking guy from the Today show could all pan the hell out of the next entry in the "Michael Bay Blows Up" series (Michael Bay Blows Up Alcatraz, Michael Bay Blows Up Asteroids, Michael Bay Blows Up Your Childhood, etc.), and it will still make hundreds of millions of dollars. Game publishers and designers, as well as the purchasing public, need to develop a similar attitude towards bad reviews of schlock games, instead of insisting that review scores reflect popularity or ultimate sales. If Halo is bad art, give it an F, even if it's a good time. There's nothing wrong with doing that as long as the audience is aware of your angle, as they are with Ebert.

The final thing to do is for enthusiasts ourselves to talk about games as art, and to focus on artistic games when gaming comes up in casual conversation. Enthusiasts must get in the habit of talking (or writing) about games as art, rather than purely entertainment. The earnest, well-articulated, public attitude that games are art will do a great deal to promote this view in others, even if they have no direct experience of artistic games.

Obama was right to say what he did, and the next politician to say it will be right, and the next one after that, up to the day you lose your teeth and your mind. Games will always be a juvenile, inferior medium unappreciated by the public at large unless those who love them most put real pressure on developers, publishers, and reviewers to transform the motivations and attitudes that inform game creation and media response. If dollars support the best art instead of the best gloss, better art will be made and supported by the industry, and if the public at large gets used to seeing games discussed as art, criticized as art, and publicized as art, they will get used to thinking of them as art.

Read the rest...

Cowardly Democratic Candidates Punt on FISA

The ancient Romans famously covered up the governmental shortcomings of their empire by the distribution of free bread and the holding of spectacles, including gladiatorial combat and the races in the circus. It's a cynical strategy that works, as we can see in our own country today. Recently we've had bread—in the form of the hastily-passed economic stimulus bill—and we've sure had a circus—the pathetic and hilarious hearings about Roger Clemens' butt. And amidst that clamor, as quietly as it could manage, the Senate passed the extension to FISA, including the provision that grants immunity to the telecommunications companies that complied with the totalitarian demands of the Bush administration. McCain voted in favor of telecom immunity. That was the wrong decision, but at least it was a decision. And what did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama do? Those agents of change, those defenders of our liberties, those brave voices against theose who would turn our country into a dicatorship of the paranoid, didn't cast a vote at all. Clinton didn't even bother to show up.

No narrative of the telecom surveillance makes unqualified immunity a good idea. On the one hand, if these companies eagerly agreed to hand over the records of their customers without threat, then they clearly deserve to be held civilly (if not criminally) liable for the loss of privacy. If the companies were blackmailed or threatened into taking this step by overzealous agents of the government, then it seems a little less fair to expose them to liability. However, it is every citizen's duty to resist unlawful action of the state. The companies had an obligation to blow the whistle when confronted with this unlawful demand, not cave in to it like some spineless Democratic Senator. If they failed in this duty, then they deserve to get punished. Moreover, granting this blanket immunity greases the wheels for further abuses.

If the companies can prove that they believed themselves to be acting in good faith in compliance with a legitimate court order, then they should of course not be held liable. This, however, is a matter for the courts to decide, not the legislature. Including provisions of immunity for future cases where the FISA court orders the handover of such information is legitimate (the involvement of the court should not be optional), but granting immunity for past cases where the handover of data was not proper is not. At any rate, the propriety of the order ought be proven in court, not assumed by the Congress.

Even if you disagree with me on the issue, the fact remains that Obama and Clinton have been very loud about the abuses of the Bush presidency, and how they will change the way that Washington works. This vote belies those claims. It was a pure and simple act of political calculation. Obama and Clinton must have known that voting against FISA wouldn't help them politically—it would only get them points with people who already hate the current administration and its policies, a group of people unlikely to vote Republican in November. A "Nay" would almost certainly come up in the main election, framed by McCain as a vote against national security. Voting for the bill, on the other hand, could seriously dampen the enthusiasm of liberals, and would provide an opening if, say, Clinton voted for it and Obama either did not vote or took the chance of opposing. As a cynically calculated political strategy, only refusing to vote made any sense. But haven't both these candidates claimed to be different?

Clinton is the worse offender. Obama at least went in and consistently voted in favor of amendments to limit the more egregious provisions of the bill. At least he registered some kind of disapproval, even if ultimately he didn't speak up when the vote counted most. But when the issues came up, Clinton, who loudly attacked Obama for his number of "present" votes in the Illinois legislature, apparently didn't have a damn thing to say. Where was her leadership? Where was her devotion? What was she doing on February 12th that was more important than your civil liberties? Well, she was giving a speech in Texas, saying:

I believe that we need a president, starting on day one, who's going to roll up his or her sleeves and get to work.

Well, I guess it depends on what your definition of "work" is. Apparently, Clinton's doesn't include defending our liberties or performing her elected duties.

Liberals, lovers of the Constitution, haters of the Imperial Presidency, this vote is the sign that you are being taken for granted. This is the sign that this man and this woman are not who they say they are. They are the same spineless fools that ceded authority to Bush time and time again, and they are still afraid, still cowering in fear that they will be called weak on national security. Understand that these people would rather be known as enablers of tyrants than defenders of liberty. Understand that they are so afraid of the preception of weakness that they have lost their moral courage. Understand that all their pretty talk about change is just that—talk. They are the past. They are politics as usual. They are the problem they claim they'll solve.

Read the rest...

Super Tuesday

Well, today is the day of the Florida semi-primary, yet another chapter of the ridiculous primary leapfrog game that occurred this year. A week from now, almost half the states in the nation will have their own, very early, primaries. The madness will not end there, of course, especially in the case of the Democrats. The long slog of the primary season will continue for some time, and it is entirely possible that the candidates will not be decided until the end of March, leaving only a paltry seven months for the parties to assassinate the character and distort the record of their candidates more than has already been accomplished in the extended primary season. I have decided not to vote in the primary for a couple of reasons that I'll explain. If I were to vote in the primary, however, I would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain, and I'll explain that, too.

Why won't I vote in the primary? Well, it's not because I can't. Massachusetts has a semi-closed primary, so, because I am not a member of either party, I can vote in either primary. I disagree with this policy, because I feel it discourages additional parties and also third-party candidacies. Independents tend to be more moderate than party faithful; open primaries allow these voters to select centrist candidates. Were the electorate confronted with the true extremes of both parties, the enormous repulsion they felt would make a third-party candidate viable and weaken the parties. I'm also unwilling to signal tacit assent to the parties and their corrupt selection system by joining the primary. Finally, both parties only have terrible, horrible, no good, very bad candidates.

If, however, you put a gun to my head and forced me to vote in the Democratic primary, I would vote for Barack Obama, out of negative selection. None of the candidates have any real, relevant experience—Hillary's claim to "35 years" is a bunch of crap, and at the same time, her politics-as-usual behavior in every state, in every primary, belies her claim to "change" as well. She's a rerun of her husband, and frankly, I've had enough of the Clintons and the cynical politics of "triangulation". We didn't need four more years of Bill back in 2000, and we certainly don't need four more years of him now. Moreover, while it may not be fair to Hillary, the fact is that for reasons entirely unrelated to her actual degree of competence she is incredibly divisive. The issues we face right now are simply too difficult for us to have our President and Congress engaged in a four-year partisan wrestling match. Hillary has neither the leadership nor the charisma that the job presently requires.

So that leaves us with Edwards and Obama. I understand that Mr. Edwards is very angry at rich people and corporations, and feels that elites are waging war on the middle class. This is probably true, but Edwards doesn't actually supply any kind of believable answers, except perhaps waving his magic wand to create 1 million jobs. The adversarial position he adopts is not presently advantageous, in my view. We need to partner with corporations to get things done while reining them in gently, not harangue on and on about how bad they are. They are bad, and the present distribution of wealth is dangerously polarized. Edwards, however, doesn't have any better answer for this, his touchstone issue, than the next guy.

Obama is charismatic, has the right priorities, and lacks the baggage. He doesn't have much experience, but that's true of all the candidates. The Republicans hate him less, which means that he has a better chance of getting Congress moving than Hillary does. Moreover, his message of change is legitimate and inspiring. The message itself is trite, of course, but it gives him a chance of getting a true mandate from the electorate, rather than the narrow, confusing results of the last two elections. That will be a much-needed tool to break the intransigence of Congress. So I would vote for him to be a candidate, if I did not hate the parties, the primary system, and the fact that I can't find any candidate with more positives than negatives.

If you put a gun to my head and forced me to vote in the Republican primary, I would probably ask you to pull the trigger. On the other hand, I might hold my nose and vote for McCain.

Giuliani is a joke, and not even a particularly funny one. Huckabee, with his creationism and "fair tax", is an inhabitant of some absurd fairy wonderland. And Ron Paul's only virtue is that he is the only candidate who seems to be aware that "they hate us" more for what we have done than for who we are. I feel sorry for my uncle Sam, who is a fiscal conservative and therefore has no candidate. The whole row of them parrots the line of tax cuts and reduced spending, but nothing in the background of any of them really suggests they'll hold that line. Hell, at the Florida debate Huckabee practically suggested starting the WPA up again.

And Romney... my God, Mitt Romney running on his record of job creation in Massachusetts is laughable. I am not intrinsically concerned by the fact that Romney's position on every issue has changed—a considered change of opinion is every man's right. What bothers me is that all of his new positions just happen to be more expedient for getting a Republican nomination. Changing your opinion so that you will be more popular makes you a jackass, not a philosopher. Moreover, his side-swapping has ruined all credibility with Democrats and Democratic constituencies. He'll be trusted by neither party in Washington—a bad situation to be in with a Democratic Congress.

I disagree with John McCain on almost everything. However, I think he's as strong on the environment as a Republican can get. He has what the Democrats lack, i.e. experience, and has a track record of working with both parties to get things done. If, as a Republican, you want anything that matches your values to emerge from a Democratic congress, then he is probably the best bet. Also, McCain has the best chance out of all the candidates to rebuild the U.S. reputation in the world. Alone of all the Republicans he could believably claim that the United States does not torture, and his word on that would be more credible than any of the Democrats either (trivia time: under which President did "extraordinary rendition" begin?). As an independent, I could tolerate him as a president. He's certainly not a conservative's dream candidate, but since none of these candidates have real conservative credentials, IMO he's the least of the available evils from a Republican standpoint too. At least he would be strong on defense and capable of restoring our standing with our allies.

So those are the least bad in two fields of terrible choices. I'd be least bothered by a race between Obama and McCain, and I wouldn't know what to do in a race between Clinton and Romney, not least because they'd have the same talking points. What the country needs now is an intelligent leader who can work with the other side of the aisle and mobilize public support for necessary changes, not a partisan hack or professional windvane.

Read the rest...

America and the Meiji Restoration

While I was home, incidentally reading an enormous book on the history of Japan, Dad asked me why I was so interested in Japan and Japanese history. Despite the typical interest in understanding the samurai ethos, however, my interest is not in Japanese history generally, except in terms of contextualizing the Meiji era of its history. Japan transformed from a medieval, decentralized, semi-feudal congeries of partially autonomous states into a highly centralized modern empire ranking among the most important world powers with amazing speed. America had its part in this: Perry's gunboat diplomacy played a significant role not only in demonstrating the powerlessness of the Shogunate but also in convincing the elites that they must adopt Western technology. It is an interesting case of a social and technological transformation of a whole society. This of course begs the question: why am I interested in that?

Part of my interest arises from the fact that this transformation was actually a subversion of the intentions of many of its supporters. As the name implies, the Meiji Restoration was intended by many to be a return to an older version of Japan. The intention was to promote loyalty to the Emperor and expulsion of the foreigners. Since neither of these goals was truly compatible with the aims and abilities of the Shogunate, it was a powerful rallying cry against it. At the same time, the latter aim was totally unrealistic even for a reconstituted imperium. Thus the message changed to one of Imperial loyalty combined with national strength, to be achieved by adopting the technologies and institutions of Western powers. Some Meiji-era heroes reconciled themselves to this shift in emphasis, while others did not, or were not pleased with the way in which modernization was achieved. Samurai insurrections, recently romanticized in The Last Samurai, were one of the results. I find it interesting that this Restoration, with its roots in primitivism and xenophobia, actually resulted in modernization and international engagement.

More than that, however, I feel that we are in a similar time of transition and challenge. Scientific illiteracy and disrespect for science, especially in regard of religious meddling, seems to be rising. American industry, once a wellspring of innovation, is now tentative and fearful — the failures of the automobile giants are just one example of how conservative thinking is working against us. The budget for basic sciences has again suffered at the hands of an incompetent Congress. The rest of the world will soon embark on a significant transformation. By the end of the century petroleum will be dead, perhaps replaced by biodiesel, but it is also quite likely that hydrocarbon fuel itself will be a thing of the past. This single change alone will require enormous adjustments in infrastructure and the development of new technologies. The challenges of feeding the world's population and dealing with antibiotic- and drug- resistant infectious agents will also require scientific advances. The retirement of the baby boomers will place an enormous strain on our benefits system, reminiscent of the unsustainable samurai retainers which had to be done away with to revitalize Meiji Japan.

In short, the world is changing and we are not doing anything to keep up with it. The Japanese of the 1860s had Perry's black ships to tell them that they were too far behind the world order and had to catch up, but I doubt any such thing will happen to us. American corporations, bloated and clumsy, will not be able to catch up to the new world that is developing; American science, hamstrung by politicization, poor planning, and antiquated methods of delivering funding and education, to say nothing of the ongoing assaults of Christians, will also lag. We will simply wake up one day and realize that the rest of the world has undergone a green revolution and left us behind technologically and economically.

In order to avoid this fate I feel we must have our own restoration. And unlike the Meiji Restoration, I don't feel that we must start with fundamentalism and work our way around to progress. We have the advantage that a dedication to reason is part of our national heritage. Despite the distortions and outright lies of fundamentalists, we were founded as a secular nation by Enlightenment Deists who believed in the power of reason to resolve the problems of mankind. They were not superstitious men who believed that the answers to their problems lay within religious doctrine or the rulers those doctrines had imbued with absolute authority. The finest expression of this is in the First Amendment, which firmly places religion in a subordinate position. In the nation they devised, man would rule religion; religion would not rule man. That is our past, and I believe that principle can be used to build our future.

It's not a simple analogy — the differences between modern America and Meiji Japan are enormous. The transformation I am suggesting, being primarily cultural and economic, is also quite dissimilar to that undergone by Japan. Yet I feel it is equally necessary, especially in light of the rising tide of conservatism and superstition that seems poised to stifle innovation and scientific advancement at just the moment — with practically all of our industries foundering — that we need it most. Inventiveness, independence, rationality... these qualities are our heritage from our Founding Fathers. They are the true American values, and we ought to restore them to their rightful place at the center of our national identity.

Read the rest...

Seven-score and four years ago...

...on November 19th 1863, one of America's greatest presidents gave one of America's most famous and influential speeches. Preceded by a masterful 2-hour oration—now practically forgotten—by Edward Everett, these remarks lasted a mere two minutes. The reaction at the time was muted, though some were surprised at the brevity of the speech. Of course, by the standards of the modern sound-bite, the Gettysburg Address is positively long-winded:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

This speech is justly famous. In a paltry two minutes Lincoln conveys the futility of the ceremony, the enormity of the preceding sacrifice, and the resolve to which that sacrifice ought to move the audience. The point is communicated clearly, forcefully, and with emotion. Importantly, something of substance is said.

Modern political communication, on the other hand, is almost stringently dedicated to not saying anything. Tired talking points and empty blandishments are repeatedly trotted out to an ever more disconnected and disinterested audience. Press agents and campaign materials label as "bold" and "visionary" candidates whose speeches inescapably depict them as timid and insipid. Why have so many reacted so strongly and positively to Ron Paul, even though he is undeniably one crazy motherfucker? Because he says something. Maybe it's crazy, but at least there's an underlying message aside from "I am trying to offend as few people as possible". Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, and Romney are people, not robots, so they must have some actual point of view. Why not express it?

It's fair tor criticize modern political discourse for its dedication to the 15-second sound bite, but that's not sufficient. Brevity in moderation is not injurious to discourse per se, but it is if nothing of substance is conveyed. In just two minutes you can say something, perhaps even something that's important and immortal. The problem with today's politics isn't the length of a sound-bite, it's the emptiness of both the words and of the ideas they are meant to express.

Read the rest...

The new Nobelity

I try not to pay too much attention to the Nobel Prizes, because the recipients are usually either boring, obvious choices or stupid ones. This time around, most fell into the former category. The choice of Capecchi, Evans, and Smithies for their development of the genomic knockout mouse was as unassailable as it was inevitable, and Fert and Grünberg's award for giant magnetoresistance shared both those properties. Gerhard Ertl's work, which probably sounds dull or obvious to the layman, is in fact of staggering significance, and his prize too was richly deserved, if not particularly exciting to read about. I can't recall ever having read anything by Doris Lessing, but this is true of most Nobel Literature Prize winners. I have always been confused by the idea of awarding a literary achievement prize to anyone who is still alive, anyway (more on that in another post, perhaps). Some have complained about her award, but the controversy on this prize is muted, especially compared to the storm that broke with today's announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize. No doubt you've heard that the prize was given to Al Gore, just days after a British judge debunked his film, which reflects poorly on our media. In fact, Gore was a co-recipient with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the judge, though he found that the film advocated a viewpoint and contained nine errors (most of them insignificant or understandable), did not dispute its central message. These facts are related, and understanding that relationship is, I think, essential.

The finding that An Inconvenient Truth advocates a viewpoint is unsurprising, because Al Gore is unapologetically an advocate for controlling anthropogenic warming. He is not a scientist, but a man who uses science (sometimes disputed science) to send a message. The Peace Prize has been awarded to advocates before, and justly so. Indeed, it would be completely unreasonable to award it to someone who was not some kind of advocate — gazing at your navel and saying "Apartheid is bad" does not qualify you for any kind of award, while getting thrown in prison for trying to end it arguably does.

On these grounds it would be inappropriate to give the Prize to the IPCC on its own. The IPCC is a scientific organization, and advocacy or even the appearance of advocacy would significantly undermine its mission. Gore and his allies make use of the IPCC's findings, and indeed without the weight of the IPCC consensus their fight against anthropogenic warming would go the same way as the awakening that followed the publication of Silent Spring. Gore is a strong, visible advocate, the sort of person or organization that deserves the prize, but though the IPCC did all the hard work, it is not an advocate, and would be practically invisible without the help of Gore and his friends. Without the scientists, the advocacy would be ignored, and without the advocates the scientists would be ignored. As such, if a Peace Prize is to be given for the fight against warming, both must be honored. That is what the committee did.

Was it justified to give a Peace Prize for this? At first blush, it might not seem that warming has all that much to do with peace. Of course this isn't particularly relevant — the Peace Prize has been awarded in the past for innovative banking approaches, service to the poor, and agricultural research. But if you want to be a stickler nonetheless, you should know that the effects of anthropogenic warming are likely to be a significant threat to security in this century, and perhaps the largest threat. If you think I'm not a credible witness on this point, perhaps you will listen to Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, Adm. Frank Bowman, Lt. Gen. Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., V. Adm. Paul G. Gaffney II, Gen. Paul J. Kern, Adm. T. Joseph Lopez, Adm. Donald Pilling, Adm. Joseph W. Prueher, V. Adm. Richard H. Truly, Gen. Charles F. Wald, and Gen. Anthony C. Zinni. If you don't want to read their report detailing the security threat to the United States from warming, I'll give you the short version.

Climate change will cause agricultural disaster and population displacements in some of the most unstable places in this world. Rising sea levels will push millions of refugees out of Bangladesh. Changing rainfall/snowfall patterns will cause water shortages in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, and these droughts will be accompanied by famine and disease. The cruel fact is that the countries hardest hit by global warming will probably be those least capable of mitigating its effects. The natural result of this tumult will be resource wars, including the possibility of wars involving nuclear powers such as India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, and China. Famine, disease, and war will displace millions in these regions, leading to increased competition for resources in more habitable regions and an increasing strain of immigrants in nations where the effects of climate change have not been so dire.

In my own view, it is likely that societies facing this degree of resource scarcity will fracture along ethnic or tribal lines, leading to repeated incidents of genocide much like that we have seen in Darfur. Hopefully the situation will not advance to the point of nuclear war, but it is entirely possible that unhinged tribalists in unstable countries like Pakistan will decide that if they cannot have the resources, nobody can. Unchecked, global warming may well lead to war and an era of genocide unlike anything the world has yet known, including the unthinkable prospect of a second nuclear war. Only this time, the victim will be able to return fire in kind.

Was this the committee's justification? I couldn't tell you. It probably contributed, but it's equally fair to say that they were likely motivated by a political desire to tweak the Bush administration. It's fair to say that Bush deserved it, as his attitude towards the problem has been abominably stupid. More broadly, they may have meant the endorsement to help silence global warming deniers, though at this point the outright denial of warming is so far to the fringe that it will likely have no effect among stalwarts. At this point the essential debate concerns the policies that ought be adopted in light of the warming trend — in my view, the committee's action will add weight to the IPCC recommendations. The choice is still rightfully controversial, but it isn't outrageous or improper. They've made worse decisions.

The Gore-IPCC Peace Prize will be widely discussed for some time, and it is to be hoped that by awarding this prize the committee will encourage new efforts on greenhouse gas reduction and climate change mitigation. But the committee has tried to use the prize in such a way before, without success.

Read the rest...

Rationality

Also, if I may indulge in the fallacy of appeal to authority, this week's edition of Nature also contains a commentary and article reinforcing two points I just can't shut up about. The commentary points out the fallacy of producing ethanol from corn, still widely touted as a biofuel initiative by the slate of incompetents running for President. The second article, on the more rational initiatives involving jatropha, reinforces the need for agronomic research to underpin mitigation responses generally, and biofuel/biodiesel plans specifically. Politicians in all nations and from all parts of the political spectrum are jumping onto the biofuel bandwagon and proposing grandiose schemes that aren't supported by science or even a modicum of rational thought, and without regard for the potential consequences. Biofuels sound green, but the reality is that for the most part the plans of our presidential hopefuls amount to new clothes for old subsidies.

If you're trying to figure out which candidates are actually interested in and capable of fighting global warming, look for emissions caps (even cap-and-trade is something) and mandatory advances in fuel-efficiency. Those plugging biofuels or mandatory ethanol content are either morons or just looking for the farm vote; this is not yet a plausible means of fighting the greenhouse effect. Indeed, it is not clear how achieving significant ethanol content is even possible, in the short term, given the absence of production and distribution networks. I know a couple of candidates are spouting off about an "Apollo program" to fight climate change, and I agree that a strongly-funded (and well-managed) research initiative is a great idea. However, unless there are concrete policy suggestions to fill in the short term before the research program comes up with its magic answer, this "plan" generally just amounts to empty rhetoric by a politician who has no idea what to do.

Read the rest...