Liberals, Conservatives and Arguments

This is primarily directed to the rising number of young conservatives that I've met as of late, but it applies to almost anyone who wants to talk economics, politics, or religion.  The post isn't meant to make you run around convincing people your worldview is correct; it's just a few pointers on having a logical conversation.

1.  Know Your Facts
I can't stress this enough.  You can't seriously discuss any of the above-listed topics unless you know what you're talking about and can provide sources to back up your opinions.  You can have any opinion you want; that's your natural right.  But you're not going to convince me that the moon landing didn't happen without some really, really compelling evidence.

2.  Know What Your Facts Mean
I've seen all sorts of amusing arguments blow up because one party or another didn't realize that the information they were providing was incomplete (or because they hadn't thought out the ramifications of said information).  When the opposing party points this out, it tends to lead to a strong anger response from the original speaker.  Oh, and it drives economics-minded folks nuts when someone can't understand the difference between "percentage" and a "percentage point".  Journalists tend to be really, really bad with this.  If you're making a comparison, use statistics that are similar to or from the same source.  Pollsters tend to be pretty bad with this one.

3.  Know How To Argue
This is one of the biggest problems: we don't teach logic and debate very well, if at all, anymore.  Go check Wikipedia for "logical fallacies".  You might be surprised to see how often these crop up in various political interchanges.  Avoid, at all costs, ad hominem attacks and "straw men" (our current president is rather infamous for using this tactic).  These fallacies, once you start spotting them, make the speaker sound like the guy who says, "Well, I can't be racist.  One of my best friends is [race/color/religion X]."  Irrelevant.  Don't go down that road; there be dragons.

4.  Know When To Stop
Look, if you don't know, you don't know.  I can argue that I believe that farm subsidies for sugar and ethanol, in particular, are generally harmful.  I've seen numbers, time and time again, showing that the federal subsidies intended for "Mom and Pop" farmers are actually funneled to the huge conglomerate farming that's commonplace in America.  This is an Occam's Razor issue - Mom and Pop don't have huge lobbying efforts persuading lawmakers to pass legislation in their favor.  Now, if you ask me for specific numbers on how much of what money goes where, I can't tell you.  I'd have to do a significant amount of digging to find out.  Until I can give an intelligent reply, I'll bow out of that particular argument.

5.  Keep An Open Mind
Sorry that this item reads like an elementary school inspirational poster.  That said, you may have beliefs that are wrong, or at best ill-informed.  While I experience plenty of aggravation reading the New York Times or Washington Post (mostly because of their lousy reporting/writing), I still make an effort to do so.  Living in a cocoon, liberal or conservative, is not healthy.  You wind up with a mental echo-chamber effect, where everything you hear confirms every other like-minded thing you hear.

6.  Look For (Plausible) Alternative Explanations
This is kind of a heavyweight.  Not everything can be argued via bumper-sticker slogans.  When the U.S. had a difficult time producing evidence of Saddam Hussein's alleged WMD stockpile (not that that said evidence didn't exist), few people took the time to ask the harder questions.  Did those weapons migrate elsewhere?  Syria, perhaps - with a Baathist regime nearby, it would be a natural choice for hiding things that you don't want found.  A few members of the press pursued these lines of inquiry, and faced an uphill battle to get their work published.  The rest of them didn't.

I'm sure I've included some logical fallacies of my own in this publication.  If so, feel free to point them out.  I've also made a particular point of not linking to any other website or publication.  It's your job to figure these things out.  Don't discount the various bloggers doing serious journalism - they provide a nice safety net compared to the mainstream media.  That said, as soon as you start reading an article about how the Jews control the world economy, it's probably time to move on.  Think about your sources critically; find out who funds them, where their authors studied, etc.

High School and National Security Breaches

I'm incredibly glad that I'm not in high school overseas right now (also, glad I'm not in high school at all).  I was living in (and attending an international school in) a different country during Clinton's impeachment for my 9th-11th grade years.  Many of my local national classmates were pretty xenophobic - to the point that it lead to at least one full contact fight.  Now, imagine the rough times you had in 9th-12th grade.  Now, imagine them amplified in the situation I just described; with a President very publicly dodging political shots about cigars in places they don't belong and zippers undone.  Not pleasant.  One or two of my British teachers got in on the action, too.  They seemed to take excessive delight in the fact that an American President was (seemingly) tail-spinning.  Why am I recounting this?  Easy.  That period was particularly difficult because I was assumed to be a quasi-Ambassador in school (kids from other countries were informally expected to represent their homelands, as well, so it wasn't unique to me).  And there was no way I could defend my President's actions other than saying "Well, a whole bunch of our Presidents did similar things.  They just didn't get caught."  That's not a terribly effective argument.

Politics aside, I can sympathize with American students in Poland and Israel.  It looks like someone in the White House couldn't be bothered to do even basic research before the President's speech in Poland ("Polish death camps").  Yes, Auschwitz was located in Poland.  No, it wasn't because the Poles loved killing Jews, Slavs, homosexuals, the disabled, etc.  They were mostly occupied, and the death camp was German.  Way to insult an entire nation, Mr. President - they've been fighting the idea that the camps were "Polish" since the Second World War, rightfully so.  So, that covers the former, what about the latter?

It looks like someone in the White House leaked (not sure if that's the right word; "gushed" might be more accurate) specific details about joint American-Israeli cyber-operations targeting Iran.  I'm thinking that Axelrod might be a player in this, but who knows?  Besides revealing incredibly classified information (a federal crime, by the way) and putting an ally at risk, this is tactically insane.  You don't expose these programs to The New York Times (link h/t Ace).  That's not "transparency".  A big part of warfare is not revealing your capabilities or actions to the enemy.  If Iran had suspicions about where Stuxnet and other cyber-attacks came from, fine.  No proof, not such a big deal.  Blowing the lid on this (and, umm, despite "declin[ing]" to say whether it's us or not, you're pretty much confirming it) - whole different matter; logistically, ethically, legalistic-ally etc.  Beyond that, (whoever) just admitted that we're essentially at war with Iran.  Now, I'm all for acknowledging that American-Iranian engagements, particularly since 1979, are primarily hostile.  We've known for a while that many EFPs (explosively formed penetrators - a form of IED that is/was killing and wounding untold numbers of U.S. servicemen in Iraq/Afghanistan) originated in Iran.  To anyone following the news, that's not a huge revelation.  But this?  Really?  Other than reducing the effectiveness of the cyber-weapons discussed (and Flame appears to be one of the most advanced out there) you've just opened up the entire U.S. to retaliation.  Wonderful.

I spent some time working on the defensive side of the cyber game.  It's not terribly glamorous - I always harbored a fantasy that I was skilled enough to work on the offensive side - but it's necessary.  Here's the issue: I was working in a field that is all over the Internet.  Your web browser uses a less complicated version of what I was working with.  The vulnerabilities are pretty limited and you can find information about them on Wikipedia.  That doesn't hold true on the offensive side.  The code these guys are engineering is groundbreaking, apparently effective, and not suitable for a damn Wikipedia page or news article!  That just seems...elementary.

I really debated posting this.  As far as sensitivity of information goes I haven't mentioned anything that's not on my resume, but I still don't like drawing attention to national security breaches.  In this case, it's been published in the Times.  That makes it, as far as I'm concerned, a cat/bag issue.  I imagine that Iranian intelligence pays far more attention to the NYT than my blog.

Exit question:  Does this give Iran (despite being sanctioned on several levels) grounds to pursue action against the U.S. at the UN?

The Incredible Hulk and the Military

One of the first Google results for "The Incredible Bulk"

Alright, admittedly, this only vaguely falls under the purview of the blog.  That said, I actually liked The Incredible Hulk.  You know, the one not directed by Ang Lee.  The one he directed that that was insanely long and apparently featured long expanses of Hulk-less screentime.  The newer one.  I'm re-watching it and some things stand out.

Before I get to my gripes: I'm mostly impressed.  There's some actual acting, especially between Norton and Tyler (in most movies, when she hugged him after seeing him in the restaurant, we would've soon be treated to a PG-13 sex scene).  The casting is excellent.  In particular, William Hurt does amazing work (think The Good Shepard and Dark City) and Tim Roth is highly under-appreciated (besides his work in the early Tarantino movies, his central figure in Deceiver was riveting).  Edward Norton, well, I doubt I need to convince anyone that he's a pretty great actor.  The screenplay balances Hulk and non-Hulk scenes pretty well, and the pacing is about right.  Also, while he never twists anyone's head off, you have to assume that some people died when he was the Hulk (being thrown against walls at the speed of a baseball is probably not survivable).   That's a pretty big departure from much of the Hulk universe - and it makes perfect sense.  I'm not advocating death, but it seems that a gigantic rage-fueled monster might kill people.  Also, plenty of Easter eggs for fans.  Good stuff.  Not an excellent movie, but certainly one of the better comic adaptations.  Now, on to the bad (and as former military, this is my choice of grouching)- the depiction of the military.  In no particular order:

1. Why does Blonksi (Tim Roth) wear a U.S. Army uniform?
He's a loaner from British special forces.  He's in U.S. Army BDUs and dress uniform several times.  Why?  The BDU thing makes slightly more sense than the dress uniform.  Uniformity, not wanting the public to know, etc.  But Army greens in a secret lab?  As far as I know, that's not standard practice.  I could be wrong, but I doubt it.  OK, I get it, the General is running a super-secret operation.  Maybe he can authorize the uniform change, but that's never mentioned.  The infuriating thing is that it would have taken about three seconds to fix this.  "Blonksi, while you're working with us, I want you to wear U.S. gear.  I've already taken some heat from above for having a foreign national on the team."  Boom.  Problem solved.

2.  Highly, highly classified material and information are tossed around like candy.
The whole weapons program is operating at a very high level of secrecy.  Yes, Blonski is basically introduced as part of the team.  You still don't go sharing information about weapons development to people not rated to be privy to said knowledge, even if they're from an allied NATO nation.  Again, a line or two of dialogue from the General could have fixed the issue ("I've been given special permission to brief you on the background and specifics related to this mission.  This information is not to be shared, under any circumstance, not to ever be shared with the British government.  This is not negotiable").  While the General doesn't share relevant information in the earliest part of the movie, he reverses course and goes out of his way to fill a foreign national in on highly sensitive information.  He goes so far as to use a discarded "serum" on Blonski, which ostensibly, will stay in his blood once he returns home.  That.  Is.  Illegal.  This sort of thing is incredibly common in Hollywood, so I can't blame the movie too much.  But still, the contradictions are so glaring that they're a bit hard to ignore.

3.  Planning, Planning, Planning
How did you make General, General, with these apparent skills?  In a normal situation where you have a military fugitive spotted, sure, go snag the guy; that's the reasonable thing to do.  Now, I feel that the rules change when he's hanging out on a college campus, full of students and professionals.  Oh, yeah.  And when he gets freaked out, he turns into a huge murder/maim/disaster-creating machine.  Like freaked out when people shoot at him, perhaps.  Seriously, it's like they're trying to cause him to turn into the Hulk.  What reality does this make sense in?  Why not just follow the guy when he leaves, tranquilize him from behind when he's in a less populated area, and call it a day?

There are plenty more military-related issues in the movie (how many rounds are there in an M-16/M-4 anyhow?  30, right?  Pretty sure the movie doesn't adhere to that standard, but almost no one in Hollywood does, anyhow) but that's all I can muster for the moment.

Hollywood, please consider some basic military norms/facts before you make movies that are undermined by the absurdity of your plot.

Memorial Day

My thanks to serviceman and women - past, present, and future - doing the hard, sometimes boring, frequently dangerous work necessary to protect America.  May you all come home safely to loving arms.

I never deployed when I was in the Army (too busy running around yelling "Allahu Ahkbar" and pretending to be part of AQI while training other soldiers to do so; also, physical injuries prevented it) but my heart truly goes out to everyone who's busy doing all that work I described above while the rest of us (here at home) grill, drink beer, and watch "Saving Private Ryan" or whatever.

Also, I'll be doing either a) one long post about being a libertarian/conservative in a bunch of "Arab Spring"-themed events b) or likely several shorter ones.


It was a mix of good and bad - I'll try to get everything I can to illustrate the differences.  On the negative side, below is part of an email I sent to one of my professors after an event [I've omitted part of a sentence from the original to keep my secret-identity safe]:

[...]

I have to say that I was rather disappointed with the discussion after the screening of "The Stoning of Soraya M."  I really hoped some open dialogue would emerge, but I don't think that was the case.

I know I entered the conversation in a rather confrontational manner [Editorial note: in his response, the professor said he didn't believe I was rude or even controversial - I did have the temerity to question the speaker, though, and read a few quotes from the Qu'ran as I asked my question]; I hoped I'd get some interesting feedback.  I don't know if you noticed, however, how quickly (in the space of one question, really) the issue addressed was more along the lines of "Well, Christians did bad things, too,  And this story isn't about Muslims doing bad things to each other, it's about [patriarchy] [local tradition] [etc]."

I certainly won't argue that Christians haven't committed atrocious acts against, well, nearly everyone.  I do firmly believe, however, that the people responsible for those acts were lousy Christians.  DISCLOSURE: I very loosely consider myself Christian.  I do, however, take issue with immediate comparative arguments that cloud, rather than clarify, the issue at hand.  Want a talk on Christian violence, sure, I'll be there.  Want a talk on Muslim violence, ditto.  But conflating the two creates little more than an emotional mess.

To argue that honor killing and frequent abuse of women isn't tied to Islam flies in the face of logic.  In the US, wifebeaters are scorned.  Islamic (or semi-Islamic countries) don't treat the issue the same way.  Arguing the opposite is like arguing against gravity - the numbers don't work.

As always, I worry that what I say or write will be mistaken as some sort of anti-Islamic screed.  I honestly feel, though, that in many cases you can't even use the words of the Qu'ran or Hadith or Sunna to justify any argument without backlash.  I wish people could be a bit more honest.  Even if it's uncomfortable.

I wasn't sure how you felt about the whole thing.  Was there anything that you specifically wanted to see (in the discussion - I think we all wanted to see a miraculous rescue of Soraya)?

Religious Factors v. Cultural Evolution in Conflict

Photo courtesy of Martha Lou Perritti

This part of an email exchange I had with a former Georgetown professor and author.  The seminar this stemmed from what was part of a college "Arab Spring" series.  Thought it might get a few people thinking about some larger questions.  I've omitted an early part of the email that isn't terribly relevant to the actual question - it was just a quick personal bio.

If I get any comments or maybe, lots of comments (crosses fingers), I'l contact him again and ask if he doesn't mind a reproduction of his answer, name, and link to personal website.

As an aside, the thrust of this question dealt with pre-Islamic society, not post-.

[...]

Now, on to the question - and I hope that you understand that I'm not making a moral judgement on the following; just what I consider a realistic observation.  Rather than viewing the East/West dichotomy in terms of religion (or perhaps, in conjunction with religion) would it be more productive, in your view, to examine the issue as one of a conflict between cultures that have evolved from tribal/herding backgrounds versus those that primarily developed as agricultural societies?  The connection to religion is not unimportant in this view, it just isn't the sole focus.  Christianity took firmest root in Europe and America which, prior to the industrial revolution, were distinctly agricultural societies.  Islam, however, spread through the Middle East - an area with a very strong tradition of tribalism (in the ten month Defense Language Institute-sponsored language/culture course that I completed, my instructor could recite 17 generations of paternal lineage in Iraq - he emigrated to the US after assisting the USMC with combat interpretation).  I'm absolutely certain that I'm not the first to posit this thesis, but I believe that social science generally accepts that herding/tribal cultures have moved along radically different paths than farming/agricultural based societies.  Simple herding-based societies tend to be more competitive and aggressive than agricultural ones (on a small scale; I don't mean to imply that as a statement on international politics).  The reasoning is rather simple - cattle and such require a large amount of grass to feed on, and when the local supply is exhausted, shepherds typically pack up and move to a new area.  This creates an opportunity for frequent conflict (if your animals are eating food on what I consider my land, I'm likely to fight you for control of it) and renders many interactions zero-sum.  Additionally, while it is unlikely that you will sneak onto my farm and steal 50 acres of wheat in the dead of night, shepherds have to constantly guard against thieves.  It seems that agricultural societies had the opportunity and incentive to establish villages and towns (or their precursors), reward consensus, and develop basic democratic traditions; all of which are rather antithetical to the various incentives in a herding/tribal society.  I believe various historians have examined the tribal vs. agricultural issue (Victor Davis Hanson, perhaps?), but I'm not sure how many have made the intellectual jump to the potential present connection.  Africa, parts of Latin America, and many southern Asian regions have similar traditions and have evolved similarly.  The Middle East may be unique in the sense that we have rather vital interests there, and that Arab-Muslims have attacked America in the most extreme fashion, but the much of the cultural DNA appears similar in the above-named regions.  Use of meals as political ("small "p" sense) tools is common across these areas, by way of example.

To tie all this back to my bio, some of the soldiers who grasped the concepts concerning the importance of family/clan/tribe in Iraqi society presented during our military training were from Kentucky and West Virginia (frequently with little more academic achievement than GEDs).  That sounds a bit strange, given prevailing stereotypes, but it makes perfect sense.  Both areas were/are hosts to what I consider American tribalism (recall the violent Hatfield-McCoy feud that lasted decades).  The common Arab adage "Me against my brother; me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against everyone else" fits neatly into the worldview they were raised in - and hence, they immediately saw the parallels and acted accordingly.  My New Hampshire-born, college-educated classmate had incredible difficulty understanding why tribalism played such a huge role in Iraq - he had never been subjected to anything remotely analogous.  While this is all anecdotal, I do believe that it is rather telling, and an interesting observation, as well.

[..]

Open commentary.  Just don't be vulgar, abusive, or an @**hat in any other way to anyone else who deigns to voice an opinion.

Almost got my introduction in...

Well, hello there.  Please pull up a chair, because it is time for an introduction...wait, before we do that, I want to share something.  Pretty terrible stuff actually.  Apparently, a pseudo-Democrat (if you read anything below, you'll understand what I mean) with a track record of domestic terrorism (umm, in this case, setting off bombs) has been systematically working to destroy the lives of numerous bloggers, liberal and conservative, who have dared to point this out.  There are several pieces floating around, some extremely good - h/t to Ace, The Blaze, and Patterico (links below).

But most importantly, today is special.  It's Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day according to Ace of Spades (EDIT: Realized that is from Lee Stranahan, actually), and I'm going to honor that with my inaugural post.  Guys, gals, whoevers, please take a bit of time to read this stuff.  It's not going away, and it is desperately damaging to many innocent people.

So, Ace of Spades has some running commentary on the issue (he's a potential target, specifically mentioned in some of the correspondence thus revealed), which can be found here.

The Blaze has a very good summary of the entire situation, which I can pinpoint as being here.

And last, but absolutely not least, is a very long and incredibly terrifying account from the blogger Patterico, who became more than a target - comfortably awaiting your attention here.

If this isn't dealt with, quickly and harshly, we're looking at people copying this guy.  (DISCLAIMER: I advocate nothing outside the law.  This needs to be pursued by a very competent District Attorney.  Or federal prosecutor.)  But seriously, the apparent effectiveness of this guy's attempt to bully free speech out of existence in a whole host of ways is pretty much the IED of the lawfare/intimidation method (the IED analogy isn't a cheap shot at this guy's criminal record, it's an observation based on my time in the military).  Cheap to conduct against a target, conducted in small-crews, highly damaging to the enemy.