I can hear you muttering already: he’s completely lost it this time. He’s written a 2,000-word article on whale poo...
In truth it’s not just about whale poo, though that’s an important component. It’s about the remarkable connectivity, on this small and spherical planet, of living processes. Nothing human beings do, and nothing that takes place in the natural world, occurs in isolation.
Down and Out →
Some Inside Baseball on US Democrat strategy:
With that said, there are more costs to Democratic weakness in the states than just House elections. States are where parties build talent and try new ideas. Here, the GOP is instructive. Its brightest stars are either governors (Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Chris Christie) or former state officeholders (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Joni Ernst). And Republican-controlled statehouses have been incubators for conservative ideas...
...Only a few places stand as incubators for progressive strategies and ideas, and nationwide, Democrats have close to nothing in the way of a bench for federal and statewide office. The liberal counterparts to Walker, Christie, Brownback, and Mike Pence—ideologically motivated governors with national profiles—don’t exist. And as a result, liberals can’t point to a forward-looking agenda that exists outside the bounds of the presidency.
Did the Senate just open the U.S. up to ICC prosecution? →
With the release of the torture report, it will become increasingly difficult for the ICC not to press forward. Expectations that the court confront allegations of international crimes by Western states have never been higher and, as Eugene Kontorovich observes, the torture report “gives significant impetus and ammunition to the ICC’s investigation.” With the CIA’s dirty laundry now airing in the political winds, it will be nearly impossible for the court to reverse course and avoid confronting U.S. abuses in Afghanistan.
Still, advocates of accountability should not get too far ahead of themselves. The gears of justice at the ICC grind notoriously slowly. Moreover, the court’s endgame is not to prosecute U.S. officials. Instead, it is to galvanize domestic accountability for any alleged crimes committed by Western officials. Indeed, it is not within the ICC’s institutional interests to pick a fight it can’t win with the United States or incur the wrath of Washington’s resultant hostility. The prosecutor’s report on Afghanistan is thus not so much a threat to the United States as a signal to take justice for alleged torture seriously. Doing so would require going high up the political food chain, to those in the Bush administration “most responsible” for deploying torture as a means of war. The question is: Will the United States take the opportunity to finally pursue accountability for alleged international crimes committed by its citizens in Afghanistan or not? The world – and the ICC – is watching.
Why it’s necessary — for now — to debate the efficacy of torture →
Now I get why Greenwald wants the debate to be about the inherent immorality of torture. The trouble with debating torture’s efficacy is that if it turns out that information extracted from torture can be tactically useful, then advocates will be able to make their case more effectively in public discourse. On the other hand, if the debate takes place strictly on the moral and ethical plane, anti-torture advocates will feel on firmer ground.
I wholeheartedly agree with Greenwald et al that torture is inherently wrong. I’m embarrassed and ashamed as an American by the CIA actions documented in the Senate report. But I also want to partially defend debating its efficacy. Because I don’t think the development of taboos is as simple as Greenwald wants it to be...
Why We Tortured, Why We Shouldn’t →
And if he isn’t so fearsome, then I think Manzi’s ultimate conclusion, with its invocation of “reasoned courage” in thinking through how far we should go in counterterrorism, should be much more widely argued for and shared. It doesn’t ask the public to reject waterboarding on abstract moral grounds that seem to set cost-benefits issues aside entirely (I speak from long experience as a Catholic when I say that such arguments don’t usually suffice in contemporary American debates), and it doesn’t ask them to go down the rabbit hole of trying to figure out definitively whether this hypothetical attack or that potential plot was in some way foiled or furthered by some piece of intelligence with some connection to enhanced interrogation. Instead, it asks them to look with clear eyes at the actual landscape, the actual threat, and to recognize that whatever danger they might think justifies compromising our moral standards for security’s sake, what we know now about our post-9/11 situation calls instead for keeping calm and keeping our principles intact.
Warming Trend and Variations on a Greenhouse-Heated Planet →
With high-level talks over a new international climate agreementbeginning in Lima, Peru, it’s worth reviewing some basic points about climate change driven by the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases. One, of course, is that the growing human influence on the system remains mixed in with a lot of natural variability in conditions.
Desperate workers on a Mexican mega-farm: 'They treated us like slaves' →
One part of globalization and our expectation of cheap food:
Scorpions and bedbugs. Constant hunger. No pay for months. Finally, a bold escape leads to a government raid, exposing deplorable conditions. But justice proves elusive...
How terrorism fears are transforming America's public space →
The recent security lapses at the White House have brought to the forefront the 13-year-old question of how to effectively secure public spaces. As officials weigh increasing perimeter security and installing additional checkpoints at public areas adjacent to the White House, it's worth examining the effects of counter-terrorism measures on our urban experience.
Jersey barriers, bollards, restricted areas, CCTV cameras, and security guards have transformed public space in many cities. At the same time, planners and urban advocates strive to balance the desire for safe cities with the need for vibrant and connected public spaces. One hallmark of a democratic society is the ability of citizens to gather and move freely about the city.