On #WacoThugs, Biker Gangs, and White-on-White Crime

The tweets on the #WacoThugs hashtag may flatten the details of the situation that occurred, but the larger point is that the details in many violent encounters that involve police get flattened and twisted to serve an agenda. Whether the details are flattened to justify a week-long curfew, mass arrests, and the presence of riot police or to make a point about how a calm police presence is notable when the perpetrators of violence are white, the result is that we’re not really talking about the specific situation at all—we’re using it to make a point about how the facts get distorted.
That’s something else that’s in sharp relief in Waco right now. When, for example, the shooting in Garland occurred earlier this month, CNNinterviewed leaders at mosques for reactions; after the funeral for Freddie Gray in Baltimore, the media sought statements from Martin Luther King’s surviving family to assess what his reaction might be to the protests. When violence is committed by people who aren’t white, their actions are treated as representative of their entire communities. That’s something that anybody with a 101-level understanding of race and media in America understands, but it’s also something that the shoot-out at the Twin Peaks in Waco perfectly encapsulates. There is no question about what the incident in Waco says about white people, or whether white leaders need to be more vocal in urging white people away from violence. No one questions whether white culture is partly to blame, or whether white leaders of the past would be disappointed in the situation.
Those sentiments are fairly absurd to express, in fact. Nothing ever says anything about “white people,” and “white culture” is a ridiculous concept to attempt to articulate; how Ronald Reagan or John Lennon might feel about the shoot-out in Waco is an utter non-sequitur. 
All of which makes the media reaction to Waco a fascinating mirror to hold up to the media reactions in other situations. Positing hypotheticals is rarely particularly useful, but it’s nonetheless difficult to imagine that if a shoot-out involving dozens of young black men that ended with nearly thirty casualties had happened in a strip mall in Waco, it would be perceived as an isolated incident involving only the people who drew their guns—or that police would be chatting and friendly with people in the area in gang attire afterward. 
In other words, the details captured in the tweets about the #WacoThugs or about the need to #StopWhiteOnWhiteCrime may miss the nuance of the situation—indeed, they may not be all that pertinent to the situation in Waco at all—but that’s far from a flaw. It’s kind of the whole point.

World's First 'Solar Road' Is Generating Even More Power Than Expected

I heard of this tech years ago. Neat idea. There are lots of paved surfaces!

An experimental bike path that also functions as a giant solar cell has far exceeded expectations in the six months it's been in use -- and that has scientists eyeing roadways as possible sources of solar energy to power street lights, traffic systems, and electric cars.

Burundi crisis: Why Americans should care

A relatively peaceful decade has passed since the end of the Burundian Civil War. This month’s events put that peace at risk. On May 13th, General Niyombare claimed to have “overthrown” President Nkurunziza. After a particularly violent morning, the streets of Bujumbura broke into jubilant celebrations and the immediate removal of most barricades, just moments after the announcement was made.
So far, there are a reported 216 injured, 20 dead, and more than 600 protestors imprisoned. The scenario evolves rapidly, and future developments are difficult to predict. The risk of widespread violence persists. 
But why should you care about a small African nation, thousands of miles away? As an American, what happens there doesn’t impact you, right? 
Wrong. Here's why..."

The Rohingya and regional failure

Myanmar’s membership of ASEAN, achieved in 1997, has always been a test of the rules and norms that govern the regional body.
But the nature of that test has changed with the plight of the Rohingya, 8,000 of which are now trapped at sea – unable to make landfall in neighbouring states. ASEAN, and its members, are failing this test, a failure which will have lethal consequences for one of the most vulnerable people of the region.
In the past the test that Myanmar posed was to the diplomatic rules of ASEAN – commitments to non-intervention and sovereign equality. In the past ASEAN member states showed that they were willing to chastise Myanmar publicly when, for example in 2007, it engaged in harsh repression of the Saffron Revolution. George Yeo, then Singaporean Foreign Minister, went so far as to express his ‘revulsion’ at the crackdown – a radical and undiplomatic tone to use towards a fellow ASEAN member.
The test posed for ASEAN by the current crisis is far more existential than that they faced in the 2000s. The Rohingya expose the dangerous vacuum at the heart of ASEAN’s commitment to become people-centred. We have gone from a test of a set of diplomatic rules to a test of the very moral purpose of ASEAN as a body....

It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science

Highly amusing teardown of the "eureka!" stories we all grew up hearing about science. Turns out, it was all about hard work over long years!

THE other week I was working in my garage office when my 14-year-old daughter, Olivia, came in to tell me about Charles Darwin. Did I know that he discovered the theory of evolution after studying finches on the Galápagos Islands? I was steeped in what felt like the 37th draft of my new book, which is on the development of scientific ideas, and she was proud to contribute this tidbit of history that she had just learned in class.
Sadly, like many stories of scientific discovery, that commonly recounted tale, repeated in her biology textbook, is not true.
The popular history of science is full of such falsehoods...

How trolling could become the new international language of diplomacy

An awful lot of international diplomacy lately has been downright undiplomatic.
Exhibit A: Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) used Twitter to goad Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif late last month. Cotton tweeted at him: “I hear you called me out today. If you’re so confident, let’s debate the Constitution.” Cotton followed up with other tweets describing Zarif as cowardly. The Iranian foreign minister replied that “serious diplomacy, not macho personal smear, is what we need,” a response that Foreign Policy magazine labeled as trolling. This was hardly the only online provocation Zarif faced during his recent New York visit.
...
What’s made diplo-trolling more common is that, unlike in previous centuries, it is hard for officials to ignore other politicians baiting them, because online the exchanges happen so quickly. In the past, it would have taken weeks for word of Senate or mayoral speeches to travel overseas, allowing foreign officials the luxury of ignoring them. Today, instant Facebook comments and Twitter replies make it difficult for anyone to pretend to ignore a troll, especially a troll who’s a member of the Senate .
...
 
Does diplo-trolling really matter? Turkey remains a NATO ally. The same week that Cotton trolled Zarif, progress was made in the Iran nuclear negotiations. Isn’t the rest just bread and circuses? A useful distraction for officials trying to conduct actual statecraft?
Not necessarily. In the short term, social media engagement can raise the costs of negotiation. As a general rule, trolling is a weapon of the weak designed to harass the powerful into engaging their arguments; on the Iran negotiations, for example, Cotton is far less important than Zarif. This is not all bad — sometimes trolls, by engaging political leaders or spokesmen, bring transparency to a heretofore hidden set of policies. And to the trolls, this is a form of negotiation.
The problem is that crafting international agreements is hard work on a good day. Coping with online trolls simply adds to the transaction costs of negotiation. This is particularly true because the mainstream media will amplify any act of foreign policy trolling. The media loves to report on Twitter fights and put-downs.