Inside a Pentagon C-Ring SCIF, an Air Force Brigadier General steps up to a podium and prepares to brief the Joint Chiefs of Staff. To the briefer's left, a TV screen displays the accompanying PowerPoint presentation.
"Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice-Chairman, esteemed Service Chiefs: thank you for attending my briefing. I'm here today to inform you of a potent new weapon the military has been developing and testing, and is ready to roll out for battlefield deployment."
Unexpectedly, the Service Chiefs interrupted the briefing with their guesses on what this amazing new weapon would be.
"A neutron bomb," the Navy's CNO Richardson speculated.
"A space laser?", asked USAF Chief of Staff Goldfein.
USMC Commandant Neller exclaimed excitedly, "A robotic infantryman!"
"A flying tank!" Army Chief of Staff Milley blurted.
<Record scratch>
An awkward silence descended over the room. For a few seconds, the only noises were the buzzing of the fluorescent lights and the soft whine of the projector. Then, Chairman Dunford's voice broke the quiet; in a perfectly deadpan tone, he impugned the Chief of Staff's intelligence as he simultaneously smacked the back of Milley's head.
"Resume your briefing, General," Dunford continued.
"Yes, Mr. Chairman," the one-star replied. "This new weapon system is a revolutionary biological weapon that can be deployed on short notice anywhere in the world. It consists of groups of ten to fifteen sick and contagious 2nd-Graders. The idea is to. . ."
"You're joking," CNO Richardson interrupted.
"No, sir. Research shows that 2nd-Graders are vectors for a biological pathogen far more virulent than anything scientists can develop in a lab. The concept is to use it as a decapitation weapon against the head of a hostile government or other key figures: the children get in close proximity to the intended targets, and spread the pathogen by coughing, sneezing, nose-blowing, and wiping snot on nearby objects. It's normal 2nd-grader behavior, so nobody will suspect anything. The pathogen's carriers will get close to the target by using educational field trips as cover - for example, meeting with Putin for an official photo-op. The goodwill aspect of the visit gives the children access that a JSOC operator or CIA clandestine officer could only dream of, Sir."
"Interesting," said Chairman Dunford. He paused for a few seconds before continuing, obviously mulling over the idea. Before long, he spoke up again.
"I like this idea. It will give America a decisive edge on shaping world affairs. Does anyone have any objections or questions? No? Good. I'll take this to the President and SecDef; in the meantime, get to work on finalizing the formal proposal. I want to see a budget, a TO&E, and a timetable for deployment in three weeks."
"Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll pass the word to get right on it."
With that, the briefing concluded and all the participants went their separate ways.
[Author's note: in case it's not obvious, this is a work of sarcastic fiction. I'm writing this while recovering from a somewhat nasty bug that I picked up from - you guessed it - a class of 2nd-Graders. I wrote this to poke fun at my predicament, because I can't waterboard the little booger-eaters as revenge for them getting me sick. Yes, that last sentence is sarcasm too.]
Saturday, January 27, 2018
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
Targeted Censorship, Autocracies, and Activism
This caught my attention as I was scrolling through my Twitter feed earlier: apparently Twitter is censoring specific accounts at the requests of various governments. Twitter censored the highest number of accounts (758) on
Germany's behalf, followed by Turkey with 721. France came in at a
distant third with 261. It makes sense at first glance, given that right-wing nationalism is on the rise in several countries, doesn't it? History is full of events where a charismatic orator with a toxic message and a massive following, and mass slaughter, form two links on a chain of events. The link between the two is well-established, so wouldn't it make sense to be proactive and silence the messengers before they inflict any serious damage? I doubt it's coincidence that Germany has the highest number of censored accounts; they're arguably more aware than any country of the dangers of incendiary rhetoric.
And to be honest, I share Germany's point to some extent. I'd be perfectly fine if every social media platform blocked racist (excuse me, "alt-right") agitators like Richard Spencer or Steve Bannon. Heed the lessons of history, free speech be damned. I bet a lot of people would agree.
However. . . .
That's a knee-jerk reaction. As good, even necessary, as it sounds, it's a horrible idea once you think about it for a few minutes. Do you remember which country was #2 on the list of censored accounts? (You forgot already? Good lord, your memory is awful.) Turkey, for those of you who didn't know, is at risk of sliding into an autocracy, according to both the Middle East Policy Council and the Council of Europe's Venice Commission. Twitter's censorship looks very different when it's done on behalf of a potential autocrat intent on consolidating power.
The United States isn't Turkey, someone might say. That's true; but consider these two things. First, there's an old saying that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter; so it's not unreasonable to think that a person or group considered an activist in one person's eyes could be seen as a subversive to someone else. Censoring a white nationalist's account might seem desirable, but what if someone in government wants to censor an environmentalist group? Or a pro-gun organization? What if a future president decided to censor the NRA or the ACLU?
For an actual example, go research the broad range of groups targeted under the FBI's COINTELPRO program. In addition to targeting credible threats like the KKK, it also zeroed in on civil rights figures and workers' rights groups. Imagine if Martin Luther King Jr. was alive today, and the US government convinced Twitter to shut down his Twitter account. As a civil rights leader, he would have been undermined in a very important way. Could that have kept the civil rights movement from ever gaining momentum? Possibly. Now you see how censoring Twitter can be a potent means of suppressing dissent; especially since it's also effective at growing protest movements. Occupy Wall Street used it. So did the Arab Spring, initially. This underscores how important Twitter can be for achieving social change.
Second, people can be gullible. Like, really, really gullible - especially if there's a perceived danger. Sometimes, that gullibility can lead to tragic consequences. The point is that it's not farfetched at all to imagine that someone in a position of authority says, "So-and-so is a threat and needs to be censored," and a lot of people will unquestioningly fall in line. That's usually the prelude to something worse.
I do get it. The growing right-wing nationalist movement is concerning, and if there's a chance to neutralize it before it really takes hold, shouldn't we take it? Look at how much chaos the burgeoning movement has created already, and how much it could potentially stir up. It's pretty tempting to just censor them, so let's do it. No, because by going for the quick & easy solution, we create greater problems down the road. Common sense tells you that censorship is a key tool of oppressive regimes, so as satisfying as slapping a muzzle on the alt-right's digital presence sounds (and believe me, I'm all for that), it's guaranteed to come back and haunt us all.
And to be honest, I share Germany's point to some extent. I'd be perfectly fine if every social media platform blocked racist (excuse me, "alt-right") agitators like Richard Spencer or Steve Bannon. Heed the lessons of history, free speech be damned. I bet a lot of people would agree.
However. . . .
That's a knee-jerk reaction. As good, even necessary, as it sounds, it's a horrible idea once you think about it for a few minutes. Do you remember which country was #2 on the list of censored accounts? (You forgot already? Good lord, your memory is awful.) Turkey, for those of you who didn't know, is at risk of sliding into an autocracy, according to both the Middle East Policy Council and the Council of Europe's Venice Commission. Twitter's censorship looks very different when it's done on behalf of a potential autocrat intent on consolidating power.
The United States isn't Turkey, someone might say. That's true; but consider these two things. First, there's an old saying that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter; so it's not unreasonable to think that a person or group considered an activist in one person's eyes could be seen as a subversive to someone else. Censoring a white nationalist's account might seem desirable, but what if someone in government wants to censor an environmentalist group? Or a pro-gun organization? What if a future president decided to censor the NRA or the ACLU?
For an actual example, go research the broad range of groups targeted under the FBI's COINTELPRO program. In addition to targeting credible threats like the KKK, it also zeroed in on civil rights figures and workers' rights groups. Imagine if Martin Luther King Jr. was alive today, and the US government convinced Twitter to shut down his Twitter account. As a civil rights leader, he would have been undermined in a very important way. Could that have kept the civil rights movement from ever gaining momentum? Possibly. Now you see how censoring Twitter can be a potent means of suppressing dissent; especially since it's also effective at growing protest movements. Occupy Wall Street used it. So did the Arab Spring, initially. This underscores how important Twitter can be for achieving social change.
Second, people can be gullible. Like, really, really gullible - especially if there's a perceived danger. Sometimes, that gullibility can lead to tragic consequences. The point is that it's not farfetched at all to imagine that someone in a position of authority says, "So-and-so is a threat and needs to be censored," and a lot of people will unquestioningly fall in line. That's usually the prelude to something worse.
I do get it. The growing right-wing nationalist movement is concerning, and if there's a chance to neutralize it before it really takes hold, shouldn't we take it? Look at how much chaos the burgeoning movement has created already, and how much it could potentially stir up. It's pretty tempting to just censor them, so let's do it. No, because by going for the quick & easy solution, we create greater problems down the road. Common sense tells you that censorship is a key tool of oppressive regimes, so as satisfying as slapping a muzzle on the alt-right's digital presence sounds (and believe me, I'm all for that), it's guaranteed to come back and haunt us all.
Sunday, January 21, 2018
Shutdown Winners & Losers
The US government has shut down for who knows how long, so I thought I'd do a post-shutdown recap of the last 24-48 hours. I'll look at the key parties one by one, and give my $.02 on how they fared.
President Trump: Trump would have gotten a boost if he had allowed Congress to do its job, but (like he has before) he shot himself in the foot. He nearly had a bipartisan deal ready to go, but his "shithole" fiasco threw a wrench into that. Now, instead of a modest legislative victory and a probable popularity boost, Trump has a shutdown taking place on his watch. He also has done very little to resolve this issue, other than rant on Twitter. So this becomes another item on his list of failures and screw-ups as President, but it won't cost him much in terms of popularity: he's gone about as low as he possibly can, and his remaining supporters are unshakeable.
House of Representatives: On one hand, the House passed the measures necessary to keep the government running. That's a plus. On the other hand, House Republicans tried to force a choice between CHIP (health insurance for children) and DACA (a provision allowing children of immigrants to remain in the United States.) There's a special place in hell for any group of politicians who try to force this kind of Sophie's Choice. People don't expect much from House Reps anymore, though. The House lost a bit of prestige, but not much.
President Trump: Trump would have gotten a boost if he had allowed Congress to do its job, but (like he has before) he shot himself in the foot. He nearly had a bipartisan deal ready to go, but his "shithole" fiasco threw a wrench into that. Now, instead of a modest legislative victory and a probable popularity boost, Trump has a shutdown taking place on his watch. He also has done very little to resolve this issue, other than rant on Twitter. So this becomes another item on his list of failures and screw-ups as President, but it won't cost him much in terms of popularity: he's gone about as low as he possibly can, and his remaining supporters are unshakeable.
House of Representatives: On one hand, the House passed the measures necessary to keep the government running. That's a plus. On the other hand, House Republicans tried to force a choice between CHIP (health insurance for children) and DACA (a provision allowing children of immigrants to remain in the United States.) There's a special place in hell for any group of politicians who try to force this kind of Sophie's Choice. People don't expect much from House Reps anymore, though. The House lost a bit of prestige, but not much.
Senate Republicans: Moderate losses for the Senate GOP over this shutdown. They, along with Trump, precipitated this crisis - first, by defunding CHIP in September for use as a bargaining chip in the future, and spiking the pre-shutdown negotiations by adding several last-minute provisions to the deal. Additionally, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will be occupying that perch in hell, next to the House Republicans. Besides being unspeakably immoral, it was also bad politics on McConnell's part. He tried to create a false dilemma that would cause the Democrats to fold, and it backfired badly. Maybe he should have been tending to his own party members, because four Senate Republicans voted against the bill; those four would not have been enough to pass the bill, but they do make it harder for Trump and the GOP to lay blame entirely on the Democrats. Harder, but not impossible - because they are already making that case in the court of public opinion. It's not entirely unexpected, since they tried it before when public opinion turned against them after the last shutdown. However, they do have an easy time framing negative stories in ways that cast them in a positive light.
Democrats: They aren't entirely blameless because they were playing a game of brinkmanship over DACA; however, as I already stated, it takes two to tango. The GOP is culpable for how they framed the DACA vote, and Trump takes some responsibility for derailing a bipartisan deal. While I personally approve of renewing both CHIP and DACA, I don't approve of the Democratic Party's methods; they're doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. And while I would like to see the Dems play hardball more often, I think what they're doing now sets a bad precedent. We already have one major party that obstructs and employs scorched earth tactics. We don't need two.
In the final analysis, I put the bulk of the blame on Trump and the GOP. I think 70% to them, and 30% to the Democrats is a fair distribution. A lot of this hinges on whose policies are taking a hit. As I already stated, I support both DACA and CHIP, so part of me wants to see the Dems dig in and fight. I also don't agree with how the GOP has governed, so I enjoy seeing them be on the receiving end of the same tactics they used. I know it's corrosive for the country in the long run, though. The 2013 shutdown cost the country a lot, in terms of both treasure and prestige. This one could do the same if it continues for very long, and at this point it's anyone's guess as to how it ends. It also makes undoing the climate of hyper-polarization harder.
Saturday, January 13, 2018
The "Ugly American" in the White House
You know what an "Ugly American" is, right? Here's a quick primer, just in case. Want to guess who acted like an "Ugly American" this week?
President Trump's boorish behavior made headlines again this week. This time, it was for "allegedly" characterizing most of the rest of the world as "shitholes." Having spent various amounts of time in a handful of those so-called "shithole countries", I feel somewhat qualified to add my $.02 to the discussion. I've lived downwind from power plants that burned dirty coal, and the waste products vented into the atmosphere gave me headaches almost every single day. I've drank only bottled water, sometimes for several months, because the tap water wasn't fit to drink. I've seen sidewalk and roadside vendors selling fruit that looked like it had sat in the back of the fridge for weeks. So yes, some countries have areas with sub-par living conditions, such as polluted air and water, or inadequate power grids, or massive poverty/disease/malnutrition, or some form of civil strife such as war or insurgency. Most likely, a combination of these things. But while those countries have areas that are not-so-well-off (maybe even large areas), those regions do not represent the entire country. The countries Trump labeled as "shitholes" have produced their share of top-notch athletes, scientists, scholars, activists, and artists, and the countries themselves have much to contribute in terms of culture, history, trade, and natural beauty. In short, they may have have some derelict parts - like any other country - but they are not shitholes.
It takes an incredibly spoiled and privileged person to call those places "shitholes." Like, say, someone who was born into wealth and likes to flaunt it in ostentatious ways (such as gold-plated sink handles on a private jet), and who has never experienced anything less than a 5-star existence. It would be inappropriate even if Trump were still a private citizen; and it is absolutely beneath the dignity of the office to say something like that when he's the leader of the free world. As president, Trump will likely have to interact with the heads of state of many of those countries, so it's pretty damn bad when word gets out about how Trump really views those nations. And before you go trying to tell me that the "shithole countries" remark was taken out of context - that it was a momentary lapse in judgment brought on by frustration or anger - go do some research on Trump's past. He has a pattern of racially-charged statements and actions, so him labeling African and Latin American countries as "shitholes" isn't out-of-character for him; it IS his character.
In case it's not clear: the President of the United States is a racist.
Here's something else to think about: if President Trump looks down on those countries and their citizens, how do you think he views the people of this country who aren't doing so well? There are parts of the United States that suffer from the same societal ills as the so-called "shithole countries" do. Parts of major metropolises like Detroit, Denver and Baltimore, as well as medium-sized cities and countless small towns. There's even one just a few miles from the White House and the US Capitol Building, a section of the DC Metro area called Anacostia. Do you think a president who looks down on entire populations is going to give a single rat's ass about fixing any of this country's problems? Homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, failing schools, the opioid epidemic? Or do you think it's more likely he treats the people suffering under the weight of those burdens with utter contempt?
Once again, Trump has shown he's completely unfit to serve as President. This may be one of the most glaring examples of his unfitness, in fact. In one statement, he has revealed his undisguised disgust, not only for the rest of the world, but by extension, a significant portion of the population he presides over. He's embarrassed the United States yet again, while his policies inch the United States closer to the dystopia he imagines many non-European countries to be: rolling back environmental regulations, chipping away at minority rights, exacerbating economic inequality, dividing the country, and gaming the government to enrich himself, his family, and his cronies.
Don't let Trump get away with his latest racist dog-whistle, and don't let him dismantle the things that make the United States great. You've seen his self-serving agenda, so push back against it.
President Trump's boorish behavior made headlines again this week. This time, it was for "allegedly" characterizing most of the rest of the world as "shitholes." Having spent various amounts of time in a handful of those so-called "shithole countries", I feel somewhat qualified to add my $.02 to the discussion. I've lived downwind from power plants that burned dirty coal, and the waste products vented into the atmosphere gave me headaches almost every single day. I've drank only bottled water, sometimes for several months, because the tap water wasn't fit to drink. I've seen sidewalk and roadside vendors selling fruit that looked like it had sat in the back of the fridge for weeks. So yes, some countries have areas with sub-par living conditions, such as polluted air and water, or inadequate power grids, or massive poverty/disease/malnutrition, or some form of civil strife such as war or insurgency. Most likely, a combination of these things. But while those countries have areas that are not-so-well-off (maybe even large areas), those regions do not represent the entire country. The countries Trump labeled as "shitholes" have produced their share of top-notch athletes, scientists, scholars, activists, and artists, and the countries themselves have much to contribute in terms of culture, history, trade, and natural beauty. In short, they may have have some derelict parts - like any other country - but they are not shitholes.
It takes an incredibly spoiled and privileged person to call those places "shitholes." Like, say, someone who was born into wealth and likes to flaunt it in ostentatious ways (such as gold-plated sink handles on a private jet), and who has never experienced anything less than a 5-star existence. It would be inappropriate even if Trump were still a private citizen; and it is absolutely beneath the dignity of the office to say something like that when he's the leader of the free world. As president, Trump will likely have to interact with the heads of state of many of those countries, so it's pretty damn bad when word gets out about how Trump really views those nations. And before you go trying to tell me that the "shithole countries" remark was taken out of context - that it was a momentary lapse in judgment brought on by frustration or anger - go do some research on Trump's past. He has a pattern of racially-charged statements and actions, so him labeling African and Latin American countries as "shitholes" isn't out-of-character for him; it IS his character.
In case it's not clear: the President of the United States is a racist.
Here's something else to think about: if President Trump looks down on those countries and their citizens, how do you think he views the people of this country who aren't doing so well? There are parts of the United States that suffer from the same societal ills as the so-called "shithole countries" do. Parts of major metropolises like Detroit, Denver and Baltimore, as well as medium-sized cities and countless small towns. There's even one just a few miles from the White House and the US Capitol Building, a section of the DC Metro area called Anacostia. Do you think a president who looks down on entire populations is going to give a single rat's ass about fixing any of this country's problems? Homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, failing schools, the opioid epidemic? Or do you think it's more likely he treats the people suffering under the weight of those burdens with utter contempt?
Once again, Trump has shown he's completely unfit to serve as President. This may be one of the most glaring examples of his unfitness, in fact. In one statement, he has revealed his undisguised disgust, not only for the rest of the world, but by extension, a significant portion of the population he presides over. He's embarrassed the United States yet again, while his policies inch the United States closer to the dystopia he imagines many non-European countries to be: rolling back environmental regulations, chipping away at minority rights, exacerbating economic inequality, dividing the country, and gaming the government to enrich himself, his family, and his cronies.
Don't let Trump get away with his latest racist dog-whistle, and don't let him dismantle the things that make the United States great. You've seen his self-serving agenda, so push back against it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)