Thoughts, comments, musings on life, politics, current events and the media.



Blogroll Me!


Comments by YACCS

 

Keeping up with the news

Israel and the Palestinians agree on one point:

Both IDF and Hamas spokesmen announced this evening that the suicide bombing in Jerusalem and the IDF elimination of a car full of terrorists were unrelated to the events of the last 24 hours. The Hamas spokesman, while warning that the organization intends to take revenge for yesterday’s IDF helicopter attack on Abdel-Aziz Rantisi, admitted that his organization is incapable of organizing an attack on such short notice and called the timing ‘a fortuitous coincidence.’

(Via Damien Penny.) That story was dated June 11th.

So why is the New York Times, in a story published on the 13th, commenting otherwise:

In the intensifying struggle between Hamas and Israel, Mr. Shabneh's attack is widely viewed, though Israeli officials dispute it, as retribution for the attack on Mr. Rantisi.

Though Israeli officials dispute it? How about Hamas disputing it? I won't even attempt to address the question of whether a reporter can accurately talk about what is "widely viewed" without doing any polling. That sounds to me like reporterspeak for "I believe this, but I'm not supposed to say that."
posted by David Nieporent at 6/14/2003 10:37:00 PM |

 

Yes, but America is the real police state!

The protests in Iran have taken a turn for the worse:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Automatic gunfire echoed in the Iranian capital early Saturday as hundreds of hard-line Islamic militants, some armed with Kalashnikov rifles, attacked groups of people demonstrating against clerical rule.


In the most serious violence since the U.S.-applauded pro-democracy protests began four days ago, witnesses also reported seeing hard-line vigilantes pulling young women out of cars and beating them with sticks.


Police stood by as hundreds of militiamen, who wear no uniforms and are fiercely loyal to Iran's conservative clerical leaders, manned checkpoints and roared around on motorbikes brandishing batons and chains. By 3:30 a.m. (7 p.m. EDT on Friday) there were no signs of protesters on the streets of the capital and hard-line vigilantes had complete control of streets around the Tehran University dormitory which has been the focal point of the demonstrations.

Let's hope it's only a temporary setback. And just for fun, contrast these courageous Iranian students with the (U.N.-applauded?) anti-democracy protestors in the U.S. and Europe from a few months back. (Apologies if the comparison makes you ill.)
posted by Peter at 6/14/2003 01:10:00 AM |

 

Heads I win; tails you lose

Perhaps the feature of New York Times-style liberalism that I dislike the most is the assumption that nobody is ever responsible for anything they do -- except for conservatives, "right wingers," "hard liners," or whatever other epithet is used to describe the Times' enemies. Everyone else is a victim of circumstances, reacting to provocations but never acting. The Times carried an editorial yesterday, on the Middle East, which embodies this attitude perfectly. (I've ranted about this attitude before-- it's endemic to, but not unique to, the Times -- but blogs are good for beating dead horses, if nothing else.) The Times writes:

The deadliest blows so far have come from Palestinian terrorists. Yesterday, a Hamas suicide bomber killed at least 16 people and wounded nearly 100 on a rush-hour bus in central Jerusalem.

But the gravest political damage is being done by Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, whose reflexive military responses to terror threatens to undermine the authority of Mahmoud Abbas, the moderate new Palestinian prime minister.

See, Ariel Sharon is bad, because he chose to respond. (Though at the same time, the response was "reflexive," because that way the Times can portray it as mindless.) But as for the terrorist acts themselves, or Abbas's failure and/or inability to stop them, the Times has nothing to say. But note that these acts, according to the Times, have no impact on the "peace initiative." Why not? Because, you see, Israelis should be mature enough to shrug off the terrorist bombings. But Palestinians? They're not capable of handling Israel's retaliatory strikes. It will just set them off. And will they blame the people who brought the strikes upon themselves -- namely, Hamas? No. It will just undermine poor Mahmoud Abbas, their supposed leader.

Now, in a sense that should be flattering to Israelis, right? I suppose in a sense it is. Israelis are being called mature and responsible, while Palestinians aren't. But in a larger sense, it undermines the entire process. If Palestinians are just children, incapable of self-control, of discerning right from wrong, then how can anything ever be accomplished? Only one way: for Israel to assume responsibility for everything that happens on both sides, to make all the sacrifices, to ignore every provocation, and then to pray for the best.

The Times goes on:

Ignoring strong pleas from Washington, Mr. Sharon has now twice ordered Israeli forces to rocket cars carrying suspected Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip.

Aside: suspected? Has anybody denied that the targets were members of Hamas?

Challenging the new Palestinian leadership to take over security responsibility for Gaza is one of the first concrete tests of the road map. Sending in Israeli forces as if nothing had changed needlessly damages the credibility of Mr. Abbas and of the whole Bush peace plan. If it is not evident to Mr. Sharon by now that military reprisals alone can never bring Israel security from suicide bombers, the White House must do all it can to help him understand.

So again, note that in the view of the Times, the attacks don't challenge the credibility of Abbas, but Israel's responses to them do. That's because all that matters is whether Palestinians trust him; whether Israelis do is of no concern to the Times.

And while it's certainly true that Sharon's use of a military response hasn't eliminated the Palestinian practice of homicide bombings, it's just as true that Israel's attempts at negotiation haven't succeeded, either. The White House must do all it can to help the editors of the Times understand that point.

Nobody expects Israel to tolerate terror against its people. But terror can be more effectively rooted out if responsible Palestinian leaders like Mr. Abbas are strengthened, not undermined. It is easy to see why Hamas would like to make Mr. Abbas look irrelevant. But Israel should be doing all it can to strengthen his hand because in the long run that is in Israel's own interest.

No, nobody expects Israel to tolerate terror -- except, of course, for the New York Times, which is asking Israel to do exactly that. And for what? For the mere hope that Israel's toleration will give Abbas the strength and credibility to end terror, and that he will choose to do so. (After all, Yasir Arafat had strength and credibility -- but what has he used it for?)

The obvious place for him to start is Gaza, where Hamas is based and where the Palestinian Authority's security forces are strongest. To build a Palestinian political consensus against terror, Mr. Abbas needs to show his people that his conciliatory words have brought a change in Israeli behavior. Regrettably, Mr. Sharon's latest actions demonstrate just the opposite.

I thought that what Palestinians wanted was an end to settlements; well, Sharon's "latest actions" include language and steps towards dismantling some. But apparently the "Israeli behavior" that was so offensive was actually Israel responding to terrorist attacks. The Times considers the Palestinians to be so hypersensitive that Israel's mere self-defense is what needs to "change."

In short, the only side that needs to do anything is Israel. It's up to Israel to prove its good faith to Palestinians by not responding when terrorists kill Israelis. Not only don't Palestinians have to prove their good faith to Israel, but in fact Israel must assume that Palestinians won't act in good faith, accept it, and assume that Abbas is acting in good faith, and then help him prove his good faith, not to Israel, but to other Palestinians. A little one-sided, don't you think? When do we get to the point where Palestinians stop blowing up Israeli buses?
posted by David Nieporent at 6/13/2003 04:52:00 PM |

 

Sources at Jumping To Conclusions said...

I think anybody with an IQ above his shoe size could figure out that I don't agree with The Nation much. But when they're right, they're right. In a column by Russ Baker criticizing the New York Times' Judith Miller for what he believes to be overly credulous reporting of Pentagon claims, he writes:

Jayson Blair used the cover of unidentified sources to make things up. Miller allows sources to hide their identities in order to advance a self-serving agenda. Using unnamed sources is a common and necessary technique in journalism. But sources should not be allowed to remain unnamed when the information they are imparting serves to directly advance their own and their employers' objectives. In other words, a reporter needs a very good justification for not naming a source--usually because a source is saying something that could get him or her in big trouble with some powerful entity. But what kind of trouble could befall some unnamed Pentagon source who is leaking material in accord with the objectives of the current Administration? The principal motive for remaining under cover in such circumstances, besides preserving deniability, is to gain greater currency for the leaked material, as something that has received the imprimatur of our internationally recognized "newspaper of record," the New York Times.

Citing anonymous sources should be a rare exception, not standard operating procedure. When a reporter cites a real person, he's saying, "Trust me. I spoke to this person." While the Jayson Blair scandal shows that this is hardly an ironclad guarantee, it does provide an opportunity for (a) the quoted source to rebut the claim if untrue, and (b) the reader to decide for himself how much credence to give to the statement. When a reporter cites an anonymous source, he's saying, "Trust me. I really spoke to someone who said this, and that person fits the description I gave him. And I haven't misquoted him. And I've evaluated his credibility, and I've decided that it's sufficient to justify the story. He's not mistaken or lying and he has no personal agenda."

Well, that's just a little too much for me to take on faith. I know what Paul Wolfowitz thinks, so if he's quoted, I can decide what it means. I don't know what a "Pentagon source" thinks or wants. I don't know if he's trying to float a trial balloon or stir up dissent or if he's a genuine whistleblower. But I can see with my own eyes that most "officials" aren't saying anything worth keeping secret, and if they're not willing to say it openly, then the reporter should just work a little harder to get someone who will.
posted by David Nieporent at 6/13/2003 03:25:00 PM |

 

And if that doesn't work, baptize 'em

Good news from Saudi Arabia: they're now telling al-Qaida members directly that they're bad Muslims:

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - Saudi investigators are using an unusual tactic in their interrogations of al-Qaida suspects arrested after last month's suicide bombings here: They're bringing in clerics to lecture the militants on the nature of Islam.


The clerics are telling the prisoners that they have strayed from their religion and that they must atone by confessing to everything they know about plans for future terrorist attacks, according to a Western diplomat and a Saudi official.

The article goes on (as articles are wont to do) to say that this tactic may or may not work:

Some analysts question whether the presence of clerics during interrogations would have any impact on militants who are convinced that their radical brand of Islam is the only true form, and that other Muslims who disagree with them are infidels who should be killed.


"I am not sure that religious debate would work with some of these people," said Khalil al-Khalil, a professor of education at the Imam Mohammed bin Saud Islamic University in Riyadh. "They have been brainwashed to a point of no return."

But hey, it's worth a shot. Let's hope it's a sign that Saudis are finally and truly becoming less and less willing to make excuses for the terrorists in their midst.
posted by Peter at 6/13/2003 01:10:00 PM |

 

Maybe it was the weather gods

Peter overlooks a possibility; it may be that Christina Vrachnos is more subtle than the reporters at the New York Times. She might have been attempting irony which went over the reporter's head. Knowing the media's penchant for hyping the global warming issue, I often sarcastically blame the weather conditions -- whatever they are -- on global warming. Cold outside? Maybe it's because of global warming. There was an earthquake? Maybe it was due to global warming. The Cubs are in first place? Maybe it's global warming. I can certainly picture an overly earnest New York Times reporter overhearing such a comment and eagerly repeating it in a column. They want to believe it, after all.

And on the subject of global warming, there's an excellent post by Iain Murray, generally at the Edge of England's Sword, but guest-blogging over at the Volokh Conspiracy, in which he points out what a truly objective media would:

I've been dealing with climate science issues in detail for approaching a month today. As a result, I am amazed whenever I hear anyone say that "science shows" anything in the climate change debate. The plain fact is that normal scientific methods simply aren't applicable in the climate science area. Normally, you come up with a hypothesis and run experiments to check it. The trouble is that you can't run experiments with the climate. We have no other Earth to act as a control (anyone who points to Venus as an example is showing his ignorance there and then). The science can therefore only progress by building models, which, if acceptably accurate, might predict what will happen. But those models are based on theory. If they cannot predict what is currently happening (as we know from observation) accurately, there is something wrong with them and/or the underlying theory. Theorists, however, are often wedded to their theories.

Exactly; if you read popular coverage of the global warming issue, all too often scientific models and scientific laws are confused. We hear talk that newly-collected data has enabled scientists to refine their models, and shows such-and-such about the future, when what is really the case is that plugging the newly-collected data into the model shows such-and-such, if that model is accurate. But a newly refined model can never be said to be accurate; only by seeing if the model accurately predicts the future can we make that determination, which means there must necessarily be a time lag between scientific understanding and public policy changes. But because this doesn't fit some agendas, the distinction between "the models suggest X" and "science suggests X" gets lost.

I don't mean to suggest that there's anything dishonest about changing the models to explain new data; that's a perfectly reasonable scientific practice. The problem is changing the models to explain past data and then pretending that the models represent established science, as opposed to mere hypotheses.
posted by David Nieporent at 6/13/2003 01:08:00 PM |

 

Next year's record ski season credited to global warming

According to the National Weather Service, as reported in the New York Times:

the average temperature in New York for May, a customarily balmy month, has been an inhospitable 58.7 — several degrees below normal. More telling, however, is that for the first time in 20 years there was not a day in May when the thermometer hit 80.

Calling 58.7 degrees "inhospitable" is an allowable exaggeration, considering it's supposed to be spring. And along with the cold, it's been rainy and dreary here for a month straight. So how do they lead off that very same article?

On a chilly and sodden afternoon last week, Christina Vrachnos braced herself against the wind on Madison Avenue, and cast her eyes toward the skies. "Is it global warming?" she wailed. "What is it? What have we done to deserve this wretched weather?"

Talk about a political axe to grind. Global warming is somehow to blame for one of the coldest Mays on record? Perhaps without global warming it would only have been in the 40s. Perhaps we deserve this weather because Christina Vrachnos is an idiot. Or at best very gullible.
posted by Peter at 6/13/2003 07:42:00 AM |

 

James Garfield, this one's for you

Less than 15% of the American workforce is unionized. The New York Times thinks it's awful that many government workers might have to suffer under some of the same oppressive working conditions faced by the other 85% of the population:

The House has already rubber-stamped a plan proposed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who wants the "flexibility" to become in effect the potentate of payroll. Under that bill, Mr. Rumsfeld and his managers would have final word on the merit, demerit and pay raises of workers, who would have minimal recourse to appeal. Workers are understandably anxious about this work force revolution, warning of a retreat toward the 19th-century spoils system of patronage and cronyism.

For some reason, I can't seem to muster any sympathy. Perhaps government clerks working in air-conditioned offices in the Pentagon don't quite conjure up images of immigrants toiling in sweatshops in the garment district. It's understandable why government employees are opposed to reforms that would eliminate automatic pay increases and allow government employees to be fired without an appeals system that takes longer than the death penalty's appellate process. It's just unclear to me why the rest of us should be concerned. Does the Times really believe that the Secretary of Defense is going to personally go around policing a three-quarters of a million-person workforce, promoting only those who gave money to the right political party?

(And what if that did happen? Would it really hurt the quality of the federal workforce all that much, anyway?)
posted by David Nieporent at 6/13/2003 03:54:00 AM |

 

I Want It That Way

Tired of being subjected to unwanted Metallica and Barney, Iraqis are fighting back by forming boy bands:

Cinemas, breweries and alcohol stores have been threatened and attacked by militant groups, and in many areas women have been told not to walk outdoors without a veil. But Unknown To No One say they won't let extremists get in their way.

"We lived under dictatorship for 35 years. I'm not prepared to go through that again, and I don't think anybody is," said lead singer Nadeem Hamed, a 20-year-old biology student. "If people attack us for being in a band, that's terrorism."

Seriously, this is great news. May thousands of Iraqi boy bands bloom. As a bonus, it's a perfect way to piss off anti-American-culture fundamentalist Muslims and anti-American-culture fundamentalist leftists at the same time. Someone get George Bush on the phone and ask him to play Unknown to No One at his next press conference...




posted by Peter at 6/12/2003 04:49:00 PM |

 

What's Plan B?

It's fashionable, and perhaps too easy, to bash the United Nations. Still, sometimes it's so easy because it's so necessary. The problem is not that the UN is utterly useless -- plenty of organizations are -- but that people are determined to pretend otherwise. Remember all those people who wanted to let the UN handle the Iraq situation, both before and after the war actually began? Well, maybe the way the UN, and the international community generally, is handling the mess in the Congo should be seen as instructive of why the Bush administration was determined to bypass the organization as often as possible:

Three days after gun battles between warring ethnic militias brought this town to a terrified standstill, the newly arrived commander of the multinational force dispatched by the United Nations pledged today "to reassure and to protect" its people. But he made clear he did not intend to disarm the fighters, many of them children.

Speaking to reporters on the airport tarmac here, the commander of the French-led force, Brig. Gen. Jean Paul Thonier, said he would not strip the militias of their guns, venture outside the city or get in the middle of a gun battle.

"Separating the factions is not part of my mission," he said.

In short, it's a peacekeeping force that has no plans whatsoever to keep any peace (and what makes this story even more precious is that it is the French who are running this mission). In fact, they have no plans to do much of anything; massacres have been going on, but the UN is standing by:

The United Nations peacekeepers in Bunia — who preceded the European Union force, and are hampered by a mandate allowing them to use weapons only when fired on — have been unwilling to risk investigating such incidents, let alone stop them.

Which leaves the as-yet-unanswered question: why are they there? What's the point of getting involved if your mandate is to sit around and play cards? Is it just to assuage the collective conscience of the "international community" by letting them pretend to themselves that they're helping?

Now, the situation in the Congo -- an ethnically-based civil war, in which neighboring powers keep interfering -- is a mess, providing no simple answers. And certainly the United States hasn't made the sort of commitment to resolve the situation that it did with regard to Iraq. But is that required? Is the lesson we're supposed to take away from this situation, and the rhetoric surrounding the Iraq crisis, that a practical model of successful international cooperation involves Europeans deciding when something should be done, and then Americans providing the muscle to make it happen? Because I don't think that's going to be acceptable to many in the United States. Nor should it be. If they can't take care of the minor problems without us, then why should we solicit or respect their input on the major problems? The only reason would be if they had superior wisdom and judgment to that of the U.S. -- and it's a little offensive to suggest that.
posted by David Nieporent at 6/12/2003 03:09:00 PM |

 

Don't Tread On Me?

By now, you've no doubt heard that the Army has been using "culturally offensive music", such as Drowning Pool, Metallica, and Barney (yes, the purple dinosaur) to break the spirit of Iraqi prisoners. Turns out that Metallica is none too pleased. But they know their limitations:

"What am I supposed to do about it," [drummer Lars Ulrich] asked, "get George Bush on the phone and tell him to get his generals to play some Venom?"

Actually, that sounds like a pretty funny idea to me...
posted by Peter at 6/11/2003 10:46:00 PM |

 

Reunions

At our college reunion weekend, Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy took to asking fellow alumni the following questions:

• How does your life today compare with what you thought your life would be like at your 10th Reunion as of the day you graduated from college?
  
• If you could go back to the beginning of your freshman year of college and give yourself advice about how to go about college, what advice would you give yourself?
  

My answers were "it's about as I expected" and "work harder and play harder". (Hey, it's the best I could come up with after a weekend of drinking.) The latter answer seemed to be about what most people came up with as well. Take college by the horns. Live life to its fullest. Good advice, always.

Well, a little while later, Orin links to party-pooper Dan Simon, who notes that basically, none of us would follow our own advice. (He links to a Nathaniel Hawthorne short story that illustrates the point). And he's probably right. But I already knew he was right about me. I'd hear the advice from my future self, and then probably go right ahead and be the lazy-ass I was doomed to be. Which is fine with me, because I enjoyed college, and I'm generally happy with my life.

But if I only had the presence of mind to ask my future self for some hot stock tips...

posted by Peter at 6/11/2003 10:12:00 PM |

 

Howdy

Peter here. David invited me to be an occasional contributor to his blog, and who am I to turn down such an invitation? I suppose this is where I'm supposed to tell you a little about myself. But really, if you want to know about me, stick with the site and read my posts; you'll figure me out eventually.


posted by Peter at 6/11/2003 08:53:00 PM |

 

Come again?

Last week, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press created some big news by releasing their annual survey of world attitudes towards the U.S. as part of the Pew Global Attitudes Project. Eric Alterman, occasionally accused of anti-Semitism for his anti-Israel bias -- and quite defensive about it -- made a big deal of one of its findings:

In the meantime, check out this amazing statistic. "U.S. policies toward the Middle East come under considerable criticism in the new poll. In 20 of 21 populations surveyed - Americans are the only exception - pluralities or majorities believe the United States favors Israel over the Palestinians too much. This opinion is shared in Israel; 47% of Israelis believe that the U.S. favors Israel too much, while 38% say the policy is fair and 11% think the U.S. favors the Palestinians too much." Did everybody get that? The Israelis think we favor Israel too much. Call me an anti-Semite, but I think that makes it true.

Huh? Does it make any sense to believe that half of Israelis think that Americans favor Israel too much? Yes, that is what the poll seems to indicate, and (for a change) the press release accurately reflects what the question asks. But does that sound at all reasonable? It certainly doesn't to me.

There's always a danger of rejecting inconvenient facts just because they don't support our preconceptions, but I don't think that's the case in this instance. A friend of mine likes to quote Carl Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" saying, and I think it applies here. (At least, I think that it's a quote from Sagan.) Given that our recent policy consists of supporting the democratically-elected Israeli government, that "finding" is essentially the equivalent of saying that half of all Israelis are less supportive of Israel than the U.S. And that, despite the fact that the opposition to the current Israeli governing coalition was pummeled in the last election.

That's possible, I suppose -- but does it make sense to say so based only on a single question asked once of 903 people? Isn't it more plausible that (a) the random sample wasn't truly representative for some reason, or (b) there was a translation problem which caused the question to be misinterpreted (We only have the English translation of the questions asked, but presumably the surveys were conducted in the native languages of the various countries), or (c) there was some sort of error in data compilation, or (d) the numbers represent a typographical error, or even (e) fraud occurred?

In this case, I suggest that the design of the question was flawed. The question asked for the respondent's opinion of U.S. policy:

Q.29 What’s your opinion of U.S. policies in the Middle East – would you say they are fair, or do they favor Israel too much, or do they favor the Palestinians too much?

(Again, noting that this is the English language version of the question.) Isn't it plausible that at least some people interpreted "fair" as "equal," and then rejected that option because, clearly, the U.S. does favor one side more than the other? If so, then the only remaining option one could select would be that the U.S. "favors Israel too much." In other words, if one feels that (a) the U.S. supports Israel over the Palestinians and (b) the U.S. is justified in doing so, what does one choose in responding to the question? Neither "fair" nor "favors Israel too much" fully captures that opinion.

We tend to take survey results as gospel, at least within the mathematical confines of the error margin, but they're subject to the same limitations as any other reports: mistakes, lies, confusion, the vagaries of chance. (A 95% confidence interval implies that one out of twenty times, there will be an error larger than the error margin.) We shouldn't ignore data that's strange merely because it's strange, but we shouldn't toss our common sense out the window, either. And if the strange results surprisingly agree with us, we should be doubly cautious that we're not accepting the results merely because they provide validation for our idiosyncratic opinions.
posted by David Nieporent at 6/09/2003 01:13:00 PM |

 

The role of blogs

Blogging is not journalism. Not that there's anything wrong with finding "actual news reporting" in blogs, but arguing that blogs should have "actual news reporting" is like arguing that the science section of the newspaper should contain "actual scientific research." It conflates roles. Bloggers are commentators, essayists, pundits. They -- we -- are not reporters. Sure, if we happen to experience something firsthand, we can report it. If we feel like doing original research, we can. But that's not our primary function.

While I don't agree with much of his politics, I do agree that Josh Marshall's blog is a high quality one -- and it should be, since Josh Marshall is a professional. But most bloggers are not, and it's unrealistic to hold them to the same standard. Even if it occasionally seems otherwise, Glenn Reynolds has a full time job; Instapundit is just a hobby for him. Is he an "ideological librarian?" Perhaps. So what?

If I want reporting, I'll read the New York Times. (And then believe the opposite of what they say.) If I want commentary on Australian politics, I'll read Tim Blair. If I want someone to savage Paul Krugman, I'll read Donald Luskin. If I want a roundup of all the important Middle Eastern news, I'll read Little Green Footballs. If I want essays on applied economics, I'll read Asymmetrical Information. If I want professional punditry, I'll read the New Republic. Etc., etc. But it surely doesn't make sense to criticize one media outlet for not being the other.
posted by David Nieporent at 6/09/2003 03:36:00 AM |