swimming freestyle

A picture for the day

Guatemala City: Activists in mime outfits perform a serious sketch to mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women  (Photograph: Daniel Leclair/Reuters)

The more important war

Matthew Alexander served 14 years in the U.S. Air Force, saw combat in Bosnia and Kosovo, became an Air Force counterintelligence agent, and then volunteered to go to Iraq to work as a senior interrogator.

He writes about his experience and his reaction to sanctioned interrogation practices in a Washington Post opinion piece today.

Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.

My experiences have landed me in the middle of another war -- one even more important than the Iraq conflict. The war after the war is a fight about who we are as Americans. Murderers like (Iraq al Qaeda leader, Abu Musab al) Zarqawi can kill us, but they can't force us to change who we are. We can only do that to ourselves. One day, when my grandkids sit on my knee and ask me about the war, I'll say to them, "Which one?"

Americans, including officers like myself, must fight to protect our values not only from al-Qaeda but also from those within our own country who would erode them.

This war Mr. Alexander refers to - an acquiescence by some to accept torture as an acceptable compromise in a war on radical Islamic jihadism - has created a deep schism.  After reading much on the topic, it seems that the great majority of career military - those who have seen war and understand its implications - steadfastly oppose torture and abuse.   The very vocal supporters of torture seem to be comprised of an awful lot of folks who have no military experience whatsoever.

I've learned to rely on experts to help me understand difficult matters.  I wouldn't want my mailman doing brain surgery, and I don't trustthose who have no experience at all arguing they know best when it comes to effective interrogation techniques.

I'll place my bet with those who know what they're actually talking about.

44 Presidents

A cool video.  Washington to Obama.  "Bolero" to boot.

(h/t Oliver Willis)

New wave power development offers promise of cheap, green energy

Using the tremendous power of the oceans, either in the form of wave motion or temperature gradients, is touted as an exciting new prospect in the search for new, green alternative energy sources. 

There are a couple constraints, however, with conventional wave motion in the number of locales they can be installed and that the turbines and water mills need an average current of five or six knots to operate efficiently.  Most of the worlds waterways flow slower than three knots. 

A system recently developed at the University of Michigan promises to convert even these slower flowing waterways into usable electrical energy.  The system, called Vivace (vortex-induced vibrations for aquatic clean energy) can be placed on riverbeds or suspended in the ocean and, potentially, offers competively priced alternative energy.

The new device, which has been inspired by the way fish swim, consists of a system of cylinders positioned horizontal to the water flow and attached to springs. As water flows past, the cylinder creates vortices, which push and pull the cylinder up and down. The mechanical energy in the vibrations is then converted into electricity.

Cylinders arranged over a cubic metre of the sea or river bed in a flow of three knots can produce 51 watts. This is more efficient than similar-sized turbines or wave generators, and the amount of power produced can increase sharply if the flow is faster or if more cylinders are added.

The scientists behind the technology, which has been developed in research funded by the US government, say that generating power in this way would potentially cost only around 3.5p per kilowatt hour, compared to about 4.5p for wind energy and between 10p and 31p for solar power. They say the technology would require up to 50 times less ocean acreage than wave power generation.

"If we could harness 0.1 per cent of the energy in the ocean, we could support the energy needs of 15 billion people. In the English Channel, for example, there is a very strong current, so you produce a lot of power."  (Link)

Clearly, there's great work being done in the development of alternative energy sources.  One of the big obstacles to implementing these alternative energy sources will be the development of a transmission grid capable of transporting the electrical energy developed deep in the Pacific Ocean or from the windswept prairie states to far away locales.  This is where Barack Obama's infrastructure stimulus proposals come into play: It's the opportunity to employ Americans, develop green and non-imported energy, develop world class intellectual property, and position the U.S. for the next century.

The Sarah Palin outtakes

You recall the now famous Sarah Palin interview at the turkey hatchery.  Slate has found some outtakes from that interview:

If 'Shawshank Redemption' and 'Flashdance' had a baby

From Funny or Die:

It's time to reconsider the U.S. 'war on terror' policy

The horrifying, 60 hour long siege on Mumbai has ended.  Ten gunman were responsible for at least 195 deaths and 300 wounded.  From an earlier report from the NY Times:

Bodies were extracted from the ruins of the Taj Mahal Palace & Tower hotel in the hours after the standoff with militants there ended on Saturday in a gunfight fire. At the main city hospital morgue, relatives came, clutching one another in grief, to identify their dead. By midafternoon, the morgue was running out of body bags, and by evening the death toll had risen to at least 172. Funerals, among them ceremonies for two policemen and a lawyer, went on throughout the day.

Recent U.S. State Department report indicates terrorist attacks have been increasing every year, 25% in 2006 alone.  By any objective measure, the "war on terror" has been an abject failure.  Gary Kamiya has an interesting essay in Salon arguing it's the opportune time for a new U.S president to develop an alternative; a more effective approach to addressing terrorism.

(The war on terror) is unwinnable. Terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic as old as humanity, and until the lion lies down with the lamb, it will continue to exist. Waging a war on terror is a category violation, like waging a war on violence. Second, it is self-defeating. By invading Iraq to preempt an alleged terrorist threat, the U.S. greatly increased that threat. And by elevating terrorist groups, which pose no existential threat to America, to the status of state actors, the Bush administration enhanced their prestige. The number of terror attacks around the world has risen greatly since Bush started his "war," and hatred of the U.S. in the Arab-Muslim world has metastasized.

In a subtler way, the "war on terror" has degraded our national psyche. It encourages the U.S. to remain in a psychological state that is simultaneously fearful and aggressive -- an infantile state, one that prevents us from thinking clearly about how to address our real foreign policy challenges. The U.S. is too powerful and self-confident to act like a three-year-old having a permanent tantrum. One successful terrorist attack, no matter how horrific, should never have led to a fundamental change in America's geopolitical strategy.

Of course, Obama should not abandon the fight against international terrorism, but adopt more effective tactics. He should treat al-Qaida and its ilk as criminals rather than armies. Quiet intelligence work, coordination with allies and law enforcement should be used as much as possible. There may be times when military action is needed, but it should be minimized because of its negative effects. Obama should make it a top priority to address the conditions that fuel anti-American hatred. In Afghanistan, this means rebuilding the country; in Pakistan, not propping up unpopular despots like Musharraf; in Israel and the Palestinian territories, throwing the full weight of American diplomacy behind a two-state solution. When it comes to fighting terrorism, America's most powerful weapon is not its army, it is its brain.

In all endeavors, results matter.  Good intentions and big efforts are just great, but at the end of the day it's the score that determines the winner.  An objective look at the quantifiable metrics clearly indicate we are falling way behind here, and any reasonable cost vs. benefit analysis of the current war on terror strategy would dictate new thinking is in order.

The real shame here is that even calling for a objective look at the policy's effectiveness will be considered by some as raising the white flag, or soft on terrorism, or anti-military or even unpatriotic.  How dumb is that?

People in hell want ice water

President Bush sat down recently for an interview with his sister, Doro Bush Koch, and reflected on his time as president and his legacy:

Mr. Bush said he wanted to be remembered “as a person who, first and foremost, did not sell his soul in order to accommodate the political process.”

“I came to Washington with a set of values, and I’m leaving with the same set of values,” Mr. Bush said. “And I darn sure wasn’t going to sacrifice those values; that I was a President that had to make tough choices and was willing to make them. I surrounded myself with good people. I carefully considered the advice of smart, capable people and made tough decisions.”

But he said he wanted to be known “as somebody who liberated 50 million people and helped achieve peace; that focused on individuals rather than process; that rallied people to serve their neighbor; that led an effort to help relieve HIV/AIDS and malaria on places like the continent of Africa; that helped elderly people get prescription drugs and Medicare as a part of the basic package; that came to Washington, D.C., with a set of political statements and worked as hard as I possibly could to do what I told the American people I would do.”

The Bush Administration did some good work on HIV/AIDS and malaria in Africa.

A pardon for Karl Rove?

On Wednesday, President Bush pardoned a couple turkeys.  Which raises the question: will Mr. Bush issue a preemptive pardon for "the architect" of his presidency, Karl Rove.

It should be noted that Mr. Rove has not been indicted for any offense.  However, his involvement is alleged in a number of involved in a number of controversial actions by the Bush Administration:

At present, Rove, who withstood five grand jury appearances in the case concerning the illegal outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, has not been charged with a crime. But he has been linked to the case involving Justice Department firings of U.S. Attorneys which is still under investigation. He also could face legal exposure on a number of other incidents—ranging from a Texas money laundering scandal to the Abramoff case... (Link)

As a recent Paul Alexander essay suggests, any pardon to Karl Rove from Mr. Bush further may tarnish the presidents already dulled legacy.  It may prove difficult for the president to pardon, on the one hand, the loyalist commonly known as "Bush's brain" and, on the other hand, plead ignorance to any crimes for which Mr. Rove needs those pardons.

... the scandal that presents Rove with the greatest legal peril was the purging of several United States attorneys at the beginning of Bush’s second term—as well as Rove’s manipulation of the US attorney system in general, as represented by the case of former Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama, whose conviction and imprisonment for an act that was not a crime is now viewed by many observers as nothing short of a political prosecution. Rove had some knowledge of that prosecution, if not outright complicity. Fear over what he might have to reveal concerning his knowledge of or participation in the Siegelman prosecution, not to mention his apparent proclivity to influence US attorneys, seemingly prevented Rove from appearing before the House Judiciary Committee this summer, even after that committee had subpoenaed him to testify. As yet, Rove has still refused to comply with the committee’s subpoena—a flagrant obfuscation by a former government official.

Then, in September, an internal investigation at the Department of Justice concluded that the 2006 firings of the US attorneys was problematic, which prompted Attorney General Michael B. Mukasy to appoint Nora Dannehy, an acting US attorney in Connecticut, as a special prosecutor to investigate the matter. In particular, Dannehy was charged with seeking information concerning Rove’s participation, if any, in the scandal, since Rove had refused to be interviewed for the Justice Department inquiry.

As Mr. Alexander notes, timing is everything.  The president's decision would be made easier should charges be brought against Mr. Rove prior to January 20th.  Having to anticipate future charges, after the president leaves office, and issue Rove a broad, blanket pardon casts a pretty big cloud over not only Karl Rove, but George W. Bush as well.

It may also have a lot to do with how President Bush is feeling about Karl Rove right about now.  The president can't be very happy about his legacy.  Should Mr. Bush attritube some of that legacy to Mr. Rove's advice and actions, writing his signature on those pardons may prove somewhat difficult for the president.

Heroes are everywhere

USDA official takes courageous stand against interstate countercyclical potato pricing.  From the Onion: