Detailed Abstractions

Ok…. so not really, but what he stated isn’t too far off as ghosts are just as factual as the “imbalances” he claims are responsible the global recession.

Strauss-Kahn,_Dominique_(official_portrait_2008)

So what did he say?  Well, as usual, his improvable opinion, has to wrapped up in provable facts; the “global imbalance” (whole thing here via International Business Times):

…while the recovery is underway, it is not the recovery we wanted. It is a recovery beset by tensions and strains—which could even sow the seeds of the next crisis.

True.  Not only true, but also the reason why Egypt can’t be obviously predicted, as even the protesters are fighting amongst themselves.

Why?

Because the protests were born out of economic conditions and not a desire for freedom or Sharia Law.  This is why you can see the same unrest in Yemen, Jordan, the Sudan, and other countries.

This isn’t to say that a small faction, even a weak faction in Egypt like the Muslim Brotherhood, could never end up in charge.  They could.  They could use the fractured protesters against themselves towards their own aims and possibly turn Egypt into an Islamic state much like Iran.

This is a real fear.  & combine this possibility with two major changes coming to the Middle East:

1.  Iran getting *nuclear weapons with little more than talk from the international community; demonstrating they believe they are in a comfortable position of strength.

*(in 2015 or  2012, whether you believe public reports from Israel or the UK respectively)

2.  *Possible withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, leaving Iran very strong militarily.  They will immediately become the largest and most capable military force than all others in the region (great article via Stratfor).

*(Iraq doesn’t wish to be controlled by Iran anymore than the US wants this to happen.  So it’s possible the Iraqi parliament votes to keep US troops in country for insurance.)

People are naturally worried.  Either one of these alone is reason enough to fear instable states might flow towards Iran’s ideology, but when combined with everything else, concern is warranted.

The media of course has done what they do best.  Put up a false dichotomy by breaking this into only two sides; Egypt is becoming either an Islamist State or a Free Paradise.  The facts on the ground don’t support any particular conclusion at this time, but it’s tougher to write about that.

Just remember when reading the press reports that just a few short years ago most of these people were telling all of us how great Iran would become after the Green Revolution…. but I digress.

Our IMF Chief continues, using the factual and obvious instability in many countries, by warning of global imbalances, specifically (speech cont’d):

Growth in economies with large external deficits, like the U.S., is still being driven by domestic demand. And growth in economies with large external surpluses, like China and Germany, is still being powered by exports. As the IMF warned in the years leading up to the crisis—and as the G-20 has emphasized—these global imbalances….

Which is another fact.  There are trade imbalances between many countries with respects to China and Germany.  But then his facts stop, even though his words do not. (more…)

Wikileaks, that organization which released over 100K US war documents (here), is at it again.  This time, they have released US diplomatic cables (here):

…WikiLeaks released thousands of State Department documents that disclosed candid impressions from diplomats and other world leaders about America’s allies and foes. The memos also unveil occasional U.S. pressure tactics aimed at hot spots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea….

& now the stories begin – depending upon which story you read, their basic slant, and their ability to search quickly for specific keywords to make their points while ignoring the vast majority of information available, reports vary.  For instance, from Salon we see the US helping Yemen attack AQAP resulting in civilian casualties (here):

…confirms that the Obama Administration has secretly launched missile attacks on suspected terrorists in Yemen, strikes that have reportedly killed dozens of civilians….

From CSMonitor we have reports that Israel is vindicated with its policy towards Iran (here) as the cables contained:

…candid assessments from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt that Iran posed the biggest strategic threat to regional stability. The assessments even stressed the need for considering conventional attacks on Tehran before its nuclear program becomes operational….

From Bloomberg, we get news about North Korea selling weapons to Iran (here):

Iran obtained 19 advanced missiles from North Korea, potentially giving the Islamic nation the capability of attacking Moscow and cities in Western Europe, according to embassy cables posted by WikiLeaks.org and provided to the New York Times…

From eWeek, news about China’s cyber-warfare against privay (here):

China’s government was indeed behind the hack on Google’s Gmail system earlier this year according to a cable captured by the controversial Wikileaks organization….

& this is just the beginning.  With the number of documents and their contents, there is likely many more “reports” to come, but most coming this early are little more than attention seeking headlines, as all are without context.

This isn’t to say anything being reported is inaccurate, only to say that no one individual fact can be said to be indicative of any specific trend nor should it be used to shape overall analysis.

Irregardless of what reports are now stating, without question this is another serious blow to the security apparatus of the US by Wikileaks (here):

WASHINGTON – Hundreds of thousands of confidential U.S. diplomatic cables, posted online Sunday by WikiLeaks and made available to other media, are sending shudders through the diplomatic establishment and could strain relations with some countries, influencing international relations in ways that are impossible to predict.

The cables, most of them from the past three years, provide an unprecedented look at backroom bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats….

Realitically, we’re a long way a way from knowing the true impact, assuming it can ever be known.  For instance, not only could frank assessments damage relationships by revealing less than positive views the US has about their allies, but this leak could also work to reduce open discussions in the future.  (more…)

What’s going on around the web?

Jon Stewart on the “Mosque @ Ground Zero” (here).  Well worth the 6 minutes and highly illuminating.  While all news reports seem to state the same “Mosque @ Ground Zero” it’s more appropriate to say the truth:  it’s an Islamic Cultural Center close to ground zero – not on it.

Maybe it’s just me, but there seems to be a lot of faux outrage on this one.

@ ScienceBlogs.Com they have a bizarre reading of what they are calling a bizarre reading (here):

CNSNews, formerly the Christian News Service, has the most bizarre way to frame Judge Walker’s Prop 8 ruling that I’ve seen yet:

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who ruled last week that a voter-approved amendment to California’s constitution that limited marriage to the union of one man and one woman violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, based that ruling in part on his finding that a child does not need and has no right to a mother. Nor, he found, does a child have a need or a right to a father….

But if you go to the full article on CNSNews, they are specifically disputing claims the judge used in “finding of fact” papers, which ultimately were then used as justification for his ruling.

So while I probably don’t agree with CNSNews 99% of the time, they didn’t frame anything.  They didn’t make any assertions.  A judge, wrote papers which are now considered legal facts (as if a jury had made the same decision) & CNSNews responded directly to those papers.

Even if you disagree with CNSNews, I think the judge is the one who framed the debate, they just followed it by responding directly to them.

In Psychology news, apparently they’re running out of problems.   Even as the DSM has grown from 182 disorders and 34 pages long in 1968,  to 297 disorders in 886 pages in 1994 (via Wiki here), it’s not big enough.

Speakers on Sunday at the 118th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association have a new scourge to talk about:  super heroes in comic books (via EScienceNews here):

Watching superheroes beat up villains may not be the best image for boys to see if society wants to promote kinder, less stereotypical male behaviors, according to psychologists who spoke Sunday at the 118th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. “There is a big difference in the movie superhero of today and the comic book superhero of yesterday,” said psychologist Sharon Lamb, PhD, distinguished professor of mental health at University of Massachusetts-Boston. “Today’s superhero is too much like an action hero who participates in non-stop violence; he’s aggressive, sarcastic and rarely speaks to the virtue of doing good for humanity. When not in superhero costume, these men, like Ironman, exploit women, flaunt bling and convey their manhood with high-powered guns.”

The comic book heroes of the past did fight criminals, she said, “but these were heroes boys could look up to and learn from because outside of their costumes, they were real people with real problems and many vulnerabilities,” she said….

Even if I were to accept the idea that everything they are stating is true in that a) today’s superheroes are giving superheroes a bad name & that b) this affects some percentage of readers – the numbers are still too low in my estimation to warrant further research.

I mean really, what exactly is the percentage of population who routinely read comic books?

& out of all of them, not all will be effected in the same way, while most will not be impacted either way (other than knowing the comic book material itself).

My point is that while figures aren’t easy to come by, we’re probably talking about less than 1 percent of the population who routinely read comic books and only a very small percentage of them will ever be overly effected by it.

Maybe it’s just mean, but seems like a waste of time and research money.

Side note: for a better understanding of the pressing issues facing pyschology today, there is a great article via FAQs.org via The Skeptic Magazine here.

Lastly, will Israel attack Iran (debate via The Atlantic here):

In the few days since the current issue of The Atlantic came out, Jeffrey Goldberg’s cover story, “The Point of No Return,” has already prompted sharp thoughts, big feelings, and intense discussion. Among the early responses, we’ve seen a quick, widespread recognition of scope of Goldberg’s reporting and the depth of his analysis. Fred Kaplan comments over at Slate….

I don’t always concur with Mr. Goldberg, but his analysis is spot on.  The question isn’t whether Israel will do it, but when (assuming Iran continues forward with their ambitions).  The possible results of Israel having a neighboring country whose leaders have consistently espoused the complete removal of Israel and all Jews from the area, puts them at a risk level where the alternatives are limited.

To put it another way – Israel’s government, the US government, the Russian government…. all of them have the primary responsibility of keeping their nation secure & a nuclear Iran not only makes Israel quite a bit less safe, but increases the risks of a nuclear bomb being released to a degree which is simply too high for Israel to ignore.

Via WaPo (here):

UNITED NATIONS — After several months of grueling diplomacy, the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran’s military establishment — a move that the United States and other major powers said should prompt the Islamic Republic to restart stalled political talks over the future of its nuclear program….

This is seemingly good news, but the details prove otherwise.  For instance, it’s a known axiom that sanctions against Iran are unlikely to motivate Iran much if China and Russia weren’t on-board completely, yet….:

…The administration did succeed in preserving support from China and Russia, although only after assuring them that the measures would not impair their ability to continue trading with Tehran…

Not only will Russia and China continue to trade at will with Iran, but Russia will continue to help Iran with nuclear plants and military technology (via BBC here):

…Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed the missiles were not subject to the limits set by the UN on cooperation with Iran.

He said Moscow was in talks on building further nuclear reactors in Iran….

Theoretically the sanctions will hurt large business interests in Iran to put pressure on the Iranian government to come back to the table for negotiations.   But this only allows Iran more time.  They have been quite successful for several years now in extending a hand as if they are willing to negotiate, only to use that outreach to delay the international community from acting.

In reality, these sanctions seem to be both completely ineffectual and designed (intentionally or not) to allow Iran back into playing the delay game with the international community while they continue their nuclear plans.

For months since the reelection of Iranian President Dictator, protests against the Islamic regime have ebbed and flowed.  DA (Detailed Abstractions) covered the reelection farse  here & here.  While the news was dismal, massive protests started in June and continue to this day.  The most recent protests staged on December 7th (via CNN):

Now I’m not a big fan of protests in most of the free world, but these students deserve the world’s attention.  Unlike protests in America, their heroic protests are done in the face of threats of violence against not only the protestors, but their families as well  (@Stratfor):

…Iranian Prosecutor General Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejei announced Dec. 8 that “intelligence and security … forces have been ordered not to give any leeway to those who break the law, act against national security and disturb public order.”  He added that “families are responsible too if their children are arrested. They will have no right to complain.”…

Lest we forget though, every totalitarian terrorist regime in the world, is only beating  people for their own good:

“Our people can no longer take this… it is our duty to defend the rights of the people.”

That’s right – the regime is taking that stance that by actively preventing free speech through threats of violence tothe  protestors and their families they are in some way preserving the rights of others.

As Plato said:

This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.

In a story that might have more than it appears, GM announced it will not go through with a deal it announced in early summer to sell their German division Opel.

The story really first appears as the auto company bail-out was in full swing in the US.  GM had pushed a reorganization plan that cut jobs in all countries.  With German Chancellor Angela Merkel getting pressure due to the global economic crisis and facing a re-election, Opel became more important than first assumed (@BusinessWeek):

….On Tuesday, though, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Opel was not a “system-critical” corporation. “There are system-critical financial institutions,” she told her conservative party’s parliamentary group, according to the Rheinische Post newspaper. “But there are no system-critical industrial firms.” It was Merkel’s indirect way of saying that Opel is less important to Germany than its crisis-stricken banks. Her statements were intended to counter earlier comments made by the head of the left-leaning Social Democratic Party that Opel was indeed “system relevant.” She added, however, that Opel should be given a chance to survive and that like all companies, it has the “right to apply for state aid.”…

It not only became more important, but Chancellor Merkel started treating it as imperative to re-election (@France24.c0m):

Over time I’ve come to the conclusion that where news entities fail miserably is in their analysis with international politics.  Most pundits, writers, journalists, etc, seem to be able to semi-grasp domestic policies, albeit still in the usual, overly simplistic, fits-to-the-narrative type of way, but lose all rationality with respect to international affairs.

Interestingly enough, I think their failures in both domestic & international analysis stem from the same basic cause, oversimplification.  But it would seem that the degree to which it effects each type of analysis differs due to the lack of incentives private interests have in resolving inaccurate reports on international issues.

Thinking about the counter thought to international policy, domestic policy, we see incentives existing to resolve press inaccuracies.  For instance, if the press pushes inaccurate opinions and analysis which oversimplifies a given topic, a special interest group or two, plus at least one political party, and finally non-profits everywhere will try to enlighten by showing the fallacy of the common narrative.

This is because people rightfully see domestic issues as more directly impacting their lives.  The corollary is that our politicians, our leaders, our special interests, and our non-profits tend to focus where we as a society focus.

The problem that can stem from this seems intuitive – inaccurate press on international issues should be held as highly suspect, but get printed without much serious disagreement.   Since very little counters popular wisdom, this gives the press a power to change opinions and as well as spread myths.

This leads to all kinds of odd conclusions, with large swaths of people all over the planet prone to believe in things without substantial proof nor any degree of rational logic.

For instance believing that western countries are somehow to blame for poor countries with constant internal strife and corrupt governments which inefficiencies and lack of resources.  Or said another way, people all over believe in a zero sum game.  This is true not only in the international sense, but also when dealing with immigration and free trade issues.

Mistaken assumptions such as zero-sum games also lead to beliefs about what one thinks a President can actually do, versus what reality tends to dictate what will actually be done.  This leads to politicians making believable, yet highly impossible claims about given international situations.  This has been done to all recent Presidents, including President Obama when pulling a missile defense shield out of Poland & Czechoslovakia was made to appear as a rash decision amounting to abandoning our allies, when in fact it wasn’t a bad decision when concluding what options were open and what were the greatest threats to our security and security in the region (wrote about it here, though Mr. Obama went and said it had nothing to do with Russia… which was just amazing… wrote about that here).

It leads to pundits everywhere snidely remarking how this action wasn’t “tough” or that action was going to anger others because it was “unilateral”.  With little recourse, journalists  print all sorts of things without taking into any account the actual framework through which any given action action was taken, under what circumstances, with what available options, or really they just leave out anything resembling actual analysis.

Unfortunately, it seems no organization is immune.  A recent piece published in the Economist titled  Even greater expectations discussing the idiotic Nobel Prize Committee decision, is a far cry from the analysis for which the Economist is known.

They rightfully begin with the question the world was asking, “Is it premature to give Barack Obama the Nobel peace prize, less than a year into his presidency?”, but delve quickly into non-international events dressed up to seem as if change had already happened:

…Most broadly, he has sought to engage with opponents, saying that America would “extend a hand, if you unclench your fist”, for example to those who were earlier dismissed as an “axis of evil”. Somewhat to the discomfort of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had bolstered his domestic support by vilifying America as an aggressor, Mr Obama has proposed holding talks about nuclear affairs, removing a precondition that Iran first abandon enrichment of uranium. Mr Obama made withdrawal of American forces from Iraq one of the main pledges of his election campaign and has since overseen a slightly quicker run down of troops than was envisaged by Mr Bush. Towards North Korea, too, Mr Obama has dangled the prospect of bilateral talks and closer engagement.

Regarding Russia Mr Obama has developed a policy of notably warmer ties, dubbed “hitting the reset button”. Relations had become especially frosty towards the end of Mr Bush’s presidency when war broke out between Georgia, an ally of America, and Russia…

Continuing with this as reasoning:

…Yet Mr Obama’s main achievement is a change of tone in foreign policy. A speech given in Egypt in June was an eloquent call for a new understanding between America and Islam. It was designed both to assure Muslims, now thought to number 1.6 billion around the world, that America is not set on a crusade. Similarly it was intended to convey to any Americans (and others) who believe in the notion of a “clash of civilisations” that friendly ties between religions is eminently possible.

Similarly, American policy towards small and repressive regimes, ranging from Myanmar to Cuba, has shifted in mood, if not yet substance, by offering the prospect of engagement if governments demonstrate progress towards democracy…

Which to date has not only done absolutely nothing to help international cooperation, but has made our interests tougher to protect.  In nearly every UN Conference on whatever, for instance the G-20 dealing with the economic crisis, the US asks for a lot of cooperation and everyone goes their separate ways.

In some ways this is to be completely understood.  American solutions for economic issues will differ from that of Germany or the UK.  Even though the same basic problem afflicts most countries during the global recession,  their banking industries are setup with much different regulations, making the solutions for one country not necessarily compare to another country.  The separate policies might even be attempting the exact same “type” of solution, for instance increasing capital requirements, but under different systems any one specific solutions will affect different countries differently.

When it comes to reaching our hand out to those regimes, we see that North Korea, Russia, and Iran have been openly hostile to any US intents.  Iran’s deadline of October the 1st to fess up or face sanctions has come and gone, even while it was precipitated by Iran admitting to an additional enrichment facility.

And all this, including that all important warming of US-Russian relations, Russia has stated publicly the will continue to trade with Iran, meaning they will back them, if the UN, lead by the US impose stricter sanctions against Iran.

Now these situations are fluid to some extent, especially between cautious friends such as US-Russia and most of the controversial moves taken by Iran & North Korea would likely have happened to test any new US President’s resolve.

The issue is that by glossing over the realities we end up believing in myths.  Think about all that talk about “unilateral” action as if it’s a huge negative due to the controversy surrounding the last semi-unilateral decision to be made, without understanding that this is exactly as we should expect it.

No country should do something the US requests if they know in the end the analysis states otherwise.  On the international stage, Europeans, Cechs, Persians, Africians, indeed every person deserves the same representation we deserve – for their representatives to look out for their interests.

Now this can and does lead to all kinds of international policies from all different governments that appear wrong or unseemly when in truth it’s a playing field for which no one actor controls the rules which leads to countries making decisions that seem antithetical to their stated morals or goals.

It also allows one country to look at another as particularly egregious, regardless of their country’s current international policies.   It should be obvious that while beating up on your own politicians on domestic policy makes sense, doing so on the international stage is just beating yourself up.  Even if well-deserved, it’s easier to beat up on other country’s policies than it is to self reflect.

In some ways, national feeling probably affects this as well.  When most countries populations have enough information to dislike a number of other countries, going against that grain can be seen as being unpatriotic.  You certainly wouldn’t see a major political figure like Tony Blair coming to the US to air Britain’s dirty laundry or Putin to do the same in the US against Russia.

It also allows for journalists to paint country X with any brush they choose.  This helps some countries as the press will like some allies, but can obviously hurts or diminish countries for which popular sentiment doesn’t exist.

In the end, what it does is allow for a type of international superiority by enhancing nationalistic feelings.  When only reviewing other countries’ by hand picking policies, self-selecting cultural attributes, last recent controversy, crazy politicians, one can get the opinion of their general greatness over all those “other” people.

Lastly, and in my opinion, the most unfortunate consequence of this misinformation, is our inability to actually analyze international issues.  In between these simplistic news stories real trade-offs on the international stage are being made and constantly simplified.  From a high-level view the policy might appear to be utterly wrong, but in reality  might not be so.  It might simply be the least bad of all the bad options.  & it might really be the policy itself which is wrong.

For real analysis however, historical context, actions taken versus realistic options available, trends, and a number of other data points are required.  Without honest sourced information cost/benefit analysis simply isn’t possible.

I wrote last week about Mr. Obama’s decision to forgo plans to put ballistic missile defense systems in Poland.  At that time, I considered the Republican talking points to be more than excessive.

Sound bites about  appeasing Russia and abandoning our allies was disingenuous considering all the known facts.

As seems typical with this President however, is that each time I agree, he does something so stupid as to defy rational thought:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama sharply dismisses criticism that Russian opposition influenced his decision to scrap a European missile defense system, calling it merely a bonus if the leaders of Russia end up “a little less paranoid” about the U.S.

“My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians,” Obama told CBS’ “Face the Nation” in an interview for broadcast Sunday. “The Russians don’t make determinations about what our defense posture is.”…

This seems extremely hard to believe and if you analyze the situation while taking the President’s words at face value, you’re only left with one looming question, “If not for Russia, then why?”

Mr. Obama’s current position:

…In its place will be a different missile-defense plan relying on a network of sensors and interceptor missiles based at sea, on land and in the air. Obama says that adapts to the most pressing threat from Iran to U.S. troops and allies in Europe, potential attacks by short- and medium-range missiles….

Which, according to the CBO, will be more expensive and make us less safe overall.  From the report:

• Defense of Europe. All of the alternatives CBO considered would provide defense of most of Europe roughly equivalent to the defense provided by MDA’s proposal against most types of ballistic missiles that Iran is thought to have developed or could develop in the future. Because the alternatives CBO considered would locate interceptors closer to Iran than MDA’s planned system, they would generally provide more extensive defense of southeastern Europe than would MDA’s proposal. Moreover, because they would be composed of mobile or transportable components, deploying the alternative systems would not require building permanent facilities—including missile silos—at European sites.

• Extended defense of the United States. A second goal of MDA’s proposed European system is to give the United States an extra layer of defense against potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles. CBO’s analysis indicates that by 2012 systems already in place at two bases in the United States would protect more than 99 percent of the U.S. population from this threat. MDA’s proposed European system would extend defensive coverage to the other 1 percent of the U.S. population. It would also provide redundant defense from a third interceptor site for all of the continental United States, giving system operators more flexibility by creating an opportunity to launch a second interceptor from the United States, if necessary. None of the alternatives considered by CBO provide as much additional defense of the United States.

• Costs. For roughly the same cost as MDA’s European system—a total of about $9 billion to $14 billion over 20 years—the United States could deploy either of the ground-based alternatives. The ship-based alternative would cost almost twice as much as MDA’s proposal—a total of about $18 billion to $26 billion over 20 years—largely because CBO assumed that the Navy would need to buy additional ships to operate it.

• Availability. The alternatives that CBO examined might not be available as early as MDA’s proposed European system.

So again Mr. President – if this wasn’t to sooth relations with Russia and the alternative path you’ve chosen is both more expensive and makes us less safe – then why?