A sample text widget
Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
|
By Thoreau So, as I understand it, ISIS has two somewhat distinct but mutually-reinforcing aspects: There’s the “Islamic” part of Islamic State, i.e. their carefully-crafted image as a a pure and uncompromising enforcer of the most fundamentalist religious doctrines imaginable. That helps them get support from some of the locals (though far from all, as demonstrated by the huge number of refugees streaming out) and also churns out propaganda to get a certain number of outsiders to come in as volunteers. Then there’s the “State” part of Islamic State, and the “State” part seems to involve relationships with tribal chiefs and other key local figures. The key to their success is to combine deep links to the local power structure with an ideological and propaganda side that can get them a sufficient number of dedicated and fearless fighters.
I know that Saddam Hussein’s regime also had strong ties to the local power structures in the Sunni areas of Iraq. I gather that the Alawite regime of Assad didn’t have such great ties to the Sunni tribal areas of Syria. What I don’t know is how the Ottomans dealt with the Sunni tribes of that region. I know that the Ottomans kept it together for a long time, and I suspect that brutality couldn’t have been the only thing they used to make it work. I’m sure it was a factor, but was there anything else? How did culturally alien rulers in Istanbul make things work? How (if at all) did they keep the peace? Did they let the Sunnis tribes of that region do what they wanted with their internal affairs as long as they didn’t cause trouble for anyone else? Where did they draw the line that separated “internal affairs” from “trouble for anyone else”?
I ask these questions because I think that defeating ISIS is the wrong objective. ISIS is the result of a power vacuum, and it works off of ties to people who were around under the previous regime. The only reasonable objective is for the people of that area to be able to enjoy some peace, order, and a chance to improve their prosperity, and to enjoy these things in an environment that might be less liberal than we’d like for ourselves but (to set a low bar) is more liberal than they currently have. So it’s worth looking to see how people kept the trains running previously.
On the other hand, does it matter that most of Ottoman history took place before oil became such a valuable commodity on global markets? Before oil was valuable, the amount of oil under a patch of land did not factor into the desirability of that land. I suspect that whatever lines the Ottoman governors drew on a map to separate one province or jurisdiction from another, if those lines were drawn before oil mattered then it would probably be hard for any ruler (even one with deep ties to local culture) to get buy-in today for those lines and the associated political, social, and economic arrangements.
By Thoreau I recently read Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind, a book on why people wind up feeling the way that they do on politics and morality. The most important takeaway is that while people will usually offer elaborate rationales for their moral stances, in reality we start from some core of emotion or instinct, some feeling of revulsion or compassion, and then we justify it with reason. It is very, very rare (possibly to the point of non-existent) for a person to reason their way to a moral stance.
I was thinking of this in the context of abortion and gun control. I should obviously begin by assuring you, Dear Reader, that your stances on these issues are the correct ones. The topic here is not what stance you should take (since you’ve already taken the correct one) but rather how these things are discussed. Abortion is clearly an issue of moral priors: Start from a particular set of prior assumptions or sentiments, and you can get to a stance on abortion. The language around the issue reflects that: Pro-choice, pro-life, “My body, my choice”, “A child, not a choice.” Yes, now and then somebody makes a claim that could be checked against empirical evidence, e.g. something about when the nervous system of a fetus can sense pain, or something about women harmed by illicit abortions, but even those claims are calibrated to appeal to sentiments of compassion and disgust: Compassion for those claimed to be harmed, and disgust at the act of harming.
(OK, there was the Freakonomics guy and his study claiming that legalized abortion reduced the crime rate decades later, but even if we leave aside the subsequent methodological critiques I’m pretty sure that the number of people who changed their minds about abortion because of that study was precisely…hang on, let me do the math…carry the two…sum those columns…correlate these two figures…um, yeah, zero.)
Gun control, on the other hand, is an issue where everybody has their favorite statistics. Whether those statistics are accurate is irrelevant here (since your favorite statistics from Facebook are obviously the accurate ones, and the other side’s numbers are just cherry-picked); what matters is that people act as though empiricism will be persuasive. Anybody with a strong interest in gun control can go on at great length about how, According To A Recent Study Posted on Facebook, crime rates went (circle one: up, down) in states that passed (circle one: gun control laws, concealed carry laws). It is a hallmark of interest in gun control that those with strong opinions on it have numbers at the ready. The next time that there’s a high profile shooting, all of your Facebook friends will immediately post the same old numbers that they posted last time, and then argue about the numbers at least as often as they fall back on moral priors about self-defense and whatnot.
Sure, these claims are still calibrated to appeal to moral sentiments, because of course we want to see fewer crimes committed and more people successfully escaping from attackers and all that. But there’s a much nerdier flavor to the dialogue. When empiricism gets brought into abortion discussions it’s pretty short and direct: Prior to Roe vs. Wade, or in states that have tight abortion laws now, X number of women were harmed by illicit abortions. By week number whatever, a fetus has a nervous system that can feel pain. Boom, done. With gun control, it’s a lot geekier. I can’t imagine Nate Silver having much fun discussing abortion, but I feel like he could discuss gun control statistics all day, and probably correlate gun deaths with exit polls in swing states and explain how Monday night football games affected voter turnout the following day in cities with winning teams, and whether a winning football team leads to more or less gun violence after people have been drinking to celebrate.
The most naive explanation would be that people are amenable to empirical evidence on gun control. Well, maybe, at least on the margins, or among the true undecideds, but by and large the discussion of gun control has massive amounts of cultural baggage in it. Some/all of that baggage may very well be irrational, but it’s there, and it is palpable. But most people try to go beyond just asserting their moral priors. Although there’s plenty of “If it saves just one life because (circle one: a criminal couldn’t get a gun, a crime victim defended herself) it’s worth it” everybody then assures their interlocutors that it will be a lot more than one life because According To A Recent Study…
Anyway, I have no particular point to make here, but I find it fascinating that these two incredibly divisive moral issues get discussed in such different ways despite having so much cultural baggage in both cases.
By Thoreau Drones keep trying to kill a guy who is trying to negotiate a local truce with the Taliban. So he’s traveled to the UK to lobby the US, on the imperfect but optimistic theory that the US won’t send people after him there.
By Thoreau OK, match Cruz, Kasich, Trump, Clinton, and Sanders to the Final Five Cylons.
Hillary Clinton is about as Trustworthy as Tory Foster.
John Kasich is steady and boring, like Chief Tyrol.
Bernie Sanders is popular with the kids, much like sports star Samuel Anders.
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are an insane couple who are going to be stuck with each other to the end, much like the Tighes. Ted Cruz is more stable than Trump, but I never figured out whether functional alcoholic Saul Tighe was more stable or less stable than Ellen Tighe. Then again, Ellen was willing to blow Cavil, who turned out to be her progeny, just as Trump has talked about how hot his daughter is, so I guess he’s Ellen Tighe.
By Thoreau I haven’t always agreed with Megan McArdle, but this piece is well worth reading. Choice excerpts:
Instead of asking how we have ended up with an economy that offers stability and reward only to the holders of a college diploma, and how we might change that, elites of both parties focus on the things they want for themselves. Republicans offer tax cuts and deregulation, as if everyone in America were going to become an entrepreneur. Democrats offer free college tuition and paid maternity leave, as if these things were a great benefit to people who don’t have the ability, preparation or inclination to sit through four years of college, and as a result, can’t find a decent job from which to take their leave.
While there are a lot of things on the parties’ agendas that primarily benefit the educated, there are very few that primarily benefit people who aren’t like us. The implicit assumption of elites in both parties is that the solution for the rest of the country is to become more like us, either through education or entrepreneurship. Rarely does anyone discuss how we might build an economy that works for people who aren’t like us and don’t want to turn into us.
Interesting (and probably appropriate) that she includes herself among the elites. That’s a candor that too many writers lack.
And this:
Democrats convinced that they have the answer to populism in the form of more social welfare programs are as gravely mistaken as the Republicans who focused on the same old pro-business program while the populist revolution was rising in their own party. Populist movements do not arise because people are desperately worried about inadequate tuition subsidies. They arise because people are worried about their physical security and their ability to make a decent life for themselves.
And “for themselves” is the important phrase in that sentence. Of course it is true that no man is an island; anything you have beyond what you could wring out of the land with your own hands without benefit of modern tools is as much a product of the society around you as it is of your own efforts. But that does not mean that most people will be content to be the well-fed wards of that society, or for that matter, to be the wardens. Most people want to be in a reciprocal relationship with the society around them, providing valued labor in return for valued goods and services. Giving them the goods and services without the work is as unsatisfying as giving someone an Olympic gold medal for a sport they’ve never competed in.
There is no better example of the folly of the elites than the current fashion for a universal basic income among both liberals and libertarians. Instead of trying to figure out something hard, like how to build an economy that provides adequate work for everyone, the idea is to do something easy, like give them checks.
Too few people on either side want to talk about an economy of finance, service jobs, and cheap imported plastic crap.
I have no easy answers to give, and neither does she, but asking the questions is better than denying the problem. There’s more sense in this article than anything coming from the Final Five.
By Thoreau One theory to which Jim and I have stubbornly clung is that Scott Walker would have been a forced to be reckoned with if Trump hadn’t sucked the oxygen out of the room. However, Daniel Larison makes a case for why Wisconsin could never be Trump territory. If the state that voted for Walker in no fewer than three gubernatorial contests (one of them a recall attempt that he beat back thanks to his core of support) has a GOP primary electorate that is inhospitable to Trump, then I do have some things to reconsider.
It also occurs to me that most of my pondering of Trump and his supporters has really been a discussion of why it would be rational for people to dislike Trump’s critics. However, that is different from knowing why people actually support Trump. I don’t actually know why, and I won’t know why unless I actually pay attention to them, and not just pay attention to reasons to disagree with people who disagree with Trump. I could (and probably should) read Thomas Frank’s Listen Liberal, but even that seems to really be a book about liberals, not a book about people who aren’t liberals. I can sit here and come up with ten million reasons why people might disagree with liberals, but that’s all theorizing, not empiricism.
By Jim Henley Someone on Twitter was encouraging everyone to point out their Hugo-eligible works while the nomination period is still open. (It closes on 3/31/16 for this year.) I am, like half the internet, theoretically eligible for Best Fan Writer, being a fan who writes. Most Hugos are for specific works, a few, like Best Fan Writer and the Best Artist awards, are for the person based on their body of work for the year. So here’s a my body of work.
The Shortlist – very happy to be judged on the basis of these:
Jessica Jones (and Her Amazing Friends): A Netflix Original Series – My rave review, with special praise for Trish Walker.
Marvel’s Daredevil: A Somewhat Original Series on Netflix – My review. Evaluation: mixed.
Social Engineer-ing – Picking up on Ken Burnside’s calm, pro-Puppy recap of the Hugo controversy, I talk about how “competence porn” and military/adventure SF are no less about reader-identification and representation than “box-checking” diversity-foregrounding fiction.
Fermi Conundrum Redux: The Singularity as Great Big Zero? – In essay in the coveted category of original buzzkill. I think it’s original to me, anyway. Why the so-called “Fermi Paradox” may mean Strong AI isn’t a thing.
Easy Travel to Other Planets – Just a pointer to some “Why Man Will Never Conquer Space” writing I did in comments on File 770.
Walloping Heads With Master’s Tools – Taking off from a comment on George RR Martin’s livejournal. Yes, you’re racist for using that racial slur, basically.
Jim’s Rule of Buts – Not directly fannish, but useful there too.
All Cretans Are the Great Filter – Short but literally the most important thing anyone has ever written*: where my campaign to stop calling the “Fermi Paradox” the Fermi Paradox because it’s not a paradox at all just a conundrum begins.
From the Department of More:
How to Stop Worrying and Start Loving the Ancillary Novels (If You’re Not a Liberal) – My ‘splainer for uptight conservatives who could stand to have a little fun. Predates the release of Ancillary Mercy, which I reviewed on Amazon.
Short Lists: Apex Magazine Sep ’15 – Overview of short fiction in the issue. I liked and loved one story each, respectively, out of five.
Short Lists: Galaxy’s Edge Sep ’15 – Overview of short fiction in the issue. I loved two of seven new stories and quite liked two of the four reprints.
Short Lists: Apex Aug ’15 – Overview of short fiction in the issue. About half of it I kinda liked or a little better.
Victory Points, or, Xanatos Was a Punk – My pre-Hugo stake in the ground regarding what would count as “winning” and “losing” in a controversial year. In the end, the skunks at the picnic suffered an overwhelming defeat.
The Puppies of This Generation and the Trainers of Ever Afterwards – Less about the Hugo controversy itself than an argument that quality markers don’t (shouldn’t) define genre, including the genre we call “literary.”
The SF Kids Are Alright, But Not Puppies – I observe the millennial generation coming up at Capclave, a local sercon.
———————
*May not actually be the most important thing anyone has ever written.
By Thoreau I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Muslim groups need to skip the “We are deeply shocked and saddened and express solidarity with the victims…” language of high-minded do-g0oders. That may sound good to the sorts who were already planning to show up to the Awareness-Raising Event anyway, but it won’t win over the people that they need to win over. Instead, they should release the following statement:
We at the Council on American/Islamic Relations have only one thing to say about the terrorists who set off bombs in Belgium:
Fuck those guys. That is all.
That message would probably poll pretty well with the people who were planning to vote for Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.
By Thoreau News reports indicate that one of the bombings in Brussels happened by an airport security line. So many people packed together in one place makes for an ideal target. I’m kind of surprised this didn’t happen sooner.
I’m 100% certain that the response in the US will be even longer security lines.
By Thoreau In the comments on the previous post, Mark Palko points us to this by Josh Marshall:
But they would be far more credible if so many Republicans – not necessarily the same writers, but countless formal and informal spokespersons including numerous high-ranking elected officials – hadn’t spent the last seven years ranting that the temperamentally cautious and cerebral Barack Obama was a ‘dictator’ who was trampling the constitution.
There’s a lot that should concern one about the Obama administration from a civil liberties standpoint. His administration consolidated and entrenched far too many things from the Bush years, and then pushed some of them beyond what was envisioned in the Bush years. But Obama is definitely not a dictator, in that he is not of the “rule by one man” temperament. Under the Obama Administration, drone assassinations would not happen by the whim of one man, but as part of a careful process overseen by a number of amoral professionals acting through proper channels of communication and issuing reports with recommendations based on reviews by a committee. As macabre as that is, there are many ways that a system can be illiberal, and not all of them are dictatorial. Let us be glad that the system has not yet slipped loose of its own need for a self-legitimizing semblance of procedure. It might not look like the procedure that a civil libertarian or constitutional lawyer would recognize as due, but it’s enough procedure to make the system’s excesses self-limiting (for now).
Trump, on the other hand, is clearly the sort who would say “I gave an order, I don’t want to hear anything about procedures, now go blast that guy or you’re fired.”
|
In Memoriam
Still Doin' It
|
