Considering "Climategate"

I'm opposed to the Waxman-Markey bill. Not because I don't "believe" that human actions can cause changes in the climate, but because I think the W-M bill makes way too many assumptions about exactly how much humans impact the climate and in our ability to reverse that impact. My skepticism is rooted in the work of Bjorn Lomborg and his more conservative outlook on climate change and on the importance of resilience versus assuming we can turn some huge dial and make global temperatures go in the directions we wish.

So now that I've found out that there are numerous questions about the validity of current climate change models I am less than surprised:

The emails seem to describe a model which frequently breaks, and being constantly "tweaked" with manual interventions of dubious quality in order to make them fit the historical data.  These stories suggest that the model, and the past manual interventions, are so poorly documented that CRU cannot now replicate its own past findings.

That is a big problem.  The IPCC report, which is the most widely relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs of global warming.  If those costs are unreliable, then any cost-benefit analysis is totally worthless.

Again, none of this means that "global warming" isn't "real" or "true". All this means is that our ability to gather and interpret data is hamstrung by human frailty. We are - all of us - eternally dealing with scarce resources, be it time, money or knowledge. To me, that is a reason to take a measured, cautious approach to constructing public policies which we intend to affect extremely complex issues. In the case of climate change, this is a good reason not to pass either a so-called "cap and trade" system or even a carbon tax, because we simply do not have enough data to construct a sensible policy response to this situation.    

Obama and the IOC: A Knucklehead Move

(h/t to I hate Linux for the pic)

I was not a person who criticized the president for trying to bring the Olympics to Chicago - because I think its not only ok but admirable when the president is a booster for team America.

But Obama's Copenhagen trip was a real screw up.

The president is an accomplished attorney and former law professor, so he should know that the first rule of being a lawyer is that you never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer (at least not in public).

Promoting a great American city for the Olympics was not his sin; his sin was not looking before he leaped. Obama should have only gone to Copenhagen if he already had the IOC sewn up (and if there was no room for him to know that; no back channel negotiations; then the trip should have been a no go). Frankly, a pissant NGO like to the IOC should be so honored that the U.S. president took time out of his day to meet with them they should do what he asks, and if they aren't willing to do that then they don't get to meet him.

President Obama is under estimating the power of the presidency and over estimating the power of Obama. He thought that somehow his personal appeal would overcome fashionable Euro-Trash anti-Americanism, and it didn't. At the same time, he didn't even consider that a presidential visit to an NGO should be a special treat to reward good behavior (every judge on that panel took a picture and went home and told their kids "I just met Obama!") and not a tag along with Oprah.

This dichotomy, overestimating his own abilities and under estimating the power of the office, could become very dangerous if it is not brought to heal ASAP. Obama should start running ALL of his foreign affairs decisions; whether on trade, immigration, security, or visits with Euro-Trash dilettantes, by Hillary Clinton or Bob Gates. Clinton and Gates have the judgment and experience to keep Obama on the right track so long as he keeps the lines of communication open and pays attention to the advice he receives.

The New Core Gets the New Olympics: Congratulations Rio!

A Red Dawn Over Vietnam: The Myth of the Invincible Guerrilla

I've been thinking a bit about an early/mid 80's phenomena that painted the guerrilla as the ultimate/unstoppable hero and how that reflected America's confusion and disillusionment at the outcome of our interventions in Southeast Asia.

Vietnam movies of the 1970s tended to be overtly anti-establishment and its notable that several of the most popular movies of the era prominently feature a patricide as a central turning point. Films such as Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now  and of course the Star Wars Trilogy depict characters who struggle against, and must eventually defeat, corrupt yet charismatic father-authority figures. The message is clear: The failing is not our own - it is these evil men who have led us astray. It's Johnson. It's Nixon. Once their generation is unseated and reins of the power have passed to a new generation there will be justice.

 But by the early 1980s, with the U.S. still trying the reconcile the loss of Saigon and the tremendous price we paid, American story tellers were drawn to a new and more exciting explanation: The fault lay not with our leaders but with our enemy - thus was born The Myth of the Invincible Guerrilla. The Myth of the Invincible Guerrilla has 1 central tenet: guerrilla wars are everywhere and always un-winnable (the overwhelming U.S. victory in our 45-year war against the plains Indians notwithstanding) no matter what the larger, better equipped conventional army does. So in Red Dawn, Americans got to be the guerrillas against the Soviets, but the larger message was that the guerrilla will always win - he will always be faster, smarter and more lethal than the "professional" solider. And the conventional army will always pay a tremendous price for daring to run afoul of the insurgents.

This message was also found in the V miniseries and was pumped up on steroids in movies like Rambo: First Blood II and Missing in Action - films where the guerrilla becomes the hero and because he travels lighter and moves faster than the conventional army he will always win. The guerrilla's opponent changed too - gone were the Vaderesque/Nixonian father figure to lead us astray in the patricide films of the late 1970s, they were replaced by the legions of nameless/faceless bureaucratic henchmen. Walter Kurtz was a Mao-like misguided idealist and Darth Vader was a monk turned to the dark side - but in the 1980s an Invincible Guerrilla faced a cadre of Dilberts, as likely to be armed with Uzis as clipboards, who would do little more than provide the guerrilla with target practice on his way to the end credits.    

The guerrilla/hero was a convenient post-Vietnam archetype because he absolved America of the sins of Vietnam. By being "invincible" he lets America say "See, nobody can beat a small group of fighters who run around in the country side! They're unstoppable!" This let us put the trauma of Vietnam behind us and write our involvement in Southeast Asia off as a failed experiment in attempting to fight an "un-winnable war" against an "un-deflatable" enemy.

The Man Who Fell to Earth - The Musical!

The above video are clips of the classic 1976 film staring David Bowie juxtaposed with a song from the upcoming Broadway stage version of the story. Bowie is apparently involved in writing the music. They should get Adam Pascal for the lead.

Just a small town girl, living in a lonley world...

I read a story today of the BBC website about the end of the Sopranos that sort of struck me. This comment reminds me of a paper I wrote for a sociology class I had two years ago:

Mr Jaafar also explains that after 11 September 2001, the US was more willing to accept "darker fare and more serious material" on TV.

"You can see a changing landscape on American TV after 9/11 - The Sopranos was one of the first, followed by 24 and The Shield - gritty, well-written, expensive shows," he says.

Such fare stood out against a "barrage of reality and non-scripted TV programmes", he adds.

In my paper, entitled "The Dawning of a Doom Struck Era: How 9/11 Changed the content of Prime Time T.V., I used the plot lines for The West Wing, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the Shield to demonstrate how television changed in the wake of the September 11th attacks.

Let's be clear: This paper was written for a 100 level sociology course taught by an instructor with low standard, we were only required 2 sources.

And the Paper:

September 11th changed nearly every aspect of American life, and prime time T.V. was no exception. Shows such as Fox’s 24 and ABC’s Alias depicted brave, dedicated patriots who spent each episode locked in mortal combat with super-empowered non-state actors. The story lines for major network shows in 2001-2002 also brought moral dilemmas that pre -9/11 prime time protagonist rarely faced. Shows such as The West Wing, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and The Shield depicted characters forced to commit morally ambiguous acts of violence in the name of preventing the death or injury of innocent bystanders. The best illustration of post 9/11 sensibilities occurred on NBC’s “The West Wing,” in the episode entitled “Posse Comitatus,” when President Josiah Bartlet was forced to order the pre-emptive assassination of the defense minister of the fictional country of Qumar, who was planning a major terrorist attack on the U.S.

The third season of The West Wing premiered in late September of 2001 and from the start the producers were trying to find a way to deal with the terrorist attack on New York and Washington. The first episode of the season was not part of the regular story line, rather, it was a one-act teleplay written by Aaron Sorkin that attempted to put the events of 9/11 in perspective and assuage a grieving nation. The episode was entitled “Isaac and Ishmael.” Although well meaning, it did little to shed new light on the challenges brought on by terrorism and focused mainly on the Arab-Israeli conflict (a cause rarely mentioned by Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11) and American prejudices against Arabs. The episode also related misinformation, for example, the characters mention that most of “the terrorists” come from refugee camps and extreme poverty. In reality, most of the 9/11 hijackers were the sons of wealthy men who had been educated at some of the finest universities in the world.

Aaron Sorkin, head writer and producer of The West Wing, finally began to explore a more complex post 9/11 world at the end of the third season in a four episode arc that began with an episode entitled “Enemies Foreign and Domestic.” Post September 11th fears were explored throughout the story arc. For example, in “Enemies Foreign and Domestic,” Leo McGary tells Bartlett that he should “Get himself into a mental place where he can order an unidentified plane shot down.” This was obviously a reference to the situation on the morning of 9/11 when Vice President Cheney reluctantly gave an order allowing the Air Force to shoot down any plane that refused to land.

Another post September 11th fear that was explored in the story line was the target list of the terrorists. The president’s advisers warn him that buildings in Washington, including the White House, were considered possible targets. Again, this is a reflection of 9/11, when the Pentagon was hit directly and either the White House or the Capital may have been a target of flight 93.

Bartlett’s actions in the face of these terrorists’ threats are a reflection of the post September 11th notion of preemption as a doctrine of national security. His first instinct was to order his Attorney General to prepare an indictment of Sharif, but the A.G. informed Bartlet that Sharif, as an emissary of the Sultan of Qumar, enjoys diplomatic immunity. Bartlett is then pressured by Leo McGary to order Shariff’s assassination during Shariff’s upcoming visit.

It is important to look at earlier seasons of the West Wing to understand why the post September 11th season was different. During the first season, in an episode entitled “A Proportional Response,” Leo argues that Bartlet cannot use the U.S. military arbitrarily or for personal vengeance. In the second season, in an episode entitled “The War at Home,” Leo actually argues against the assassination of a Colombian drug lord named Juan Aquilar. This trend indicates that the writers made a decision to take the story in a new direction in the wake of 9/11.

The West Wing was not the only show to change its characters and story lines to reflect the post 9/11 realities. The WB’s “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” which had previously always used a super natural villain as the season long antagonist (generally known as “the big bad” or “the evil”) featured humans as “the evil” during the 2001-2002 season. The end of the season brought the death of Willow’s girlfriend, Tara, at the hands of evildoer Warren. Unlike previous seasons, in which characters fought and died at the hands of medieval weapons such as cross bows and swords, Warren uses a pistol to shoot Tara in the chest. The 2001-2002 season marked the first time a firearm was used to kill any character on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The post 9/11 season also marked the first time that a member of the “Scooby Gang,” (the shows protagonist who fought against super natural villains in Sunnydale, California) killed a mortal. Willow killed Warren in revenge for murdering Tara. In the episode entitled, “Two to Go,” Buffy, Dawn, Anaya and Xander debate weather or not it was right to kill Warren, and Xander argues that Warren “Got what he deserved,” and that it is okay to kill a human who commits an act of evil. This is a view that was never expressed in previous seasons (members of the “gang” had always been forbidden from hurting mortals) and, like The West Wing, these new plot twists indicated a much darker, more morally ambivalent tone for the show.

The reason T.V. writers choose to deal with both terrorism and the type of warfare that must be conducted to combat it is because American’s were frightened by the events of 9/11 and studies show that many Americans were deeply concerned that they or someone they knew would be a victim of terrorism. In the article, The Consequences of Terrorism: Disentangling the Effects of Personal and National Threat, (Huddy, Feldman, Capelos and Provost 2002) the authors describe a survey taken between October and November of 2001 in the New York metropolitan area. They reported that 82% of respondents were at least somewhat concerned about a major terrorist attack on the U.S. in the near future and 70% were afraid that they or someone they knew would be injured or killed in a terrorist attack. These results seem to indicate that many Americans were personally frightened by the 9/11 attacks, although, as the authors point out, only a very small minority was actually affected by the attacks directly.

Another study, entitled Effects of Right Wing Authoritarianism and Threat from Terrorism on Restriction of Civil Liberties (Corrs, Kielmann, Maes, Moschner 2005) looked at the way fear affected peoples views on suppression of civil liberties. The study was conducted over the course of several months following the September 11th attacks and indicated that many people become more willing to accept the suppression of civil liberties in exchange for security in the face of threats from terrorism.
This study brings us around to another show that enjoyed tremendous success in the 2001-2002-television season, FX Network’s “The Shield.” From the first episode the show made a hero of Vic Mackey, an LAPD detective who never let a suspect’s civil rights slow him down. Although there was never a terrorism plot line in The Shield, post 9/11 fears and sensibilities were palpable throughout the season. For example, in the first episode, entitled “Pilot”, Vic beats a suspect who had asked to speak to his attorney until the man reveals the location of a kid-napped little girl. The man was not a terrorist, but it is easy to see how harsh interrogation techniques might appeal to an audience worried, as the Huddy survey indicated, that another terror attack was eminent. When Vic went into that interrogation room the audience might have imagined Zacharious Moussouri or Richard Reid (the “shoe bomber”) sitting across the table. Assuming the findings of the study on authoritarianism and threat were valid, the fact that Vic Mackey became so popular in the wake of 9/11 is no surprise. Every time he beat a criminal or intimidated a witness Americans saw a man of action who would protect them by any mean necessary.

This brings us back to The West Wing and “Posse Comitatus.” President Bartlett was not cut out for a world where Vic Mackey was a folk hero. Bartlett belonged to last century, to the roaring 90’s and the days when POTUS was little more than a CEO and chief. The whole show reflected a simpler, more innocent time. When The West Wing premiered 1999 it offered the optimistic view that government was a place for people to come together. For two years the audience went to work each week with a group of smart, dedicated public servants who strove to raise the level of debate in America and maybe help a few people in the process. The president’s chief of staff, Leo McGary, had the simple goal of proving that it was possible for a good man to get elected. And Bartlett was a good man, a former economics professor and Noble laureate who was always ready to reassure with a smile and a quote from scripture (sometimes in Latin). The West Wing was a vision of the 90’s as we wished they had been. On 9/11 that vision came crashing down. “Posse Comitatus” represented this incredibly optimistic show finally facing the realities of its time. Ultimately, this episode depicted the veil of carefree innocence that had embodied the 1990’s being torn away. At the end of the episode Bartlett says to Leo “It’s just wrong, it’s absolutely wrong,” Leo responds with a nod and says, “I know, but you have to do it anyway.” Bartlett then turns away and delivers the order, “Take him.” The next scene depicts a team of Army Rangers opening fire on Shariff as he steps off his plane.

This year will mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11. This year will also mark the seventeenth anniversary of 11/9, the day the Berlin wall came down. The dozen years that separate those two events were marked by a towering sense of optimism. And when that optimism was laid low by a bolt from a clear September sky, popular culture, especially prime time T.V., reflected feelings of foreboding and the sense that we were living in what Hunter S. Thompson called a “doom struck era.” Nowhere was the loss of innocence more pronounced, or the sense of foreboding more profound, then in the alternative reality of Jeb Bartlett’s White House, which had once represented the best of all possible worlds.



REFRENCES:
Cohrs, Christopher. Kielmann, Sven. Maes, Jurgen. And Mochner, Barbara. “Effects of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Threat from Terrorism on Restriction of Civil Liberties.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2005, pp. 263-276

Capelos, Theresa. Feldman, Stanley. Huddy, Leonie. And Provost, Colin. “The Consequences of Terrorism: Disentangling the Effects of Personal and National Threat.” Political Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2002 pp. 1-25