The Pew Research Center this week released a poll in which 18% of Americans claimed President Obama is Muslim. This is an increase of 7% from March 2009. While most attention has been focused on those figures, including other less-reported portions is more informative. For example, the number of people who claimed not to know whether Obama is a Christian increased by 9%, while the number stating that he is a Christian decreased by 14%, including a 9% decrease among Democrats.
Given all of these statistics, the Pew Research Center’s press release title "Growing Number of Americans Say Obama is a Muslim” appears misleading and sensationalist. The most honest interpretation would be: “Fewer Americans Sure of Obama’s Christianity.”
Being an agnostic and a secularist, it offends me that Obama’s religion is even taken as an important topic, but I accept that most Americans are not agnostics and secularists who share all of my values. From a pragmatic standpoint President Obama clearly has to do more to communicate his Christianity if it threatens his re-election.
Nonetheless, I am reminded of John McCain’s presidential campaign, when he was credited with defending Obama against criticisms of being “an Arab.” McCain called Obama a “family man, citizen” and encouraged his supporters to “be respectful.” The defense was so minimal and token that the praise it garnered for civil politics in America is just embarrassing.
That said, with the news this week, not even a defense as weak as that has been mustered by the leaders of the Republican Party, including John McCain. I haven’t seen any commentary from a Republican leader defending Obama’s Christianity--I invite anyone to find it for me.
Surely, this defense is the primary duty of Obama’s PR department, and not the Republican Party’s, but considering the religious right has been mobilized by the Republican Party, they presumably have some responsibility over the monster when it goes racist and irrational.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
How to Train Your Dragon Review
On my flight from Hong Kong to Los Angeles I watched How to Train Your Dragon. I was only interested because it had received very positive reviews earlier this year (Note: I never read film reviews before I see a movie, but I pay attention to the general consensus as a guide for my time and money).
The film follows the teenage prince of a Viking kingdom in a generational war with marauding dragons. This prince is much smaller, less violent, and interestingly less Scottish than the other Vikings. When he discovers a grounded dragon with a missing tail-wing, the two form a friendship, and eventually the prince convinces his warrior-father that the Vikings and dragons do not have to be existential enemies.
What I found most interesting was that in the happy ending where Vikings and dragons live “side-by-side,” the dragons are not equals, but the domesticated friendly pets of the Vikings. This didn’t sit right with me.
It suggests that instead of killing our enemies, we should simply dominate them peacefully. If only we understood and trusted each other, they would accept our benevolent mastership.
In my mind it contrasted with the science fiction novel Ender’s Game, which I recently read, in which humans and the alien race they destroy are portrayed as equal species that were incapable of understanding the other’s peaceful intentions. The moral there is that enemies might be able to coexist if they just try to understand each other and resist their fears, which I think is a more applicable lesson.
Instead How to Train Your Dragon resembles films like Gone with the Wind, in which the simple slaves serve their owners with smiles and good humor. That might not be a fair comparison, but I’ll criticize any modern film that even reasonably invites the parallel.
The film follows the teenage prince of a Viking kingdom in a generational war with marauding dragons. This prince is much smaller, less violent, and interestingly less Scottish than the other Vikings. When he discovers a grounded dragon with a missing tail-wing, the two form a friendship, and eventually the prince convinces his warrior-father that the Vikings and dragons do not have to be existential enemies.
What I found most interesting was that in the happy ending where Vikings and dragons live “side-by-side,” the dragons are not equals, but the domesticated friendly pets of the Vikings. This didn’t sit right with me.
It suggests that instead of killing our enemies, we should simply dominate them peacefully. If only we understood and trusted each other, they would accept our benevolent mastership.
In my mind it contrasted with the science fiction novel Ender’s Game, which I recently read, in which humans and the alien race they destroy are portrayed as equal species that were incapable of understanding the other’s peaceful intentions. The moral there is that enemies might be able to coexist if they just try to understand each other and resist their fears, which I think is a more applicable lesson.
Instead How to Train Your Dragon resembles films like Gone with the Wind, in which the simple slaves serve their owners with smiles and good humor. That might not be a fair comparison, but I’ll criticize any modern film that even reasonably invites the parallel.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Big Lie or Little Lie: Pick Your Poison
The current requirements for classifying information in the United States are outlined in Executive Order 13526, signed by President Obama on December 29, 2009. The order says that information can only be classified if it:
--Will bring some identifiable and describable damage to national security
--Involves information from a foreign government
--Involves covert action or cryptology
--Involves the safety of nuclear facilities, weapons systems, or infrastructure
--Involves the production or use of weapons of mass destruction
It also says that information can NOT be classified in order to:
--Conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error
--Prevent embarrassment
--Keep information that doesn't threaten national security secret
Much has been written about WikiLeaks' recent release of tens of thousands of documents regarding the War in Afghanistan. As far as I have seen, all of this literature has been focused on whether the information is important, analyzing what these documents tell us about the war, and analyzing the consequences for the administration, the war effort, and WikiLeaks.
Administration officials generally responded that the release of the information is illegal and irresponsible. WikiLeaks and the newspapers that broke the story all said they only released documents they didn’t consider harmful. For example, The New York Times wrote, “The Times has taken care not to publish information that would harm national security interests . . . We would not disclose . . . anything that was likely to put lives at risk or jeopardize military or antiterrorist operations.”
So, the government promises to classify information only if its release would harm national security. WikiLeaks and three newspapers say they haven’t released anything that would harm national security. Clearly the government and these news organizations have a profound disagreement.
Consider the report of a soldier shooting and wounding a deaf and mute civilian because of a misunderstanding. According the report, the civilian was frightened by the soldiers and ran away. The soldiers, unaware that he could not hear, fired warning shots until finally shooting the civilian in the ankle so as only to wound him. This incident is obviously unfortunate, but why was it classified? How would its release harm national security? False retellings of the report could be used by our enemies as propaganda, but I don’t accept that we have to classify everything that could conceivably inspire fictitious stories to make us look bad. Moreover, it doesn’t match the current regulations regarding what information should be classified. There isn’t an identifiable and describable consequence of releasing the information, only hypothetical consequences. I presume this document was classified to “prevent embarrassment,” or minimize the Afghan and American publics’ knowledge of how the War in Afghanistan is harming civilians, even by accident.
Or consider the report about an aid project in which the military built an orphanage for 102 children. Months later, they discovered that the money had not reached the children, and the orphanage only had 30 children, not 102. This doesn’t harm national security, except that it suggests a strategy isn’t working. Once again a document is classified to “prevent embarrassment” and conceal “administrative error.”
As I see it, the classification of these documents is illegal and against my rights. Put another way, it’s my right to know if a bullet I helped pay for found its way into an innocent man’s ankle, whether it makes my government look bad or not.
There are several counter-stances one could reasonably take. First, I have used President Obama’s executive order, and all of these events took place before that order was issued. I have done so because I could not find a similar executive order from President George W. Bush. I assume--perhaps incorrectly--that if I did it would have very similar guidelines. If there were differences, then documents that did not reach the new administration’s standards for secrecy should have been declassified.
One might also argue that for the success of a hearts and minds campaign, the military has to conceal information that could be used to turn the Afghan public against NATO forces. But the priority of a hearts and minds campaign must be not shooting civilians, as opposed to pretending you’re not shooting civilians.
I accept that my government needs to keep some secrets. But I put a high price on my knowledge of what our military is doing and whether it’s working. I haven’t seen other columnists or pundits claim that the classification of these documents represents an alarmingly shallow regard for democracy. To make sure I consulted a blog on The New York Times that listed different writers' and bloggers' reactions to the leaks, and I didn’t find one that complained, as I am, that the classification of these documents was an overreach by the military and the government into my rights as a citizen. More than anything else about this story, that’s what frightens me.
--Will bring some identifiable and describable damage to national security
--Involves information from a foreign government
--Involves covert action or cryptology
--Involves the safety of nuclear facilities, weapons systems, or infrastructure
--Involves the production or use of weapons of mass destruction
It also says that information can NOT be classified in order to:
--Conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error
--Prevent embarrassment
--Keep information that doesn't threaten national security secret
Much has been written about WikiLeaks' recent release of tens of thousands of documents regarding the War in Afghanistan. As far as I have seen, all of this literature has been focused on whether the information is important, analyzing what these documents tell us about the war, and analyzing the consequences for the administration, the war effort, and WikiLeaks.
Administration officials generally responded that the release of the information is illegal and irresponsible. WikiLeaks and the newspapers that broke the story all said they only released documents they didn’t consider harmful. For example, The New York Times wrote, “The Times has taken care not to publish information that would harm national security interests . . . We would not disclose . . . anything that was likely to put lives at risk or jeopardize military or antiterrorist operations.”
So, the government promises to classify information only if its release would harm national security. WikiLeaks and three newspapers say they haven’t released anything that would harm national security. Clearly the government and these news organizations have a profound disagreement.
Consider the report of a soldier shooting and wounding a deaf and mute civilian because of a misunderstanding. According the report, the civilian was frightened by the soldiers and ran away. The soldiers, unaware that he could not hear, fired warning shots until finally shooting the civilian in the ankle so as only to wound him. This incident is obviously unfortunate, but why was it classified? How would its release harm national security? False retellings of the report could be used by our enemies as propaganda, but I don’t accept that we have to classify everything that could conceivably inspire fictitious stories to make us look bad. Moreover, it doesn’t match the current regulations regarding what information should be classified. There isn’t an identifiable and describable consequence of releasing the information, only hypothetical consequences. I presume this document was classified to “prevent embarrassment,” or minimize the Afghan and American publics’ knowledge of how the War in Afghanistan is harming civilians, even by accident.
Or consider the report about an aid project in which the military built an orphanage for 102 children. Months later, they discovered that the money had not reached the children, and the orphanage only had 30 children, not 102. This doesn’t harm national security, except that it suggests a strategy isn’t working. Once again a document is classified to “prevent embarrassment” and conceal “administrative error.”
As I see it, the classification of these documents is illegal and against my rights. Put another way, it’s my right to know if a bullet I helped pay for found its way into an innocent man’s ankle, whether it makes my government look bad or not.
There are several counter-stances one could reasonably take. First, I have used President Obama’s executive order, and all of these events took place before that order was issued. I have done so because I could not find a similar executive order from President George W. Bush. I assume--perhaps incorrectly--that if I did it would have very similar guidelines. If there were differences, then documents that did not reach the new administration’s standards for secrecy should have been declassified.
One might also argue that for the success of a hearts and minds campaign, the military has to conceal information that could be used to turn the Afghan public against NATO forces. But the priority of a hearts and minds campaign must be not shooting civilians, as opposed to pretending you’re not shooting civilians.
I accept that my government needs to keep some secrets. But I put a high price on my knowledge of what our military is doing and whether it’s working. I haven’t seen other columnists or pundits claim that the classification of these documents represents an alarmingly shallow regard for democracy. To make sure I consulted a blog on The New York Times that listed different writers' and bloggers' reactions to the leaks, and I didn’t find one that complained, as I am, that the classification of these documents was an overreach by the military and the government into my rights as a citizen. More than anything else about this story, that’s what frightens me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)