Lots of burbling online over the protest sign -- supposed to have been taken at some anti-China protest related to the Olympic Torch back in April. I've seen a few credit it to San Francisco and a pro-Tibet rally. Les posted about it most recently. And, of course, the obvious retort is, "Um, yes, we did."

Three things:

1. I've not researched it exhaustively, but I can't find an actual solid news source (or any original source) for the picture. There is every possibility, I think that it's Photoshopped, rather than legit.  Note how crisp the letters are vs. the other parts of the image, though that could be a matter of focal depth. Second, how many protest signs would start with the phrase "Would we have ...?" That's a long phrase for signage, which is usually pithy and punchy to the point of incoherence. It just seems ... too obvious a setup. But, I'll confess, I could be wrong.

2. We don't "allow" any given country to host the Olympics. The host is chosen by the IOC, in which "we" (the US) have a voice. Unless the "we" refers to the International Community as a whole.
3. As has been noted elsewhere (see the comments to Les' post), while there were already a lot of troubling signs from Germany in 1936, that country wasn't yet outwardly that much worse than a lot of other nations lurking around at that point -- and certainly the US treatment of Jesse Owens was nothing to brag about. (Plus, the hosting decision was made in 1931, before the Nazi party had come to power.)

As to the merits of China hosting the Olympics, our participation therein, or the whole Olympic Movement itself -- that's another story.

I'm still not convinced it's readl.

Filed under :: Geopolitical Brouhaha :: Media - Sports
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (1) · Pings (0) · TR/G

DOF points to an article about the metric system and What's Kind of Wrong with America (The Island of Doubt : I HATE Fahrenheit ... and its link to presidential elections).

Now, let me say up front, I like the metric system. Yes, cleanly divisible-by-ten stuff is very keen and helpful and all that. If the US switched over to metric ("SI") magically overnight, I would weep few tears.

That said, a lot of the arguments for the metric system -- especially when you get beyond the "it's just plain easier to use and convert and do things in decimal" -- begin to approach the righteous finger-waggling that most of the arguments against conversion take on.

I mean, what could make more sense that setting the freezing point at 0? Degrees Fahrenheit, on the other hand, are just plain inscrutable. How is one supposed to know the difference between +7 and -7? They're both cold.

Well, depending on where you live, you can also have +/-7C, too. And having "100" as (inadvertently) the threshold for Bloody Hot is kind of convenient, too.

Why doesn't the US join the Metrics Bandwagon?

The answer, I have concluded, is that this country is currently in a backwards-looking phase. Change, progress, reform — they're all bad. Let's not expand the definition of marriage. Let's not tell our kids that evolution explains the diversity of life. Let's not invest in embryonic stem cell research. let's keeping burning coal like it's crack cocaine. And let's not ever use Celsius.

Which would make sense, except that metric has never gotten any traction in the US, except in the Groovy 70s. 

The real answer -- if we're going to wax philosophical -- is not that we're backwards-looking, but inwards-looking. "We're Number One!" as they say, so why should we follow the same system as all those Foreign Types do?

And, in fact, we don't because we don't have to. The US is still a huge exporter and a (more) huge importer. By and large, nobody else has declared that, by gad, you'll buy (and sell) things in metric and darned well like it. Or, where they have, it's not caused anyone any particular cognitive grief. Nobody really paid attention as liquor turned into mL bottles; the measurement folks went by was "bottle," and if the wine/liquor folks got away with having slightly smaller bottles out of it by rounding down to an even measurement, the small grumblings were brief. 

Familiarity is all.

Similarly, nobody works on their cars any more, seriously, so if some cars nuts and bolts are metric and others are fractions of inches, nobody much cares. Adjustable crescent wrenches work on both. It just means some extra shelf space at Home Depot to carry both set of measures.

Further, from a local perspective, while the Canadians and Mexicans both use metric, there's little enough cross-border travel (from a US population perspective) that there's little incentive there to make metric distance markers and the like. We don't expect the Canadians or Mexicans to change their system to ours, so why should we change to theirs? This is unlike Europe, where close proximity of dozens of countries means the potential for significant confusion if everyone does things differently. Thus, for (relatively trivial) things, most of those differences have been ironed out -- euros, typography, monetary units, etc.

Given how little most US folks travel out of country, confusion by a small group of Americans over what the weather man is reporting on the weather is not a huge deal.

You can see the same thing with the Brits. They held onto Imperial measures until their need to be more integrated with the rest of Europe -- and the costs of not doing so -- made the change necessary, despite the existential angst of doing so.

And, to take that a step further, as keen and easy as the metric system is, the advantages of changing are perceived as being trivial compared to the costs. Replace all those highway signs? We need to spend money on repaving, not new signage. Worse, the units of measure aren't (from lack of exposure) intuitive, so telling people they should start working things out in kilometers and liters sets up an element of confusion; it's not rocket science mind you, but the question comes back to, "Why should I?" 

(And that's another answer -- the US lacks a strong, centralized authority to just make it happen by fiat. Even if Congresscritters and the President were inclined, they can't ignore that it would torque off a lot of inconvenienced people.   In which case, the answer is, again, that we don't because there's nobody to tell us we have to.)

The impact on most people's lives of working with the old system rather than the new is relatively trivial, even in the areas where you'd expect it to be greatest. Yes, it's easier to remember that there are ten 100m lengths in a kilometer, vs. 5,280 feet.. But how often does that math really come into play in most people's lives? Adding up various sets of inches and dividing by 12 to come up with feet is sometimes annoying and error-prone -- but, again, a lot less annoying than figuring out taxes, and I'd say that's on most people's preference list to fix first.

Still unconvinced? Ask, then, why even the most rabid metriphiles don't seroiusly propose changing our time system to metric (hundred minute hours, ten hour days, ten day weeks, ten month years, whatever). Ask why folks in France, home of SI, still use compasses with 360 degrees on them. Heck, if you want standardization, why doesn't everyone shift their language to Esperanto? The answer is, there's not a compelling reason to, and the costs of changing everything to make it happen becomes less and less palatable over time. As long as it doesn't interfere with everyday life, folks aren't likely to change something something fundamental. And the US shifting to metric -- or a change in the Gregorian calendar -- is a fundamental, deep-reaching change that would require pretty much everyone to be willing to go along with it.

Indeed, that calls to mind the one place the US did go metric, and long before most of the world. Money, as we rejected the British pence-shillings-pounds for metric-based dollars and cents. Because that's something that lent itself to decimals (for accounting), because pricing was fluid (inflationary) enough that the change in "what something costs" from changing units was relatively trivial -- and because we were starting with something fresh. Today, pretty much everyone uses metric money.

And, who knows, eventually the US might very well shift. But it will have to do so based on immediate, acknowledged problems in people's lives that shifting will solve. Failing that, there's not a good enough reason to do it -- and I say that, again, as someone who wouldn't at all mind seeing it happen.

Filed under :: Geopolitical Brouhaha :: Science
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (7) · Pings (0) · TR/G

One of the "sleeper" stories of the past few years -- and probably the next -- is how the government-subsidized shift in corn production (and, indirectly, other agricultural production) from food to biofuel is causing increasing ripples in the world food supply and the problem of world hunger.

Alas, farm subsidies tend to be among the most sacrosanct things in the budget, once established.

Filed under :: Environment :: Geopolitical Brouhaha :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (0) · TR/G

Interesting NY Times article about all those retired military serving as "media analysts" for the various networks, and the conflicts of interest that the networks ignore (or at least don't mention) when they bring them on the air.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

So hardly unbiased, objective, uninvolved observers of what's going on. But that financial interest has further ramifications.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

And the networks, interested in getting "scoops" and "trusted figures" to expound on the day's news, are more than happy to put these folks on the air, gliding along with their own "don't ask, don't tell" kind of attitude.

It's a long article, but worth reading.

Filed under :: Fourth Estate :: Geopolitical Brouhaha :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (0) · TR/G

I managed to catch about three 5 minute snippets of this Fresh Air article on NPR today. Fascinating stuff.

Assessing the Human Cost of Air Strikes in Iraq : NPR 

As chief of high-value targeting for the Pentagon, Marc Garlasco helped plan the targets of laser-guided bombs during the invasion of Iraq. Now a senior analyst with Human Rights Watch, he visits war zones where he assesses the damage being done to civilians by bombs and lobbies for greater deliberation in the use of air power. Garlasco has provided assessments for Human Rights Watch throughout the world, including Israel and Iraq.

Basically he was a recommender of bombing target locations and sequencing, based on strategic value and/or who (esp. from the "Deck of Cards") was likely to be there, He moved from there almost overnight to working for HRW, including surveying on the ground the damage he'd seen done by satellite and Predator feed.

Garlasco manages to avoid glib answers (from either side's perspective) and has some interesting bits to say about Afghanistan, too.

I intend to go back and listen to the whole thing.

Filed under :: Geopolitical Brouhaha
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (0) · TR/G

1. Enchanted Tiki Room Swag! On the occasion of its 45th anniversary. Sweet ...
2. Six travel issues likely to be ignored - CNN.com - Well, travel issues aren't sexy enough for the candidates, I guess.
3. How like the Brits are the Americans? Not as much as some might think.
4. Starship Troopers: Marauder - Official Site - Yeah, it will most likely stink on ice, but it's not a direct-to-DVD, and it features powered armor, and, oh, yeah, the trailer's fun ...
5. village voice > news > Runnin' Scared: The NYPD Ignores Leap Day Crimes to Keep Stats Low by Sean Gardiner - Which sounds harmless, unless you're related to one of the murder victims that New York City says didn't happen that month.
6. the big dipper - a photoset on Flickr - Photos of an old wooden roller coaster, built in Ohio, in the 20s, abandoned in the 70s, nearly reclaimed by the woods in the 00s ...

Filed under :: Geopolitical Brouhaha :: Media - Movies :: Politics & Law :: Potpourri :: Travel
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (1) · Pings (0) · TR/G

Spiffy -- a newly declassified 2003 Justice Dept. memo (rescinded 9 months later) that told the Defense Dept. it could do pretty much anything it wanted when it came to interrogating prisoners.

Sent to the Pentagon's general counsel on March 14, 2003, by John C. Yoo, then a deputy in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the memo provides an expansive argument for nearly unfettered presidential power in a time of war. It contends that numerous laws and treaties forbidding torture or cruel treatment should not apply to U.S. interrogations in foreign lands because of the president's inherent wartime powers.

"If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network," Yoo wrote. "In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions."

Interrogators who harmed a prisoner would be protected by a "national and international version of the right to self-defense," Yoo wrote. He also articulated a definition of illegal conduct in interrogations -- that it must "shock the conscience" -- that the Bush administration advocated for years.

"Whether conduct is conscience-shocking turns in part on whether it is without any justification," Yoo wrote, explaining, for example, that it would have to be inspired by malice or sadism before it could be prosecuted.

In other words, don't worry your little head about "treaties" and "law." Do whatever you think is "necessary," as long as you don't openly chortle maniacally whist doing it.

Justice and Law in the Bush Administration.   How invigorating.

(The memo itself.)

Filed under :: Geopolitical Brouhaha :: Home Improvement :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (3) · Pings (1) · TR/G

1. A guide to the French.
2. Inauthentic Medieval Food.
3. Freakonomics book covers from around the world. I'm amused by the subtle differences, and by the huge ones.
4. Forty percent of spam comes from one source.
5. Modular Windows?
6. Dean Kamen's amazing water machine. I saw this on Colbert. Hopefully this won't be another Segway (as cool as the Segway remains).

Filed under :: Food & Drink :: Geopolitical Brouhaha :: Hi-Tech :: Media - Books :: Potpourri :: Spam
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (1) · Pings (0) · TR/G

Keen.  A Canadian university is saving money and improving service by tossing its old legacy email and collaboration system in exchange for Google Aps But there's a problem ...

Eighteen months ago, Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ont., had an outdated computer system that was crashing daily and in desperate need of an overhaul. A new installation would have cost more than $1-million and taken months to implement. Google's service, however, took just 30 days to set up, didn't cost the university a penny and gave nearly 8,000 students and faculty leading-edge software, said Michael Pawlowski, Lakehead's vice-president of administration and finance.

U.S.-based Google spotlighted the university as one of the first to adopt its software model of the future, and today Mr. Pawlowski boasts the move was the right thing for Lakehead, saving it hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual operating costs. But he notes one trade-off: The faculty was told not to transmit any private data over the system, including student marks.

It's not some sort of anti-Americanism at work, but a well-founded fear by the faculty that, under the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation, US law enforcement / anti-terror / homeland security types can willy-nilly sift through all their correspondence and research. Not to mention student academic records and grades.

At Lakehead, the deal with Google sparked a backlash. "The [university] did this on the cheap. By getting this free from Google, they gave away our rights," said Tom Puk, past president of Lakehead's faculty association, which filed a grievance against Lakehead administration that's still in arbitration. Professors say the Google deal broke terms of their collective agreement that guarantees members the right to private communications. Mr. Puk says teachers want an in-house system that doesn't let third parties see their e-mails.

Some other organizations are banning Google's innovative tools outright to avoid the prospect of U.S. spooks combing through their data. Security experts say many firms are only just starting to realize the risks they assume by embracing Web-based collaborative tools hosted by a U.S. company, a problem even more acute in Canada where federal privacy rules are at odds with U.S. security measures.

Using their new powers under the Patriot Act, U.S. intelligence officials can scan documents, pick out certain words and create profiles of the authors - a frightening challenge to academic freedom, Mr. Puk said.

For instance, a Lakehead researcher with a Middle Eastern name, researching anthrax or nuclear energy, might find himself denied entry to the United States without ever knowing why. "You would have no idea what they are up to with your information until, perhaps, it is too late," Mr. Puk said. "We don't want to be subject to laws of the Patriot Act."

Seems quite reasonable to me. And, once again, an example of how much US reputation -- and business -- has been damaged by self-inflicted wounds in the "War on Terror."

Filed under :: Geopolitical Brouhaha :: Hi-Tech :: Homeland Security :: School Daze :: ZT & PC
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (1) · Pings (0) · TR/G

No wonder Bush thinks the idea of going off to serve in the army in Afghanistan sounds romantic and exciting. It's because, 4,000 casualties in Iraq notwithstanding, the person with the biggest burden in the whole Afghanistaan/Iraq thing is ... the President. Or so says Dick Cheney.

[The casualty count] obviously brings home I think for a lot of people the cost that's involved in the global war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. It places a special burden obviously on the families, and we recognize, I think — it's a reminder of the extent to which we are blessed with families who've sacrificed as they have. The president carries the biggest burden, obviously, He's the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans, but we are fortunate to have a group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm's way for the rest of us.

Granted, comparing pictures of Bush in 2000 vs 2007 shows how the office has aged him, as it does all its inhabitants (another reason to worry about McCain). But while not glibly minimizing whatever Bush has felt, anguished over, been burdened by (but never "regretted") in his decisions to take us to (and keep us in) war, to say it's "obvious" that he's had the "biggest burden" is a huge slap in the face to those who have died, been crippled, been traumatized, been injured in ways it will take decades to resolve, if ever -- not to mention the impact on their families, their spouses, their children.

"Biggest burden" indeed.

Maybe if Bush had decided to enlist in a service branch during Vietnam that actually was being sent off to the war, he might have had his fill of romance and excitement, "confronting danger" and "making history." Then he might not have had to shoulder that "biggest burden" after all.

Filed under :: Geopolitical Brouhaha :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (0) · TR/G