Obsidian Wings

Contractors behaving badly

By Lindsay Beyerstein

In the wake of the guard scandal at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, a security contractor explains in strikingly frank terms why these large private security contracts in war zones are so predictably mismanaged:

The main reason why managing these contracts is so difficult is that it is impossible to stay ahead of the stupidity curve your men will generate. There is no way to anticipate it because some of these guys do the most unbelievably stupid things sober; add alcohol and the potential for Darwin Award level stupidity goes up exponentially. In the military I knew my Marines well because we spent so much time together – often in prolonged field exercises. Your average young enlisted Marine has the ability to do stupid things too but they fall into an easily anticipated set of behaviors which savvy leadership can recognize and at times circumvent. Not true with contractors – some of stories I have heard are amazing.

Lynch puts his finger on a structural problem with private security contractors. His Marines weren't necessarily smarter or saner than his contractors, but at least in the Marine Corps he wasn't dealing with a shifting cast of free agents drifting from job to job.

Michael Kinsley mocks fact checkers

By Lindsay Beyerstein

Michael Kinsley will never live down his latest column, a rant against fact checking:

"Fact checking" is a tradition of some publications, mainly magazines, in which one set of employees, called fact checkers, is called upon to reconfirm every fact in an article by another set of employees, called writers, generally by finding these facts in newspapers, which don't have fact checkers. During a blameless journalistic career, in which I have sometimes had occasion to mock this practice, I have always resisted criticism from colleagues that my real problem is with the facts themselves. But I'm beginning to think they may be right. Who can take facts seriously after reading the daily "Corrections" column in the New York Times? Although the purpose of this column is to demonstrate the Times's rectitude about taking facts seriously, the facts it corrects are generally so bizarre or trivial and its tone so schoolmarmish that the effect is to make the whole pursuit of factual accuracy seem ridiculous. [WaPo]

Kinsley proceeds to list several minor errors that recently triggered Times corrections. These include misidentifying the brother of the president of Ecuador, Patricio Fabricio Correa, as "Fabricio Patricio Correa," and referring to the long-distance phone service Voxox as "Vovox."

Of all the bizarre things to complain about... The problem isn't stupid corrections, it's the stupid mistakes that need correcting. Better fact checking could have prevented those errors. (Maybe a fact checker would have caught my error, above.)

Kinsley continues:

The fad for elaborate and abject corrections, and factual accuracy in general, is based on the misperception that when people complain about the media getting it all wrong, what bothers them is that the newspaper identified the mountain inside Denali National Park as Mount Denali (as it is "referred to by many," the Times defensively put it the other day) and not by its official name of Mount McKinley, which "has not been officially changed." [emphasis added] 

I'm speechless. Does Kinsley really think that concern for factual accuracy is a fad? Does he realize that he's handed his critics a stick to beat him, and anyone who cites his work?

The Times is scrupulous about these details because it aspires to be the newspaper of record. The paper doesn't always live up to its own high standards, but at least it has a policy of publicly correcting itself when it falls short. 

Rigorous fact checking is a way that a wealthy institution like the Times distinguishes its product in a competitive media market. Few smaller outlets can afford multiple layers of quality control. No matter how carefully a writer checks her own work, it's no substitute for the scrutiny of a trained professional editor. Because, by definition, you don't see the mistakes you don't see. The Times' attention to detail is a true public service because those of us who lack copy editors can check names and dates against the Times with relative confidence.

Narrow factual accuracy isn't sufficient for high quality journalism, but it's still necessary.

[via Mother Jones]

Last Post

by hilzoy

I had all kinds of ideas for things I wanted to write before I left, but between last-minute packing and phone calls from friends and family, it didn't happen. So I'll just say a few things quickly.

As I said before, one of the things that led me to start blogging in the first place was the fact that I thought the country had gone crazy, and one of the things that particularly bothered me was the sheer level of invective and hatred that people seemed to feel comfortable directing at one another. I hated this, not just in itself, but because I thought: this harms us all. 

A democracy is essentially about determining the course of our nation together. To do that, it helps a lot to have a good citizenry. A good citizenry is informed, serious about things that are worth taking seriously, and not liable to be led off course by demagogues. (Everyone doesn't have to be like this, but you need a critical mass of people who are.) But I've always thought that a good citizenry is also composed of people who assume, until proven wrong, that many of the people who disagree with them are acting in good faith. 

This matters for policy: you're unlikely to choose sound policies if you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a depraved, corrupt imbecile. It's hard to learn anything from people you have completely written off. But it's also corrosive to any kind of community or dialogue to assume the worst about large numbers of people you've never met. It makes you less willing to try to take their problems seriously, and to try to figure out how they might be solved, or to try to understand what's driving them. 

I hate it when people do this to me. I never wanted to do it to them.

The thing is, it's hard to see how to try to help create a better citizenry. It's not something that can be accomplished by enacting a policy, the way covering the uninsured is. It's a matter of individual moral choices, and as far as I can see, the only way in which we can have a better citizenry is to make the best choices we can, and to try to help other people when it's in our power to do so. I once had a friend who decided that she would research all the down-ticket offices, candidates for judgeships, etc. -- the races we all vote on without having a clue who we're voting for -- and distribute the information she found to anyone who wanted it. She was helping out in the way I have in mind.

When I started blogging, I thought: with all the craziness and vitriol that's flying around, it's worth at least trying to do something like that. I wanted to make it as easy as possible for people to be informed, by covering stories that weren't being covered, and by always linking to my primary sources, so that only one of us had to spend time figuring out how to find some bill or GAO report, for instance; and to fact-check claims that struck me as dubious, and that were being accepted.

But I also wanted to try, if at all possible, to treat people, and most especially my political opponents, with respect, except where respect had been clearly forfeited. (Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, I'm thinking of you.) Because, as I said, I think it's just corrosive to democracy if people are not willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to one another. Besides, it's uncharitable and wrong, and besides that, perhaps some people would survive in a world in which no one was ever more generous to them than they deserve, but I am quite sure that I would not.

That was one of the things I wanted to try to do. I wasn't particularly confident that I'd succeed at all, but I thought: the least I can do is try. It might be a complete failure. It might be that the idea of me trying to do this is just laughable, and that if I had the self-awareness God gave an oyster, I'd be rolling on the floor laughing. Still, I thought, if it doesn't work, the fault will probably be mine, and I'll learn something. (One thing about blogging: you have to be willing to regard criticism as a learning experience, because your shortcomings, including the ones you don't know about and will be mortified to discover, are always in plain view.)

I think that democracy, like any kind of community, takes effort. It needs to be maintained. People need to work at it. And the last five years have made me realize, yet again, that even when things seem really bad, they are not hopeless. There is always something you can do. Even when you're not expecting it, you'll get an email from Moe Lane asking: would you like to join our blog?

All you can do is try. And as my grandmother used to say to us: it is not worthy of humanity to give up.

***

I also want to thank everyone who commented on the various goodbye threads at ObWi, the Monthly, and elsewhere, my wonderful co-bloggers, and all the people who have commented over the years. It means more to me than I can tell you. But I've always felt that I got much more than I gave from the communities at both blogs, and I'm more grateful than I can say. 

Thank you.

Bare-Faced Go-Away Bird

by hilzoy

First, I'm going to Rwanda this weekend, on vacation. I'm looking forward to it immensely, especially since I discovered that the Bare-Faced Go-Away Bird, which topped my list of Best Bird Names Ever nearly five years ago, lives there. (And did you know that the name 'Watusi' comes from the Tutsi? I didn't.) If anyone has any great suggestions for things I might not think to do, etc., please let me know.

Second, I'm taking this opportunity to retire from blogging. I'll be here through Friday, but after that, I won't. (I'll still hang out in comments, though, after I get back.) I'm not sure it would be possible for me to stop if I weren't going off to central Africa without my computer, but since I am, I will.

The main reason I started blogging, besides the fact that I thought it would be fun, was that starting sometime in 2002, I thought that my country had gone insane. It wasn't just the insane policies, although that was part of it. It was the sheer level of invective: the way that people who held what seemed to me to be perfectly reasonable views, e.g. that invading Iraq might not be such a smart move, were routinely being described as al Qaeda sympathizers who hated America and all it stood for and wanted us all to die. 

I thought: we've gone mad. And I have to do something -- not because I thought that I personally could have any appreciable effect on this, but because it felt like what Katherine called an all hands on deck moment. I had heard about times like this in the past -- the McCarthy era, for instance -- though I had never expected to live through one. Nonetheless, I was. And I had to try to do something, however insignificant.

But what? I had no idea. And I kept on having no idea for a while. I worked my heart out for Wes Clark, since I thought that he would be our strongest candidate in 2004. I talked to random people. It obviously wasn't enough, but it was all I could think of. 

Then, in 2004, I was asked to join Obsidian Wings. It was an honor: at the time, ObWi was, for my money, the best blog that really tried to create a dialogue between liberals and conservatives. And that was what I really wanted to do: to listen to people I disagreed with, to engage with them, and to try to show that it was possible to care deeply about politics without hating your opponents. Being civil doesn't mean you're lukewarm, and being committed to your principles doesn't mean you have to be hateful. Being asked to write for the Washington Monthly was a further honor, and one that I never expected.

That said, it seems to me that the madness is over. There are lots of people I disagree with, and lots of things I really care about, and even some people who seem to me to have misplaced their sanity, but the country as a whole does not seem to me to be crazy any more. Also, it has been nearly five years since I started. And so it seems to me that it's time for me to turn back into a pumpkin and twelve white mice.

It has been wonderful, though. I've had the best co-bloggers I can imagine, both at ObWi and at the Monthly, and I've learned an enormous amount from all the commenters. This is one of the things I love most about blogging: I put something up, and suddenly all these wonderful, smart, and articulate people whom I've never met pop up and start saying interesting things about it. It's a gift for which I will always be grateful. 

Thanks to everyone. (And, as I said, I will be here through Friday.)

Barack Obama: Surprise The World Again

by hilzoy

From the NYT:

"President Obama is facing new pressure to reverse himself and to ramp up investigations into the Bush-era security programs, despite the political risks.

Leading Democrats on Sunday demanded investigations of how a highly classified counterterrorism program was kept secret from the Congressional leadership on the orders of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who is the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on Fox News Sunday called it a “big problem.” Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, on “This Week” on ABC, agreed that the secrecy “could be illegal” and demanded an inquiry.

Mr. Obama said this weekend that he had asked his staff members to review the mass killing of prisoners in Afghanistan by local forces allied with the United States as it toppled the Taliban regime there. The New York Times reported Saturday that the Bush administration had blocked investigations of the matter.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is also close to assigning a prosecutor to look into whether prisoners in the campaign against terrorism were tortured, officials disclosed on Saturday.

And after a report from five inspectors general about the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping said on Friday that there had been a number of undisclosed surveillance programs during the Bush years, Democrats sought more information."

Let me add my own little millibar to that pressure. All of these things deserve to be investigated. This is not a matter of focussing on the past at the expense of the future. We will not have the future we want if government officials can break the law with impunity, safe in the knowledge that no future administration will be willing to take the political heat and investigate them.

Since anyone who is reading this probably knows what I think about these questions, I'd like to focus instead on this:

"Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said on “Meet the Press” on NBC that despite his dismay at the Central Intelligence Agency’s past interrogation methods, including waterboarding, he opposed a criminal inquiry into torture, which he said would “harm our image throughout the world.”"

I think that is exactly wrong. People around the world are not under any illusions about whether or not we tortured people. They know that we did, and that fact has already, and rightly, done enormous damage to our image. 

What they don't know is whether we are prepared to do anything about it. Do we just lecture other people about their shortcomings, or are we ready to face up to our own? Most of the people I've met abroad assume that we will do nothing. They don't think this because of any particular dislike of the United States; they just assume that that is the way things work. If we do not hold anyone to account for any of the crimes that were committed under the last administration, they will not be surprised.

If we do hold people to account, on the other hand, that will make an impression. 

In thinking about this, I am reminded of conversations I had when I was in Pakistan. My first trip there was in 2007, when the campaigns were just kicking into gear. People asked who I supported; I said Obama. They asked: but can he possibly win? I said that while I was reluctant to judge, I thought that he could. 

The most common reaction -- not uniform, but common -- was a combination of several things. On the one hand, I was American and they were not, so the people I talked to naturally assumed that I probably had a better grasp of US politics than they did. Besides, I was their guest, and they were wonderfully polite. On the other hand, however, they found the idea that Barack Obama -- an African-American who did not come from a privileged background, whose father was from a Kenyan village -- could possibly be elected President literally unbelievable. 

It was fascinating to watch them trying to reconcile these conflicting impulses: I was talking about a country I lived in, which most of them had never been to, and I was not obviously insane, but I was saying something that could not possibly be true. And, as best I could tell, there were two reasons why it couldn't be true: first, whoever the Pakistani analog of Barack Obama might be, that person would never be elected President in Pakistan, and second, they had been disappointed in America's track record in living up to its ideals, and so were not inclined to believe that it would do so this time.

The last time I went, Barack Obama had secured the nomination. People in Pakistan were astonished, but they were also really inspired. And I don't think that this was mainly about Obama's policies. It was about us living up to our ideals: about the idea that in America, anyone really can grow up to be President, and about the idea that enough of us had managed to look past our long history of slavery and discrimination and bigotry that we might elect Barack Obama President. 

It gave people hope: the hope that cynics are not always right, and that the fix is not always in.

If we're interested in our image abroad, we could do a lot worse than simply deciding to live up to our ideals: for instance, the rule of law. It's the right thing to do, but it's also the smart thing. 

Filling Out Forms

by hilzoy

Queen Emily, who is guestblogging at Feministe, hates forms. Why? Because while "my birth certificate says I am male, my gender presentation is female.  They do not match. Until I can afford expensive genital surgery, I cannot change the marker on my birth certificate." If you've never had to think about exactly how much trouble this can cause, consider yourself lucky:

"A small example:  Imagine you went to the hospital, with stroke-like symptoms (it was later found to be "complicated migraines").  Because you want to actually be treated, you do not out yourself as transsexual.  When the triage nurse filled in the forms, he puts female, and you leave it there.  (...)

Fast forward to a week later, and I'm (sorry, you) at a neurology department to see a specialist to organize an MRI, when one of the reception people comes out to see you and starts screaming that you're a GODDAMN LIAR because your forms say I'm female but some quirk of the computer system has found your birthdate and surname and pinged up an old treatment from when you were six.  Because of this, they decide that your name isn't real either, and it takes three trips to different departments with your changed birth certificate (changed in name but not in sex). In the end, they put a post-it on your file, with your name, your legal bloody name, in quotation marks like it’s a f*cking nickname.  And these are the people who are supposed to help you. 

Now imagine what happens in an emergency situation.

Imagine you're me, six months before this, and you're young and naive and full of stupid, figuring that putting M will help them you treat you better (ha!), checking yourself in to see a doctor because you’re struggling to breathe.  And the dude takes one look at your forms and your barely passing self, and refuses to enter the room.  He just stands there at the edge, asking you to holler symptoms at him, and you sit there knowing that if you collapse, this man will pause and debate whether to save you or not."

Read the rest. It gets worse. There are customs lines, and traffic stops, at any one of which someone could look at you, look at your driver's license, and decide that you're a fraud, or a freak, or whatever their minds might come up with to explain the anomaly of someone who presents as one gender carrying a driver's license or birth certificate that says something different.

In comments, someone wrote that the local public transportation system requires little M or F stickers on their monthly passes, and that "an acquaintance of mine (a trans woman) was *arrested* because a bus driver, convinced that she was "male" (she had an "F" sticker), called the police." 

I'm trying to think of a reason why any bus or subway system needs to specify gender on its monthly passes. I can't think of a single one.

And it's not as though there are ways of avoiding this situation. Even assuming that you live in a state that lets you legally change your gender, that requires gender reassignment surgery, and gender reassignment surgery normally requires, among other things, living as the gender you identify with, completely, for a year. That's a year during which traffic stops, doctor's visits, and the like will be very problematic.

The reason I write about trans issues is that I really can't see how any of this will change until non-trans people really stop and think about things like this. once you do stop to think about it, it's barbaric that doctors and hospitals would be unprepared to deal with trans people, or that whenever you have to tick a little box that says M or F, there's a real possibility that someone will realize that your gender presentation and your ID don't match, and freak out about that. It's even worse that mollifying them, if it's possible at all, will require divulging a whole lot more about the state of your genitalia and the details of your personal life than anyone should ever have to explain to, say, a bus driver or a traffic cop.

I'm just hoping that maybe that doctor or traffic cop might read Queen Emily's post, and think again.

R. I. P.

by hilzoy

First, Farrah Fawcett:

She was enough of a star that she didn't need to make The Burning Bed, and the kind of star (all-American sex symbol) who might justifiably have wondered what effect it might have on her career. But she made it anyways, and it had an enormous effect of bringing the discussion of domestic violence into the mainstream. A lot of people owe her thanks for that, and other things.

Just to add some music to Seb's post: Michael Jackson was about my age, which means that I remember when he first came to national attention. If you know him more from Thriller, let alone from his later life, it might be hard to imagine just how talented he was; and how beautiful his face was before he started trying to improve on it. This is from when he was around eleven (if you want to skip the dumb intro, start at around 40 seconds):

Wikipedia:

"From a young age Jackson was physically and mentally abused by his father, enduring incessant rehearsals, whippings and name-calling. Jackson's abuse as a child affected him throughout his grown life. In one altercation -- later recalled by Marlon Jackson -- Joseph held Michael upside down by one leg and "pummeled him over and over again with his hand, hitting him on his back and buttocks". Joseph would often trip up, or push the male children into walls. One night while Jackson was asleep, Joseph climbed into his room through the bedroom window. Wearing a fright mask, he entered the room screaming and shouting. Joseph said he wanted to teach his children not to leave the window open when they went to sleep. For years afterward, Jackson suffered nightmares about being kidnapped from his bedroom.

Jackson first spoke openly about his childhood abuse in a 1993 interview with Oprah Winfrey. He said that during his childhood he often cried from loneliness and would sometimes get sick or start to regurgitate upon seeing his father. In Jackson's other high profile interview, Living with Michael Jackson (2003), the singer covered his face with his hand and began crying when talking about his childhood abuse. Jackson recalled that Joseph sat in a chair with a belt in his hand as he and his siblings rehearsed and that "if you didn't do it the right way, he would tear you up, really get you.""

For me, the song that encapsulates Michael Jackson's stranger side is Ben. If you don't know it, give it a listen, bearing in mind that the Ben in question is a homicidal rat.

May they rest in peace.

The Past Is Past, And Thank God For That

by hilzoy

I just wanted to take a moment to give thanks for the fact that we truly don't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore:

"On Jan. 23, 1973, when the Supreme Court struck down state criminal abortion laws in Roe v. Wade, President Richard M. Nixon made no public statement. But privately, newly released tapes reveal, he expressed ambivalence.

Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster "permissiveness," and said that "it breaks the family." But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases, such as interracial pregnancies.

"There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white," he told an aide, before adding: "Or a rape.""

I see. The bad thing about abortion is that it lets people have sex without having to have kids if they don't want them or aren't ready for them. The good thing is that you get to be both a racist and a hypocrite without having to confront your own contradictions.

Glad we got that straightened out.

More Things That Do Not Involve People Dying

by hilzoy

Here's Steven Walt's IR Guide To Parenting, in which we discover how the study of international relations helps you understand what's going on with your kids. For instance:

"Once the kids are mobile, you learn about another key IR concept: the window of opportunity. You're feeding or changing Kid #1, and Kid #2 makes a bolt out the front door, just like North Korea tested a nuclear weapon while we were busy with Iraq. Or you're in the middle of a crowded department store and they each decide to head down different aisles. The potential complications of a multipolar order were never clearer the first time this happened to me."

And:

"The whole field of asymmetric conflict can prepare you for another aspect of child-rearing: your superior education, physical strength, and total command of financial resources will not translate into anything remotely resembling "control." A two-year old who is barely talking can destroy a dinner party or a family outing just by being stubborn, and a smart, loving, strong and wealthy parent can be damn near helpless in the face of a sufficiently willful son or daughter. Read Andrew Mack, Ivan Toft, or James Scott on "asymmetric conflict" and the "weapons of the weak" before you have kids, and at least you'll be forewarned."

Meanwhile, Undiplomatic spots a wonderful headline on Iran: "Clerical Error". 

The Berlusconi Thing

by hilzoy

Note to self: Do not get on Jose Saramago's bad side (h/t):

"The Berlusconi Thing by José Saramago

I don’t know what other name I could give it. It’s a thing that looks dangerously like a human, a thing that throws parties, that organises orgies and rules a country called Italy. This thing, this illness, this virus threatens to become the cause of the moral death of Verdi’s country. If a deep vomit doesn’t succeed in ejecting it from the consciousness of Italians, the poison will end up corroding the veins and destroying the heart of one of Europe’s richest cultures. The basic values of human coexistence are trampled daily by the viscous feet of the Berlusconi thing; amongst its many talents, it has a funambulesque ability to abuse words, perverting their intention and meaning, as in the case of the People of Freedom, the name given to the party with which the thing took power. I’ve called the thing delinquent and I don’t regret it. (...)

This is the Italian prime minister, this is the thing that the Italian people have elected twice to serve them as a role model, this is the path to ruin which is dragging along the values of liberty and dignity that suffused Verdi’s music and the political actions of Garibaldi—the ones that, during the struggle for unification in the 18th 19th* century, made of Italy a spiritual guide for Europe and for Europeans. This is what the Berlusconi thing wants to throw into the rubbish bin of History. Will the Italians end up allowing this to happen?"

Now that's invective! 

(Footnote: 'funambulesque'? Apparently, a funambule (in French) is a tightrope walker, and 'funambulesque' means: (1) concerning tightrope walkers; (2) of extravagant imagination, buffoonish oddness, burlesque.)

* [UPDATE: the translator has asked that I change '18th century' to '19th century'. Apparently, it was an error by the translator.]