Obsidian Wings

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

by von

ONCE AGAIN, the time has come for an open thread. And a pretentious one at that.  As y'all know, there is only one way to begin such a thing.  So: Read on, unbeliever.  You need not fail.  (But I repeat myself.)

O.K., fine.  I'll start.

Bravo Bush!

by hilzoy

Credit where credit is due: it's really great that President Bush has designated an area the size of Montana as a national monument. This isn't just important for the area itself; studies show that protected areas in oceans help to rejuvenate fish stocks in surrounding areas as well. And even though this bit of ocean was not under heavy fishing pressure yet, that could have changed, as destructive industrial fishing spreads across the oceans.

Instead of just standing by while this happened, President Bush has protected this turtle:

and this juvenile red-footed booby:

But only from human intervention...

Heh heh heh.

Seriously, though, this is wonderful news. Good for President Bush.

My Kind Of Kid

by hilzoy

Via AmericaBlog, the story of a kid who chose, as the theme for his third birthday party, The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer:

"Henry clearly enjoys watching the program. When the anchor came on screen, he burst into a huge smile and yelled out, "Jim!"

Henry later noticed a change in the theme orchestration saying, "It's new music!"

When correspondent Kwame Holman started delivering his report, Henry yelled out "Kwame Holman!"

"He's really a normal kid," Jennifer Schally said. "I think beyond this, he's pretty fun-loving."

"Outside of 6 to 7 o'clock every weekday night, he's pretty normal," Troy Schally clarified."

Be sure to watch the video -- at three, he knows half the cabinet and the Supreme Court justices. We may yet get an informed citizenry in this country.

(I am reminded of the moment, back in late 1999 or early 2000, when someone asked one of my nephews (then one year old) who was running for President, and he replied: "Al Gore and John McCain and George Bush and Bill Bradley isn't going anywhere.")

I'm off to see a Black-Bellied Whistling Duck. Consider this an open thread.

Dishonoring Our Country

by hilzoy

UPDATE: The Albanian Government has now stated that it is not considering deporting the Uighurs. Thanks to Mark, in comments, for the tip. --END UPDATE

From the Toronto Star (h/t Katherine):

"Five ethnic Uighurs from northwest China suffered through four years in Guantanamo Bay only to be dumped by the U.S. in one of Europe's poorest nations, which now says they are unwelcome and must leave.

One country, China, has eagerly offered to take in the men — so it can prosecute them as pro-independence terrorists and, many believe, execute them.

Albania's decision to deny sanctuary to the Uighurs, who were apparently swept up by bounty hunters in Pakistan in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and turned over to the U.S., isn't based on security fears. The Pentagon decided at least a year ago they weren't "enemy combatants" and pose no threat.

In an interview, Argita Totozani, Albania's National Commissioner for Refugees, said cultural reasons are behind her country's decision not to follow through on a U.S.-brokered deal to grant political asylum to the five.

"Their future is not here," she said. "There is not a Uighur community (here). They don't speak any Albanian ... There is no integration possibility for them here. We realized their future is not in Albania.""

The US government is, apparently, casting about for somewhere else to resettle them. However, they won't end up here:

"The U.S., however, is apparently not an option.

A senior State Department official, who insisted on anonymity, said in an exchange of emails that it was an "administrative decision" to deny the men an opportunity to resettle in the U.S. and to instead reach out to more than 100 other countries.

"It was determined that the Uighurs would be resettled in another country. They expressed a preference for a European country," with the knowledge they couldn't go to America, the official said. The administration of President George W. Bush has not publicly explained why the men cannot resettle in the United States, but the State Department has apparently told the Albanians.

"Because of the atmosphere and the Sept. 11 story, the Americans would not really want Guantanamo Bay ex-prisoners to be part of their society," Totozani said. "It's not that easy to persuade Americans about their innocence.""

I don't know who, exactly, Totozani has asked, but speaking for myself, I am already persuaded of their innocence, and would welcome them into our society. Moreover, I cannot believe that if the government really set its mind to the task, it could not possibly manage to inform the public that it has found these men not to be enemy combatants. After all, it managed to convince a large number of people that Saddam had links to al Qaeda, and that didn't have the advantage of being, you know, true.

"So what do the Uighurs themselves think of the international squabble over their fate?

Nobody knows outside the refugee processing centre where they're being kept because Albanian officials have made it nearly impossible to interview them, even when arrangements are made in advance with their attorney.

Ali Rasha, the camp director refused to allow this journalist into the camp, insisting, "I don't have the authority." That claim was flatly rejected by Totozani, who says the director decides who comes and goes.

Rasha apparently had the authority to allow in a Chinese man, who freely walked out of the camp. He said he wasn't from the Chinese Embassy, insisting he was "a businessman" before marching off in a huff."

Let me see if I have this straight: We keep innocent men in prison for over four years. They have children they've never seen; their family thinks they are dead; they have no idea when or if they'll be allowed to leave. We keep them locked up for over a year after they have been found innocent. Right before their case is to be heard on appeal, we ship them off to Albania, of all places, which then decides to expel them. Did we somehow fail to ask the Albanians whether they would actually allow the Uighurs to stay in Albania? Did we get any assurances at all? Or did we just not bother to explore this question with the Albanians before shipping the Uighurs off to Tirana? Does anyone believe that we could not have gotten such assurances had we set our mind to it. or that we could not, if we really wanted, find a place for them to resettle? (Note: 'really wanting', here, means wanting enough to be willing to do things in return for some country that won't ship them off to China taking them in.)

As I've said before, we owe it to the Uighurs to let them settle here. But if we can't manage that -- if, in all those delightful passive-voice constructions, it "was determined" that the US was "not an option", at least we owe it to them to find them a place to live where they will be allowed to come and go as they please, to see their families, to live normal lives, and above all, where they will not be turned over to the tender mercies of the People's Republic of China.

Libertarians And Democrats: Part 2

by hilzoy

This is the second part of my response to Mona's post on Libertarians and Democrats at QandO. (First part here.) As before, the following caveats apply:

(1) I am not an expert on libertarianism. I will try to depict it accurately, but I have not done a huge amount of research on the foundations of libertarianism before writing this. If I misrepresent libertarianism, it's unintentional, and I hope people will correct me. (2) In this post, contrary to my usual practice, I will use 'Democrats' and 'Republicans' to refer not to all registered members of those parties, but to those who presently hold power within them. Mona's post is, after all, about which party to support, and this presumably depends a lot more on the nature and views of the people in power than on whether, e.g., some members of a given party are reasonable and nice.

In this post, I want to lay out some fundamental points about justice and property rights. This will involve noting one point at which libertarians might, but do not have to, disagree with me. In my next post (and yes, this post does keep splitting apart), I will get to what I take to be the main difference, to which this is all background.

Libertarians And The Democratic Party: Part 1

by hilzoy

A few days ago, Mona wrote a guest post at QandO, arguing that libertarians should think seriously about supporting Democrats rather than Republicans. I agree. At present, Democrats are much better on the rule of law and the protection of individual liberty. (There is some argument about this in the comments to Mona's piece, but I can't imagine how anyone could think that the Democrats are in the same league as the Bush administration, which has, after all, asserted that it has the right to detain US citizens indefinitely without charges or counsel.) It has been decades since Republicans could claim to be the party of small government with a straight face. Democrats are a lot closer to libertarians on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, and drug laws; in comments, someone adduced smoking bans as an instance of Democrats legislating morality, but it's surely relevant that smoking bans only really got going once there was evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful -- that is, once smoking ceased to be solely a matter of individual choice.

However, I can't really see that presenting arguments on this will really advance the discussion, both because, as a Democrat, I am obviously open to charges of bias, and also because I'd risk telling libertarians things they already know.

Instead, I thought I'd try to locate the differences between libertarianism and my version of liberalism, since liberalism-sub-hilzoy actually has a lot in common with libertarianism, at least as far as its underlying arguments go. But it also has one major difference, which I thought might be worth talking about. However, en route to writing about that major difference, I got drawn into other matters; and so I will talk about that major difference in a subsequent post. For now, I will state two caveats, and then focus on a few other things that are also important.

Doomed To Disappointment

by hilzoy

I was looking at the BBC News home page a few days ago, and glanced at some of the World Cup coverage. I think it's wonderful that the US made it, and I hope they do well, but what really captivated me was the discovery that tiny Togo had qualified. I am a sucker for underdogs, and so naturally I began rooting for Togo to win. I mean: Togo is a very poor country (per capita income $310 in 2005; it has about 6 million people, nearly half of whom are below 15; since (presumably) around half of those over 15 are women, who are ( I assume) not eligible for the team, Togo has to find its players among a mere 1.5 million men over 15. And yet, somehow, it has qualified for the World Cup! Yay for Togo!

(It's the same streak in me that led me to get a license plate holder that says: 'The starry skies above; the moral law within': I thought: if anyone sees this and knows where it comes from, they will get such a kick out of it! Very unlikely, but such a big payoff. Likewise, if Togo wins the World Cup, it will presumably mean a lot more to the Togolese than, say, Italy's victory would mean to the Italians.)

Alas, they were defeated 2-1 by South Korea yesterday. The BBC account makes it sound as though they could have won, but no. They play Switzerland on Monday, and then France on the following Friday, after which the matches depend on who wins in the various groups. I hope Togo will sweep to victory, leaving Argentina, Brazil and even David Beckham in the dust. But somehow I doubt it.

***

OMG! In doing the research for this, I just noticed that Angola has qualified! Now my loyalties are well and truly divided: tiny scrappy Togo versus war-ravaged Angola. If either of them win, I will be a very happy person. Alas, Angola has not only lost; it lost to Portugal, its former colonial ruler. That has to hurt.

Worth Noting

by von

I'LL LEAVE IT to Hilzoy to address the details (if she wishes), but I do want to point out an interesting ethical wrinkle in the embryonic stem cell debate (H/T Daniel Drezner).  Amanda Schaffer's article in the New York Times seems to provide a decent lay of the land:

A philosopher in Britain has ruffled feathers on both sides of the Atlantic by suggesting that the rhythm method of contraception may increase the risk of early embryonic death.

Luc Bovens, a philosopher at the London School of Economics, argues in the Journal of Medical Ethics that couples who try to prevent pregnancy by avoiding sex during the woman's most fertile time of month may be more likely to produce embryos that do not develop or implant in the womb.

....

[C]ritics have taken aim at Dr. Bovens's analogy between early embryonic deaths that may occur because of the timing of intercourse and losses that may result from the use of contraception. They have also questioned the assumption that embryos conceived on the fringe of a woman's fertile window are less likely to be viable.

Fertility experts say that there is little evidence to support this assumption but that there are some indications it may be valid.

....

Joseph B. Stanford, an associate professor at the University of Utah School of Medicine who is against abortion, said Dr. Bovens's reasoning was flawed.

There is a difference, he argued, between forming an embryo that is not viable — which may occur for couples using any form of family planning, including natural family planning — and taking an action, like using emergency contraception or birth control pills, that could prevent a viable embryo from developing. "For me, it's sort of like the difference between a miscarriage and an induced abortion," he said.

I try to stay out of abortion debates, since my middleground position manages to annoy the extremes at both ends.  ("Everyone against the center!")  We also have to keep in mind that, at present, this is a thought experiment: If the timing of intercourse does not affect embryonic viability, then there's nothing here to debate.  Still, boldly into the breech and all that:

If the underlying assumption is true, I don't think it necessarily shows that the rhythm method is morally suspect.  There still will be times when one could have sex and know, with near-certainty, that the risk of creating an embryo that can't (or doesn't) implant is small.  If you can and will limit your sex life to those periods -- admittedly, two big "ifs" -- an incidental embryonic death is indeed "sort of like ... a miscarriage."   

But Dr. Stanford's point doesn't work as a defense of the rhythm method as currently practiced.  If you think that an embryo is the moral equivalent of a four year old, and you know that an action increases the risk of embryonic death by a substantial amount, it's reasonable to think that you're morally obligated to avoid that risk if you can.  For instance, you wouldn't instruct (or allow) your four-year old to play in the middle of a busy street -- despite the fact that IUDs and pharmaceutical products are probably not involved.  That it is impossible to eliminate a risk does not affect a moral obligation to reduce the risk.  Nor should the fact that you didn't appreciate the risks in the past change your obligations once you do.

Now, if your view is that anything that happens in the womb without human intervention is God's will, you needn't concern yourself with these concerns.  What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, after all.  But if we're reasoning from first principles -- a better approach, IMHO, despite my disagreement with certain points thereof -- the implications are not trivial. Certain days that are currently allowed under the rhythm method because they present a low risk of getting pregnant may become off-limits because they present too high a risk for the embryo.  Note, too, that folks who are trying to keep from getting pregnant aren't the only ones affected.  Folks who intend to conceive a child are also affected.  Heck, viewed from a certain perspective, this could be a public health issue, much like smoking or drinking during pregnancy -- other behaviors that could have negative consequences for a developing child.

On the other hand, there is a possible solution to the quandry: we could decide to turn all our children gay -- thereby eliminating any risk of embryonic death from heterosexual sex.  There would be some negative population consequences, but nothing that science can't solve.  Perhaps the public schools can help in the endeavor.

(Great.  Now I'm going to get it from both ends in the gay rights debate as well.)

(No pun intended.)

This Is Your Open Thread. There Are Many Open Threads, But This One Is Yours.

by von

I AM THE healthiest man in the universe.  To wit:

PORTLAND, Ore. - For many men, a finding by Oregon researchers sounds too good to be true: An ingredient in beer seems to help prevent prostate cancer, at least in lab experiments.

The trouble is you'd theoretically have to drink about 17 beers a day for any potential benefit. And no one's advising that.

Trouble?  My middle name is trouble.  Bring. It. On.

In other news, your long search for Darryl Hannah is over. Harley has found her.  (UPDATE: See also Ilya Somin, with whom I pretty much agree.)

UPDATE 2: Moved to new post.

Coal in the Fitzmas Stocking

by Charles

The rest of the blogosphere is talking about it, so why not here.  The way it usually works is that authorities determine if a crime has been committed, then they investigate.  Not so in the strange twilight world of Plame, where the threatened indictments are not for outing a CIA agent, but for lying to investigators.  Today we hear that Rove will not be indicted.  I leave the rest to Tom Maguire for the details.  There may be more indictments coming, but right now the investigation looks like a Piccolo Pete that has just run out of juice.

Standard disclosure:  Whether a crime was committed or not, it was wrong for anyone to reveal the identity of a CIA operative.