2nd June 2006


I don’t know if I ever got around to writing up my recanting of my stance on election fraud in the 2004 presidential race – at the time I was quite disparaging of the idea, and I wrote to a number of friends and mailing lists that they should give it a rest and concentrate on more important things (like why half the country still thought it was a good idea to vote for Bush).

Sometime back I read a nice refutation of the argument made against exit polls, based on simple statistical arguments. Essentially the claim made by Edison/Mitofsky (the exit polling organisation) was that there was a substantial skew caused by the (unexplained) tendency of Bush voters to be more reluctant to respond to exit polls, compared to Kerry voters. In fact, the opposite turns out to be the case; in strong Kerry districts the response rate was 53%, while in Bush districts it was 56%. There were a number of other similar arguments which demolished the weak thesis put forward by Edison/Mitofsky to explain the fact that the exit polls failed so dramatically.

But you should all read the long article Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote on the subject for Rolling Stone – here. It’s astoundingly comprehensive, and contains some pretty shocking details. What’s most depressing is that I expect absolutely nothing at all to come of it.

posted by saurabh in Uncategorized | 69 Comments

2nd June 2006

Grassroots defense

We recently had a discussion on here about how to reform democracy in the shell of current systems. One day as I gritted my teeth over it, I burrowed into City Lights Books’ basement, grabbed the first book I saw, bought it, and was pleased to find it addressing this exact topic.

Who Defended the Country? is about how to reclaim democracy in national defense. It is the best exposition I have seen on the ethics and practicality of using decentralized, democratic forms to mount an effective, consensual defense.

The book uses United Flight 93 as a metaphor for the entire country. On Flight 93, author Elaine Scarry points out, the passengers went through five necessary and sufficient phases in the decision to give their lives for a cause. They identified their enemy and determined the enemy’s capabilities; they gathered information about the broader world (the WTC attack) through phone calls; they verified that information through multiple sources; they consulted with outside advisors and with one another to decide on a course of action; they voted; they prepared themselves for action; they took leave of their loved ones; they acted.

It took 23 minutes.

Meanwhile, Scarry accurately points out, today’s military relies on centralized authoritarian decisions without consent of those who will fight, much less those are being dragged along (citizens, allies). Instead, we are supposed to let the President, or maybe even a field commander, decide to use a weapon of mass destruction like a fuel-air explosive or a full nuclear arsenal.

The justification for centralized decisionmaking, Scarry says, is the “argument from speed.” She rightly points out that not only does centralized decisionmaking undermine democracy by eliminating informed consent in the most life-and-death decisions, it is also slow. The Department of “Defense” failed to stop any planes on 0.8181.* (And like she says, had fighters reached the planes, who could justify ordering them to shoot a plane down? No military allows orders that open fire on hundreds of fellow soldiers; why allow such an act on civilians?) Later, with the U.S. on high alert, the military still missed the kid who crashed a Cessna into a Tampa office tower, the folks who cruised around over Washington, D.C. in their private plane, and Richard Reid the feckless shoe-bomber. When it comes to aerial assault, grassroots action by people on the ground is much more effective.

This reminds me of the story of the Finnish farmers. In World War II, they did a job on Russian planes with their rifles. After pilots crashed, they went out and killed them face-to-face. Not to say I approve of killing ill-defended individuals, but rather than a person sitting at home on familiar territory is the best judge of when and how to fight back.

So maybe if you want to defend the country, the best things you can do are learn to defend yourself (physically, mentally). Develop local groups to deal with crises from car crashes to invasions (that is, from most probable to least). Learn to run a quick and effective democratic meeting.

Maybe instead of football and ROTC, our schools should teach people democracy and self-defense. Thoughts?

*It is with relief that I note how long it’s been since I’ve made this
joke. Does that mean we, or at least I, are getting over it?

posted by hedgehog in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

2nd June 2006

That rendition stuff is going great

The people in charge in Washington started grabbing suspects and throwing them in a hole after 9/11 because they were wimps. They thought our system of due process couldn’t handle these guys. They were so ahistorical they thought they were living in a whole new world, one with bigger badder threats than ever, one that required something new and different. Rendition, Gitmo, the “black sites.”

Now, yet another likely Al-Qaeda member gets freed because evidence from these enemy combatants is useless in court. Add him to the list that already includes Mounir el Motassadeq in Germany and quite possibly some characters here in the U.S.

Toughen up, Washington. Just because you can’t take a punch doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t. We don’t need your panicked “defense” that leaves us in more danger than we were before. Time to realize that the tough, manly, honorable response to violence is to defend yourself and then keep doing what you were doing before, like James Bond straightening his tux and returning to his cocktail.

posted by hedgehog in Uncategorized | 0 Comments

  • Blogroll