Tuesday, February 28, 2017

A Guide to Debating Ben Shapiro on Poverty in America

Shapiro's Stance:

  1. Class and income mobility exists in our society
  2. Anyone can succeed in America by simply: a) finishing high school, b) waiting until married to have kids, c) getting a job
  3. Poor people are poor because they "suck at managing their money"
  4. We don’t need to worry about poverty in America because being poor here is better than being poor in most places in the world

Opening Question:

Student: There’s a popular Youtube video of you speaking at a public school, with many low-income students in the audience and you say something along the lines of: “if you are permanently poor in the United States it’s because you suck with money” (video, DailyWire article).

Shapiro: Yes, and then the principal of the school interrupted me and said I "went too far" and told the kids they were all free to leave.

Student: Right. What does it mean to "suck with money"? What is this skill that all poor people lack? 

Shapiro: It means you make poor financial decisions, you don't save money, you buy unnecessary crap and you don't apply yourself toward finding and keeping a job. If you walk down the streets of Manhattan you will see homeless people with expensive iPhones and expensive shoes...

Student: There are many books that document/describe the experience of being poor in America. These books follow some poor people, trace every dollar they earn and spend and the image you get is very different from the one you describe (“Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City” is a recent example). When you read about the experiences of real poor people you realize that the working poor need to be absurdly careful with their money just to survive. Poverty is a crippling source of stress and anxiety. Anyone with young kids on a salary around the minimum wage is constantly rationing food stamps, trying to supplement their income with odd-jobs, skipping meals, just barely making rent, skipping heat in the winter, and cannot waste a single penny. Surviving with kids on a low-income is a perilous and frightening balancing act that boggles the mind and I think is worthy of our respect and admiration. 


That’s not to say you can’t find examples of poor people who are not careful with money, but when you appreciate how difficult is it for the hardest working families to survive in miserable health-code violation conditions with barely enough food for the family, it’s easy to see why some people fall into despair and escapism.

Potential Exchanges:

Shapiro: There’s no one who care enough about you in this country to try to hold you back.
Obviously not, but regressive laws and a regressive tax system make it needlessly expensive to be poor - that’s the problem. Poverty in America is extremely expensive. Poor people pay a higher percentage of their income in state and local taxes than wealthy people, poor people rely on old cars that are constantly breaking down and cost more to fix, insurance is more expensive in poor neighborhoods, poor people pay more in rent as a fraction of the value of their apartment than wealthy people, food is more expensive in poor neighborhoods and poor people can’t afford to buy in bulk, poor people can’t afford to use a bank because of low-balance and overdraft fees so poor people cash their checks at places that take a cut, there are also debt traps, etc.

Shapiro: The reality you’re describing is simply free-market capitalism. Any attempt to do price-fixing or redistribute money to people that didn’t earn that money will undermine the incentives that drive our economy and cause a Venezuela-style economic collapse.

Shapiro: That’s why we have entitlement programs and welfare
The United States ranks second to last in the developed world when it comes to child poverty. Our social safety net is better than the social safety net in Sudan, but compared to any other wealthy nation it’s grotesque. Millions of families are forced to survive on a few dollars a day and can’t even afford diapers for their kids. It’s shameful and totally unnecessary.

Shapiro: If a poor person wins the lottery they invariably end up poor again soon.
That’s because the financial habits that a person develops in poverty are not transferable to the habits that a person develops when they are making a comfortable income. The skill of scraping together ten dollars a month in savings doesn’t prepare you for picking out the best Roth IRA. The adjustment from spending 100% of your disposable income to saving money takes some time but that is just a side-effect of being poor, not the other way around.

Shapiro: That’s just wrong. If you work hard in this country, you will succeed. Period.
If you think that's true then tell your audience to go to the library, take-out a book on poverty in America, see the experience for themselves so they can make their own determination. People who have read about poverty in America or have seen it firsthand see you as trafficking in cruel and self-serving stereotypes - not facts.
If you have any criticisms, additions, or suggestions, please leave a comment and I will update this document with any thoughts that I think are useful.

Monday, February 27, 2017

A Guide for Debating Ben Shapiro on Institutional Racism

Shapiro's Stance:

  1. Racists exists, but institutional racism does not exist. There are even advantages to being black in America today (scholarships, affirmative action, etc.).
  2. Institutional racism existed as late as the 70s and 80s, but has since been resolved
  3. Ben Shapiro: “point me to an example of an institution that is racist and we can fight that racism together.”
  4. Ben Shapiro: “if someone has been the target of institutional racism they can find a good lawyer and sue that institution.”
  5. For anyone to “make it” in America they need to: a) finish high school, b) wait for marriage to have children, c) get a job - this has nothing to do with race. Failure to “make it” in America, reflects a moral failing on the part of the person who failed to make it.
  6. Claims of institutional racism reflects a failure to appreciate how wonderful and prosperous life in America is today.
  7. Institutional racism is a tool of "the left" for invoking government action and curtailing freedoms.
  8. People are only incarcerated in this country if they deserve it.

    Opening Question:

    Student: You minimize the significance of institutional racism in our society, but there’s a lot of academic literature on that topic. I want to understand what you think about that literature. Is it all BS?

    Shapiro: Yes, most of it is BS.

    Student: Okay, that's fair. But just to be clear, we're talking about conclusions in reputable academic journals and the conclusions of data scientists who are doing simple data-analysis on loan interest rate data and government sentencing data. You flatly reject the validity of all those results? Do you think our nation's academics are dishonest? Misled?

    Shapiro: Firstly, I don't think it's really a consensus in the academic world. Secondly, yes I think the academic community has a very distorting liberal bias. But I'm not really sure what findings you're referring to so it's impossible for me to respond.

    Student: Okay, so let's be very specific. I have here written a few specific examples of institutional racism that are frequently cited in the academic literature:

    1. When controlling for credit score, Blacks and Latinos pay higher interest rates for home loans than Whites
    2. Blacks and Latinos are more likely to be turned down for a bank loan than Whites
    3. Black students get harsher punishments in school than White students for the exact same infractions from as early as preschool
    4. Americans see Black boys as being older and less innocent than White boys of the same age and this discrepancy gets exaggerated when the person making that judgement is told that the boy under inspection was suspected of a crime
    5. On average, Blacks receive sentences 20% longer than Whites for the exact same crimes
    6. People with black sounding names and a strong resume are less likely to be called for a job interview than people with white sounding names and a weak resume
    7. Blacks are far more likely to be incarcerated for drug crimes than Whites and the project of mass incarceration has resulted in America being the most highly incarcerated country in the world and has completely destroyed Black communities in this country
    8. Defendants are much more likely to be sentenced to death for killing a white person than killing a black person
    9. A report by the National Registry of Exonerations found innocent black people are about seven times more likely to be convicted of murder than innocent white people and that black people convicted of murder are about 50% more likely to be innocent than other convicted murderers

    Potential Exchanges:

    Shapiro: Wrong, felonies are under-prosecuted in the Black community.

    Okay, that's an interesting statistic, but not really relevant to what I'm talking about. More relevant statistics include: how does the severity of the sentence meted out change by race? How does prosecution depend on whether we're talking about Black-on-Black crime or Black-on-White crime?

    Shapiro: That statistic may be correct, but it doesn't imply racism. There is no one you can point to and say ‘you’re a racist.’

    Great! so you’re just saying that the whole issue here is one of terminology. You recognize that Blacks face barriers to success, but you're caught up on the question of whether or not we can identify a particular bigot. The whole point of term "institutional racism" as distinct from regular racism is that there is no individual racist. These are barriers to success that exist as part of an institutional biases and practice. If you want, we can pick a different term for it, but it's nice that we can agree that the phenomena exists and now maybe we can have a conversation about what to do about it.

    Shapiro: There's nothing that can be done about that, that's just the way markets/systems/institutions work.

    Okay, so maybe we agree that institutional racism exists, but we disagree about whether or not anything that can be done. That’s perfectly fair. What to do about systemic racism is a very different discussion than does systemic racism exist. 

    Here are the kinds of solutions people who talk about this issue want to see: fix our nation's highly discriminatory peremptory strike laws that allows lawyers to eliminate jurors based on skin color, rollback our country’s draconian mandatory minimum sentencing laws for non-violent drug offences, demand better oversight and training for law enforcement, invest in our nation’s public school system and fight any legislation which seeks to de-fund our nation’s public schools under the guise of school-choice and private-school voucherization, call for a moratorium on the death penalty until our society address the systemic racial bias in the way it currently gets applied, pass that laws that allow people who were those convicted of non-violent crimes access to government housing, the right to vote, and fair employment procedures, etc.

    Shapiro: If a bank is discriminating against Blacks in their loan offerings, someone should just sue that bank.

    I’m really glad you raised that point, because that is the crux of the issue and is exactly the reason that the concept of institutional racism is so important. In our country you cannot sue under the equal protection clause in unless you prove discriminatory intent, in other words, the only racism protected by our country’s laws is the racism of a bigot and not the institutional racism that we are talking about. The famous example is the Supreme Court case McClesky v. Kemp. In that case, the prosecutor showed that killers of Whites were significantly more likely to receive the death penalty than killers of Blacks and the court agreed with that finding but found that there was no discriminatory intent so the prosecution lost that case. This is exactly why the notion of institutional racism exists and is important - there are still grotesque forms of racism that cannot be addressed by our legal system.

    Shapiro: It’s a myth that our justice system disproportionately targets Blacks, and the reason Blacks are more likely to receive the death penalty is because they are far more likely to commit violent crime.

    The whole world of academia disagrees with you, and the supreme court of the United States disagrees with you. See McClesky v. Kemp (in that case the Supreme Court acknowledged major racial disparities in the application of the death penalty). Denying these racial disparities is such a joke because all this government data is publicly available and anyone who knows how to use Excel can do their own analysis and confirm these results for themselves. 

    Shapiro: Universities are a bastion of liberal ideology and shouldn’t be trusted.

    Okay, so you’re saying that if institutional racism of that kind existed, you agree that we should stand-up and fight against, but you just don't believe the people who say it exists. When data-scientists explore open government data about mortgage rate information or sentencing data - you will automatically assume those data-scientists are dishonest? What if I do that data analysis myself? If we sat down together and analyzed government sentencing/home mortgage data and found the discrepancies on our own, would you change your mind then?

    Shapiro: You have it backward. This notion of institutional racism promotes a narrative of victimhood that causes people to be held back in our society.

    If you read any book or news article about poverty in the inner-city, you would know that every teacher and counselor and parent trying to raise a kid in that environment hammers home a mantra of “no excuses” - if you don't succeed you have only yourself to blame. So the idea that poor people are reveling in their victimhood is patently false.

    More to the point, these teachers and students do not know about or do not care about institutional racism. The message to these kids is that they shouldn’t be held back by the fact that: a) they don’t have enough calories in their stomach to focus in math class, or b) their father is in jail for drug possession, or c) their younger brother got shot by a stray bullet while walking home from school the other day. The idea that affluent people like me reading books about institutional racism written by other successful academics is the barrier to success preventing these kids from escaping a miserable and grinding poverty is just laughable.

    Shapiro: The reason Black communities have so much drug abuse and violent crime is because of 'Black culture.'

    I think that’s a very simplistic and self-serving theory, but I’m not going to debate that with you because it’s completely irrelevant to the question of institutional racism that I'm talking about. I'm arguing that Blacks and Whites should be treated equally in our society and I'm arguing that they're not treated equally in our society. You're welcome imagine the average Black person as a delinquent, but that is unrelated to my argument that Black people deserved to be sentenced the same way Whites are sentenced and get the same interest rate on a loan as a white person in the same socio-economic circumstance.

    More Info:


    See also: A Guide to Debating Ben Shapiro on Poverty in America

    If you have any criticisms, additions, or suggestions, please leave a comment and I will update this document with any thoughts that I think are useful.

    Saturday, February 25, 2017

    Mr. Smeds and Mr. Spats

    From Shel Silverstein's A Light in the Attic:



    From Wikipedia's Great Famine (Ireland) article, about food exports from Ireland during the famine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Irish_food_exports_during_Famine):

    Throughout the entire period of the Famine, Ireland was exporting enormous quantities of food. In the magazine History Ireland (1997, issue 5, pp. 32–36), Christine Kinealy, a Great Hunger scholar, lecturer, and Drew University professor, relates her findings: Almost 4,000 vessels carried food from Ireland to the ports of Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool, and London during 1847, when 400,000 Irish men, women, and children died of starvation and related diseases. She also writes that Irish exports of calves, livestock (except pigs), bacon, and ham actually increased during the Famine. This food was shipped under British military guard from the most famine-stricken parts of Ireland; Ballina, Ballyshannon, Bantry, Dingle, Killala, Kilrush, Limerick, Sligo, Tralee, and Westport. A wide variety of commodities left Ireland during 1847, including peas, beans, onions, rabbits, salmon, oysters, herring, lard, honey, tongues, animal skins, rags, shoes, soap, glue, and seed. The most shocking export figures concern butter. Butter was shipped in firkins, each one holding 9 imperial gallons; 41 litres. In the first nine months of 1847, 56,557 firkins (509,010 imperial gallons; 2,314,000 litres) were exported from Ireland to Bristol, and 34,852 firkins (313,670 imperial gallons; 1,426,000 litres) were shipped to Liverpool, which correlates with 822,681 imperial gallons (3,739,980 litres) of butter exported to England from Ireland during nine months of the worst year of the Famine. The problem in Ireland was not lack of food, which was plentiful, but the price of it, which was beyond the reach of the poor. 

    A contemporary example of the same phenomena:
    http://www.irinnews.org/news/2006/03/21/lowland-districts-face-water-shortages

    Tuesday, February 7, 2017

    What "Left" Means to Me

    Contrary to the characterizations I most often hear, I don’t care about diversity, I don’t care about inclusion or love or tolerance. I don't want government to orchestrate our economy, and I don’t want to live in a society where everyone is equal or everyone is treated the same.

    For me, being on the left means I am interested in the ways institutions operate, wield power, and whether or not that power is being abused. There are two major themes in my world of progressive thinking and reading: 1) what evidence can we find that suggests the existence of systemic disenfranchisement, 2) what are the specific mechanisms of disenfranchisement and oppression that explain this evidence. Below I will give specific examples from each of these two themes.

    Theme I - Evidence of Systemic Disenfranchisement:

    • In 2013, the net worth of the median black household in the United States was $11,000. The net worth of the median white household was $141,9001. This wealth gap between the races is greater than the wealth gap between the races in South Africa during apartheid. This suggests some major barriers to success that affect people based on the color of their skin.
    • Even after controlling for income and education level, whites live five years longer on average than blacks.
    • 1 in 3 black men will go to prison in his lifetime.
    • America is the most highly incarcerated country in the world - we have more people behind bars per-capita than Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc.
    • Child poverty in America is the second to worst in the whole developed world.

    Theme II – Mechanisms of Power and Disenfranchisement:

    • Progressives are interested in understanding the role money plays in our political system and the way our laws are often determined by the donors, corporations and special interest groups that fund political campaigns.
    • Progressives are interested in understanding how our nation’s drug laws, policing, and legal system disproportionately criminalize and destroy black communities and how our laws permanently disenfranchise people who get caught up in our legal system. Netflix’s Documentary “13th” deals with this issue, and an excerpt from Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow” is pasted below.
    • Having a gay friend in helpful for better appreciating LGBT issues, but America is so profoundly segregated than the average white person doesn’t have more than one black friend out of a hundred.2
    • Progressives are interested in understanding the mechanisms that created the modern crime-ridden slum. Excerpts from “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City” about the evolution of the modern “inner-city ghetto” below.
    • Progressives are interested in the ways it’s much more expensive to be poor than it is to be rich. For example: poor people pay more for public transportation because they can’t afford to buy a monthly pass. Poor people rely on old cars that are constantly breaking down and cost more to fix. Insurance is more expensive in poor than non-poor neighborhoods. Poor people pay in rent much more than their apartments or trailers are worth. Poor people eat less healthy, because healthy food is more expensive than unhealthy food. All food is more expensive in poor neighborhoods and poor people can’t afford to save money by buying in bulk. Poor people can’t afford to own a washing machine so they pay more over time at the laundromat. Poor people can’t afford to keep their money in a bank because of heavy low-balance and over-draft fees. Therefore, poor people have to cash their checks at places that take a cut. Poor people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than wealthy people. This list goes on.

    Examples of Progressive-Style Thinking/Writing:

    Trailer for Netflix's Documentary 13th:

    From Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City:
    Image may contain: text

    Image may contain: text

    From Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow:

    Image may contain: text



    1 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/

    2 http://www.prri.org/research/poll-race-religion-politics-americans-social-networks/

    Saturday, February 4, 2017

    My Favorite Scene From the Book: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep


    Contains minor spoilers.

    For me, Philp K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep speaks directly to this political moment. The book deals extensively with themes of empathy, compassion, law enforcement, our thinking about illegal immigrants and criminals, and what it means to be human. Even though it was published in 1968, the book anticipates virtual reality, and the desire to broadcast our experiences and emotions and tap into the experiences and emotions of other strangers in a way that evokes how Facebook and Twitter are used today.

    Like other Philip K. Dick novels, Do Androids Dream depicts Earth as a bleak post-apocalyptic dystopia. The plot follows bounty hunter Rick Deckard working for the San Francisco Police Department to hunt and kill androids living on planet Earth illegally. Deckard's work is complicated by the fact that androids are basically indistinguishable from human beings with only the following differentiators:
    1. Androids are manufactured in factories (not born) and female androids cannot get pregnant
    2. Androids can have memories implanted in their brains (humans cannot)
    3. The lifespan of an android is about four years
    4. Androids seem to lack an instinctive empathy-reflex that human beings exhibit
    In the book, Deckard uses a “Voigt-Kampff” test to measure the empathy-reflex of a subject. To what extent this test measures something meaningful about the “inner-world” of the android and whether androids truly are deficient in their capacity for empathy is an ambiguity that I don’t think gets fully resolved.

    Around the middle of the book, Deckard is sitting across from an acclaimed Opera singer named Luba Luft in her dressing room and preparing to administer a “Voigt-Kampff” test to determine if she is an android. Luft carefully evades the questions Deckard needs to administer the test, she suggests that Deckard might be an android himself and suddenly pulls a laser-gun on him:
    "You're not from the police department; you're a sexual deviant."
    "You can look at my identification." He reached toward his coat pocket. His hand, he saw, had again begun to shake, as it had with Polokov.
    "If you reach in there," Luba Luft said, "I'll kill you."
     After more dialog:
    Still holding the laser tube in his direction she crossed the room, picked up the vidphone, dialed the operator. "Connect me with the San Francisco Police Department," she said. "I need a policeman."
    "What you're doing," Rick said, with relief, "is the best idea possible." Yet it seemed strange to him that Luba had decided to do this; why didn't she simply kill him? Once the patrolman arrived her chance would disappear and it all would go his way. She must think she's human, he decided. Obviously she doesn't know.
    Soon a uniformed police officer named Officer Crams shows up at the dressing room and starts interrogating Luba Luft and Deckard. The officer is amazed to see Deckard’s police badge, but when they try to exchange names of bounty hunters and officers that they work with, they are surprised to find out that neither recognizes any of the names cited by the other. Deckard is cuffed and put into Crams police car to be taken to the “Hall of Justice,” but Deckard notices that they are traveling in the wrong direction:
    "The Hall of justice," Rick said, "is north, on Lombard."
    "That's the old Hall of Justice," Officer Crams said. "The new one is on Mission. That old building, it's disintegrating; it's a ruin. Nobody's used that for years. Has it been that long since you last got booked?"
     After more tense dialog:
    Rick said, "Admit to me that you're an android."
    "Why? I'm not an android. What do you do, roam around killing people and telling yourself they're androids? I can see why Miss Luft was scared. It's a good thing for her that she called us."
    "Then take me to the Hall of Justice, on Lombard."
    "Like I—"
    "It'll take about three minutes," Rick said. "I want to see it. Every morning I check in for work, there; I want to see that it's been abandoned for years, as you say."
    "Maybe you're an android," Officer Crams said. "With a false memory, like they give them. Had you thought of that?" He grinned frigidly as he continued to drive south.
    To his astonishment and horror, Deckard is taken as a suspected criminal to a busy Hall of Justice that he has never seen, but not too dissimilar from the one he works at on the other side of town. The plot heightens when Deckard is interrogated by a police inspector named Garland who finds his own name on Deckard's list of androids to hunt. Garland to one of his bounty hunters:
    "I don't think you understand the situation," Garland said. "This man—or android—Rick Deckard, comes to us from a phantom, hallucinatory, nonexistent police agency allegedly operating out of the old departmental headquarters on Lombard. He's never heard of us and we've never heard of him—yet ostensibly we're both working the same side of the street. He employs a test we've never heard of. The list he carries around isn't of androids; it's a list of human beings. He's already killed once—at least once. And if Miss Luft hand't gotten to a phone, he probably would have killed her and then eventually he would have come sniffing around after me."
    The image of Deckard walking through the Hall of Justice thrown into the surreal and uncanny confrontation with an alternative, but parallel vision of reality has stuck with me for many years and feels particularly relevant in this political climate of "fake news" and alternative facts.

    Sunday, January 15, 2017

    Military Occupations and Their Effects

    This article was originally published here: http://whatsleftofreligion.com/2016/07/25/military-occupations-effects/

    The Nature of Military Occupation

    Military occupations are never tolerated by the occupied. The British Armed Forces were deployed in Northern Ireland in 1969 at the request of the Unionist Government of Northern Ireland. These soldiers were welcomed by the Catholic population of Ireland in response to Protestant riots and terrorism against Catholic marches for civil rights at the time. However, by 1971 the same Catholics, organized as the IRA, were fighting the British in a brutal campaign of terrorism.

    From Wikipedia’s article Provisional Irish Republican Army:
    …the IRA was responsible for 1,768 deaths, about 47% of the total conflict deaths. Of these, 934 (about 52%) were members of the British security forces, while 639 (about 36%) were civilians (including 61 former members of the security forces).
    Source: David McKittrick et al. Lost Lives: The Stories of the Men, Women and Children who Died as a Result of the Northern Ireland Troubles. Random House, 2006. pp. 1551-55

    Military occupations are always brutal. There is no other kind. The United State’s occupation of Iraq has been shockingly brutal. Below are a few anecdotal examples of terror inflicted on civilians by US Marines in military occupied Iraq:
    1. Haditha massacre
    2. Mahmudiyah rape and killings
    3. Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre
    4. Hamdania incident
    5. Ishaqi incident
    6. “…the victims had been taken to the hospital and one of them looked deceased. I asked them [the American soldiers] why they fired into the crowd. Without saying a word, the soldier turned away from me and asked the gathering group of Iraqi men if the “gunman” was shot. No one answered. I interrupted and said that as far as I knew — and I was standing next to the man who was shot — there was no gunman in the crowd. (Four other journalists in the crowd at the time told me later that the only shots fired were from the American soldiers.) Apparently satisfied, the Americans walked away.”
      Reporter Scott Anger reporting for PBS Frontline
    More exhaustive lists of these incidents are easy to find but a Human Rights Watch report on the topic Post-war Civilian Deaths in Baghdad caused by US Forces provides numerous “case-studies” and gives a good sense of the scope and regularity of these abuses. From the opening summary:
    The individual cases of civilian deaths documented in this report reveal a pattern by U.S. forces of over-aggressive tactics, indiscriminate shooting in residential areas and a quick reliance on lethal force. In some cases, U.S. forces faced a real threat, which gave them the right to respond with force. But that response was sometimes disproportionate to the threat or inadequately targeted, thereby harming civilians or putting them at risk.
    In all of these scenarios, U.S. soldiers can be arrogant and abusive. They have been seen putting their feet on detained Iraqis’ heads—a highly insulting offense. Male soldiers sometimes touch or even search female Iraqis, also a culturally unacceptable act.
    It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the British peace-keeping force during Ireland’s Troubles turned deadly as well. From Wikipedia’s article Operation Banner:
    The British military was responsible for about 10% of all deaths in the conflict. According to one study, the British military killed 306 people during Operation Banner, 156 (~51%) of whom were unarmed civilians. Another study says the British military killed 301 people, 160 (~53%) of whom were unarmed civilians. Of the civilians killed, 61 were children. Only four soldiers were convicted of murder while on duty in Northern Ireland. All were released after serving two or three years of life sentences and allowed to rejoin the Army. Senior Army officers privately lobbied successive Attorney Generals not to prosecute soldiers, and the Committee on the Administration of Justice says there is evidence soldiers were given some level of immunity from prosecution.
    Source: Ulster University’s Conflict Archive on the Internet (CAIN) (also)
    Here are a few reasons I can think of that explain why occupations are so brutal:
    1. Like all terrorism the behavior of only a few “bad actors” is sufficient to thoroughly terrorize a whole population
    2. The Stanford prison experiment highlights the way human beings are inclined to suspend their otherwise sound moral judgments when lording power over other people (see also).
    3. Soldiers are generally young, trained to kill and can be expected to make mistakes when found in a state of unremitting stress, discomfort and fear.
    The occupied rebel against their occupiers because occupation feels like state-sponsored terror. Moreover, the tendency for rebellion against power by the powerless seems to me to be a basic characteristic of human nature. “Healthy” human beings do not tolerate systemic abuse, abasement and marginalization and will go to great lengths to achieve self-determination. Terrorism and military occupation go hand-in-hand.

    Whether or not an occupation is justified in an entirely different question. A brutal occupation is not necessarily illegitimate or unnecessary. However, the reality of occupation needs to be understood by the general public so that its worst effects can be mitigated and the value gained from occupation can be weighed against its moral and human cost.

    The Social Effects of Occupation

    In Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault outlines the emergence of the modern prison system and the “delinquent class” of people that inhabit it. Foucault, like legal scholar Michelle Alexander in The New Jim Crow and others, shed light on the way large portions of the poor black population in the United States have been systematically criminalized, incarcerated and excluded from the project of social mobility.

    What emerges from these analyses is a template through which a superfluous population can be effectively eliminated. Uneven policing and incarceration (for minor drug offenses for example) inculcates an adversarial relationship with authority, surrounds the incarcerated with other criminal aspects of society, tears apart families, creates long-term obstacles for successful education and employment, and brands the incarcerated individual as a felon for the rest of his or her life leaving them vulnerable to other forms of discrimination and social exclusion. The inevitable effect of mass incarceration is more incarceration, more criminality and more violence. The consequences of the US’s “war on crime” policies are dramatic:
    “According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, one in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime.” (source)
    The violent crime rate in the mostly black city of Detroit was 21.23 per 1,000 (15,011 violent crimes) in 2012, that same year the virtually all-white city of Grosse Point, Michigan nearby reported a rate of only 1.12 per 1,000 (6 violent crimes) (source).

    On the other side of criminalization is a climate of fear and racism of the powerful toward the powerless. Affluent neighborhoods expect local police to patrol and protect them from anyone who might try to enter from a lower-class neighborhood. The constant barrage of local news reports on inner-city violence promote a narrative that the lower class is a dangerous population that must be contained. Before World War II our delinquent class would be called genetically predisposed toward violence, but in a Post-World War II world that same behavior is called a “cultural predisposition.” The racist implications of both sentiments are the same. The project of criminalization produces more segregation, fear and racism toward the criminalized.

    The ingredients for criminalizing a population and the creation of a delinquent class are segregation, an adversarial relationship between members of that population and law enforcement, incarceration, dire economic conditions and a general climate of powerlessness. Many or all of these ingredients may be found in military occupations. The Palestinian populations of Gaza and the West Bank for example, are fully excluded from the prosperity enjoyed by their occupiers. Israeli policing and law-enforcement in those areas generates antagonism and continuously underscores the powerlessness of that population. From the International Labor Organization for example:
    The Palestinian people continue to suffer under an occupation that has jeopardized the attainment of their basic human rights and human security, as well as any meaningful progress in human development. The economic situation has also been exacerbated by a continued divide between the West Bank and Gaza, stagnating economic growth, persistent fiscal crises, higher unemployment, as well as increased poverty and food insecurity. 

    Following economic gains primarily attributed to the upsurge in construction activity linked to the tunnel economy in Gaza during the 2008 to 2011 period, gross domestic product (GDP) growth has stagnated. Increased political instability, the absence of any further easing of Israeli-imposed restrictions on economic activity, as well as Israel’s 2012 military operation in Gaza have all contributed to raising the rate of unemployment from 21 per cent in 2011 to 24.5 per cent in 2013. (source)

    Young jobseekers face an even more serious challenge as the youth unemployment rate reached almost 40 per cent for young men and 63 per cent for young women in 2014. More than 70 per cent of Palestinians are under 30 years of age and they are facing very serious difficulties in finding a job after completing their education. (source)
    Due to an inequitable distribution of water between Israel and the Palestinians territories, Palestinians endure water shortages and rationing. The predictable outcome of these conditions is anger, criminality and violence on the one hand, ghettoization, harsher policing and racism on the other.

    On Israel’s Military Occupation

    The West Bank was seized by Israel from Jordan and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, during the Six-Day War in 1967. The West Bank was never annexed by Israel and she maintains a large military presence there to this day. In 2005 Israel withdrew its military from the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, the United Nations still considers Gaza to be under Israeli military occupation because Israel controls Gaza’s borders, waters and airspace.

    The term “occupation” is understandably upsetting to people who are pro-Israel because it implies that Israel doesn’t belong in these places. And indeed, there are some pro-Palestinian voices that fight the occupation from the perspective that Israel does not belong in the region altogether. Nevertheless, “military occupation” is an accurate label for the way Israel restricts the flow of goods in and out of the territories, and policies the movement of people through overcrowded and demeaning security checkpoints. Israel’s anti-terrorism policing in the territories is aggressive, preemptive and violent (from 15:15 in the video, one soldier’s candid testimony). To the world, this is a definitional example of military occupation and we don’t do ourselves any favors by staying oblivious to that fact.

    None of this is to say that the Israeli occupation is unjust or unnecessary. There are circumstances when military occupations are legitimate. The standard pro-occupation position is that the occupation is necessary for security reasons, and indeed this is a defensible argument. Moreover, one can argue that the Israeli government has taken steps to end the occupation and these projects proved to be impossible for one reason or another. However, it’s important to understand the implications of occupation so an informed cost-benefit analysis can be made for the short and long-term.

    We are obviously distraught by terrorism emanating from the occupied territories, but we shouldn’t be surprised. When we think about Israel’s current policies, it’s critical to recognize that terrorism against Israelis is their inevitable side-effect. No matter how deeply we care about Israel, no matter how intractable the conflict seems, no matter how necessary the military occupation appears to be, we shouldn’t act surprised by:
    1. Racism and anti-Palestinian violence flourish in the settler movement (Duma arson attack, Israeli price tag attacks).
    2. The overwhelming consensus among recent heads of the Shin Bet, (Israel’s Security Agency), is that Israel’s policy in the Palestinian territories is damaging to security of the country and should be reformed (source, documentary on this topic).
    3. Prominent Israeli intellectual Yeshayahu Leibowitz wrote: “Rule over the occupied territories would have social repercussions… A state ruling a hostile population of 1.5 to 2 million foreigners would necessarily become a secret-police state, with all that this implies for education, free speech, and democratic institutions. The corruption characteristic of every colonial regime would also prevail in the state of Israel. The administration would have to suppress Arab insurgency on the one hand and acquire Arab Quislings on the other. There is also good reason to fear that the Israel Defense Force, which has been until now a people’s army, would, as a result of being transformed into an army of occupation, degenerate, and its commanders, who will have become military governors, resemble their colleagues in other nations. Out of concern for the Jewish people and its state we have no choice but to withdraw from the territories and their population of one and a half million Arabs.” (source)
    4. Human Right Watch and other independent human rights organizations incessantly publish reports about horrendous abuses perpetrated by Israeli security forces in the occupied territories, eg: source, source, source.
    5. The whole international community condemns the occupation as unjust and illegal.
    The path forward isn’t simple, but if we are to achieve a more peaceful and equitable future for the region, it will be through honest and rigorous introspection, an openness to the narrative of others, and the courage to think creatively about the challenges we face.

    Monday, January 2, 2017

    The Forever War, Dexter Filkins

    At a time when trust in the American news media is at historic lows, The Forever War is a demonstration of the invaluable journalism that is so necessary for being informed about the world and makes democracy possible. Before reading this book I knew almost nothing about my country’s war in Iraq and I didn’t know how little I knew. The way the US was operating in Iraq, its agendas and processes, the personalities entrusted with the success or failure of the project, the enemies we faced, the experience of Iraqi civilians caught in the conflict, the potential or lack thereof for installing a Democracy in the wake of Saddam Hussein, the reality of the conflict on the ground, the causalities of the conflict, the experience of our troops, etc. 

    The book covers the initial invasion of Iraq until 2008, so it doesn't speak directly to the rise of ISIS in Iraq, but it gives invaluable context necessary for understanding why ISIS happened.

    The book opens with the author’s experience of the 9/11 terror attacks in New York City. After describing the carnage around him, Filkins reflects:

    All those street vendors who worked near the World Trade Center, from all those different countries, selling falafel and schwarma. When they heard the planes and watched the towers they must have thought the same as I did: that they’d come home (p. 45).

    The Forever War gives us access to a place where terror and bombs are a fixture of day-to-day life. In describing the terror attacks that permeated Iraqi cities shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein:

    They started to come in waves. Four a day. Ten a day. Twelve a day. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Sometimes, all of them before breakfast….No one wanted to stand in a crowd anymore. No one wanted to stand in line. Every morning the Iraqis who worked for the Americans in the Green Zone lined up for security checks before they were allowed inside, and the lines stretched for hundreds of yards into the streets, sometimes for hours….One after the other, the car bombs flew into the lines. One after another, men wearing puffy jackets wandering into the lines, sweaty and nervous, mumbling to themselves, then exploding.

    After a while, everything started to sound like a bomb. A door slamming in the house sounded like a bomb. A car back-firing sounded like a bomb. Sometimes it felt like the sounds of bombs and the call to prayer were the only sounds the country could produce, its own strange national anthem (p. 174).
    Like Michael Herr’s Dispatches, this book is written in a style that is concise and understated, but paints a vivid picture of unfathomable suffering – human beings in the orbit of anarchy and violence. There are no poetic flourishes, only harsh and haunting experiences from which the mind reels. In one episode, Filkins maneuvering with a group marines at night describes the scene of their commander accidentally approving a massive air strike on their own position and noticing the mistake just seconds before the whole company is annihilated. In a separate episode, after a fire-fight with an insurgent shooting at American troops from a minaret, Filkin’s and his photographer Ashley start running toward the minaret to get a picture of the dead insurgent.
    …Ash and I stepped to go through the door when a pair of Marines stepped in front of us. We’ll go first, they said….and they bounded up the stairs. Ashley with his camera fell in behind them and I was behind Ashley.
    …The shot was loud inside the staircase, and I couldn’t see much, because the second marine was falling backwards, falling onto Ashley, who fell onto me. Warm liquid spattered on my face. Three of us tumbled backward out of the doorway….The shot had come from farther up the stairs. A very loud shot. Then tumbling and screaming and then quiet. The guy who had fired was in the minaret, at the top of the stairs, sitting up there.
    Filkins goes on to describe a scene of panic and chaos as marines storm the minaret to rescue Miller, the shot American soldier trapped inside.
    Again and again they went up, Goggin and the others, and there were more shots and more dust and more loud fucks. I wondered how many people were going to die to save Miller, who was shot for a picture. The insurgents didn’t leave their dead behind, and neither did the marines….Maybe the whole platoon would die, I thought.
    Eventually:
    Miller appeared. Two marines had pulled him out, Goggin one of them, chocking and coughing…Miller was on his back; he’d come out head first. His face was opened in a large V, split like meat, fish maybe, with the two sides jiggling.
    “Please tell me he’s not dead,” Ash said. “Please tell me.”
    “He’s dead,” I said.
     As they are running for cover through a storm of bullets:
    “I want to die,” I heard Ashley say. “I hope they shoot me.” (p. 209-210)
    Later in the book, Filkins meets and is received warmly by Miller’s parents.

    In addition to describing the experience of combat, this book is about the reality of military occupation and doomed project of nation-building in Iraq. The extravagant aims of America’s investment into Iraqi society are undermined by shocking levels of corruption and incompetence and chaos at every level. From a meeting between the American army leadership and Iraqi provincial government officials:
    They moved on to the next topic: the bank robbery. “Yesterday, about 10 billion Iraqi dinars disappeared from the Rafidain Bank in downtown Ramadi,” one of the marines said. “That’s about $7 million.”
    “It’s most of the bank’s deposits,” Rashid said.
    “How did they do that?” Colonel MacFarland asked. “There’s an American overwatch post right next door. You’d need several trucks to carry out that much money. Did anyone see anything?”
    “Apparently no one saw anything,” Governor Rashid said.
    “There were more than 150 people in the bank that day,” Colonel Corte said. “That doesn’t sound right to me, Governor.”
    The governor agreed.
    “It is hard to believe that with this much military presence next door, they could do this,” Rashid said. “It must have been an inside job.”
    MacFarland weighed in again. “People’s life savings were in there,” he said. “Were the deposits insured?”
    The governor allowed himself a small smile.
    “In Iraq, we don’t have that,” he said.
    After an hour, the meeting ended. We stood up and gathered near the front door.
    A marine gave the usual warning.
    “Sniper area – run!” he shouted, and everyone leaving the meeting ran (p. 311-312).
    Filkins describes brutal and dangerous policing in which soldiers conduct door-by-door raids, often netting no weapons and no arrests and characterized by Filkins as: “Americans making enemies faster than they could kill them” (153).

    The tenor of this project is well summed up by a Colonel Nathan Sassaman:
    “I think we are close,” he said. “With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them.”
    Filkins, shocked by this suggestion, asks Sassaman if he really thinks that “fear and violence” is what is needed to rebuild Iraq. Sassaman confirms this is what he thinks. On the immense cultural divide separating the Iraqi people from their American occupiers:
    Some of Sassaman’s soldiers had begun throwing around the phrase, “the Arab mind,” which they had picked up from a pseudoscientific book by the same name that was popular among American officers. One of them was Captain Brown.…”You’ve got to understand the Arab mind,” Brown told me outside the gates of Abu Hishma. “The only thing they understand is force-force, pride and saving face” (p. 160).
    Unsurprisingly, Sassaman tactics led him to be discharged by the army. Marwan and Zaydoon were two Iraqis who were pushed off a ledge at gun point into the Tigris river at night, a practice common among Sassaman’s men. Zaydoon drowned that night leading to the arrest of two American soldiers under his command. Filkins gives a sad epilogue to the story that seems to highlight the inescapable effects of psychological trauma that haunts many soldiers once they come back home:
    In the case of Marwan and Zaydoon, [Ralph] Logan was the only American who acted with unquestioned honor. Logan, a low-ranking specialist from Indian Lake, Ohio, had been in the Bradley that night when his comrades spotted Marwan and Zaydoon driving around after curfew. He’d helped cuff them. But when his lieutenant ordered him to throw Marwan and Zyodoon into the Tigris, Logan refused. Logan’s commander was angry with him, but he let him stay behind in the road. The other soldiers walked Marwan and Zayoon down to the riverbank….Like Sassaman, he’d left the army, too. “Basically, the guys in the unit made it clear they didn’t want me around anymore,” Logan said.
    …
    On the night of September 10, 2006, Logan walked into the lobby of a Comfort Inn motel and robbed the attendant at knife-point. Then Logan drove to his mother’s home. He left the $4,000 he got from the hotel in a bag in the car….Three days later, a police officer came to the house…Logan had been waiting for him. He confessed on the spot. He got two years in prison. His mother, Nany, visits him twice a month…she’d never heard about Marwan and Zaydoon (165-167).
    Filkins’ book describes the transition from the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein to the anarchy and sectarian violence that sprouted its wake. For civilian Iraqis, that transition is well summed up by a diagram drawn by an interpreter named Yusra al-Hakeem:
    She took my notebook and flipped it to a blank page.…She drew a large circle in the middle.
    “This is Sadaam,” she said. “He is here. Big. During Saddam’s time, all you had to do was stay away from this giant thing. That was not pleasant, but not so hard.”
    She flipped to another blank page. She drew dozens of circles, some of them touching, some overlapping. A small galaxy. She put her pen in the middle and made a dot.
    “The dot in the middle, that is me – that is every Iraqi,” she said. “From everywhere you can be killed, from here, from here, from here, from here.” She was stabbing her pen into the notepad.
    “We Iraqis,” she said. “We are all sentenced to death and we do not know by whom” (p. 326).
    One of the most dramatic moments in the book, is the day of Iraq’s ultimately unsuccessful first democratic election in 2005:
    The Iraqis came with mixtures of pride and defiance on their faces. Husbands and wives and children were walking together, some of the men in coats and ties. Mortar shells were exploding nearby.
    …
    I turned off the main drag in Karada toward the Marjayoon Primary School. People were waiting in silence in long lines between colis of barbed wire. They were shuffling inside, without a sound, as bombs exploded a block away.
    ….
    I spotted a young woman with eyes so bright they seemed to beam out of her head scarf. Her name was Batool al-Musawi. She was a physical therapist and a newlywed. Her parents stood by.
    “I woke up this morning at 7 a.m., and I could hear the exlposions outside,” Musawi told me. “And I threw the covers back over my head. I did not want to come. I was too afraid. It is so bad now. And then, hearing those explosions, it occurred to me – the insurgents are weak, they are afraid of democracy, they are losing. So I got my husband, and I got my parents, and we all came out and voted together.
    …
    I stepped inside Lebanon High School, another polling place. It was filled and it was quiet. The explosions were thundering outside. A middle-aged man looked up from the ledger, a finger pointed to the ceiling.
    “Do you hear that, do you hear the bombs?” Hassan Jawad said, calling out to me over the thud of a shell. “We don’t care. Do you understand? We don’t care.”
    “We all have to die,” Jawad said. “To die for this, well, at least I will be dying for something.”
    And then he got back to work, guiding an Iraqi woman’s hand to the ballot box (p. 243).
    A few miles away, a woman stepped from the voting booth at Yarmouk Elementary School...Her name was Bushra Saadi....Why vote at all? I asked Saadi. Why not just stay home?
    She shot me a withering look.
    "I voted in order to prevent my country from being destroyed by its enemies," she said.
    What enemies? I asked Saadi. What enemies are you refering to?
    "You–you destroyed our country," Saadi said. "The Americans the British. I am sorry to be impolite. But you destroyed our country, and you called it democracy."
    "Democracy," she said. "It is just talking" (p. 244).
    There’s nothing political about this book. Having read the book, I don’t have a hint about Filkins’ political leanings. However, as a politically minded person, I can’t help but read the book through the lens of American politics. For me, this books makes it harder to see the “Islamic world” as a monolith and makes it harder to think about or treat and refugees as potential terrorists. More than anything, The Forever War is about a universal humanity shared by American soldiers and Iraqi civilians and about learning from our nation's mistakes in Iraq and using it as a foundation for selecting the policies that can move us in the direction of a better future.

    The scene after a young Terry Lisk is helicoptered away in a body-bag:
    In the darkness, as the sound of the helicopter faded, Colonel MacFarland walked to the front of the group.
    “I don’t know if this war is worth the life of Terry Lisk, or 10, or 2,500 soldiers like him,” the colonel said. “What I do know is that he did not die alone.”
    “A Greek philosopher said that only the dead have seen the end of war,” Colonel MacFarland said. “Only Terry Lisk has seen the end of this war.”
    The Soldiers turned and walked back to their barracks in the darkness. No one said a word (329).

    The Road to Nazism in Milton Meyer's "They Thought They Were Free"

    Why did Nazism take root in Germany in 1933? What conditions do and do not move a society in the direction of a repressive fascist dictators...