« July 2007 | Main | September 2007 »

August 31, 2007

Fishing for war with Iran: Is PKK the bait?

A couple of interesting news items involving the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), an officially-labeled "terrorist group" operating in northern Iraq: First, the Pentagon confirmed that U.S. weapons have ended up in PKK hands. The official response is that this was inadvertent, probably related to the 190,000 weapons we can't track down, and the matter is being investigated. But some former PKK members have accused the Pentagon of directly arming the group.

The second bit of information involves the Free Life Party of Kurdistan, an arm of the PKK. Iranian officials have accused this group of launching attacks inside Iran and have responded by shelling Kurdish areas of northern Iraq.

Are these two connected? Is the U.S. intentionally arming the PKK so it will carry out attacks in Iran? Interestingly, even though the PKK is on the official "terrorist group" watchlist, the Free Life Party of Kurdistan isn't.

This is just speculation, but if we're going to connect dots, let's add a few more to the picture:

- Several members of the administration are planning for the possibility of war with Iran, and some are actively advocating for it
- Public support for another war would be impossible to obtain unless Iran launched an initial attack worthy of a response

Arming the PKK and encouraging them to conduct operations in Iran would be one way of drawing Iran far enough into the conflict in Iraq to warrant a counter attack. Maybe the weapons ended up in PKK hands due to negligence, or maybe it's a strategic decision. It certainly wouldn't be the first time the U.S. has armed terrorist groups to fight an enemy we didn't want to engage directly—that's how we were first introduced to Bin Laden in the 80s. It also wouldn't be the first case of gross negligence in this war.

Again, I'm just thinking out loud here. The administration seems to be fishing for a war, and the PKK might be the bait they need.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 7:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 30, 2007

Friday brainteaser: Yeas and Nays

Three Democratic Senators running for president—Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joseph Biden—voted on four proposed bills:

Bill #1 - Energy Policy Act of 2005
Bill #2 - Same Sex Marriage Resolution
Bill #3 - U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation
Bill #4 - State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization

If the outcomes were determined only by the three Senators' votes, two of the measures would have passed (at least two 'yay' votes are required to pass a bill), and each of the four vote totals would end in a different yay-nay count. Below are the minutes of the session:

  1. Biden voted nay on both bill 1 and bill 2.
  2. Obama voted against the Same Sex Marriage Resolution; Obama and Biden cast the same vote on SCHIP.
  3. Clinton voted yea on the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation and on SCHIP reauthorization.
  4. Biden and Clinton voted the same way on three of the four issues.
  5. Clinton and Obama opposed each other in the voting on just one bill.

Based on the information above, how did each Senator vote on each of piece of legislation?

ANSWER: The answer is posted below in white text. Highlight the area to see it.

Biden: 1-Nay, 2-Nay, 3-Nay, 4-Yea
Clinton: 1-Nay, 2-Nay, 3-Yea, 4-Yea
Obama: 1-Yea, 2-Nay, 3-Yea, 4-Yea

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 4:25 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 29, 2007

A tale of two terror-sponsoring states

Two major players in the Middle East are reportedly backing insurgents in Iraq, supplying them with weapons and allowing additional fighters to enter Iraq through their borders. Both are trying to gain influence over Iraq's government as a way of expanding influence over the entire region. Neither state is democratic, and both frequently violate human rights because of fundamentalist religious beliefs.

Yet the Bush administration's approach to dealing with each of these two states couldn't be more different.

The first, Saudi Arabia, has essentially been caught red-handed trying to undermine the Maliki government by supplying funding and volunteers to the Sunni insurgency. Half the foreign fighters that enter Iraq each month are estimated to come from Saudi Arabia.

After a report was released detailing this information, the Bush administration's response was to express frustration and essentially to kindly ask Saudi Arabia to cut it out. Oh, and then a few days later Saudi Arabia was offered a $20 billion high-tech weapons deal.

The second state, Iran, has also been accused of supplying Iraqi insurgents with weapons and sending in operatives to gain influence over the government. Although there is less hard evidence about the extent of Iran's involvement in Iraq, there is no doubt that the Shiite theocracy is vying to take control of the "power vacuum" it expects to grow.

The Bush administration's response in this case has been to use antagonistic rhetoric that is eerily similar to what we heard in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. From a speech Bush gave yesterday to the American Legion:

Some say Iran's leaders are not aware of what members of their own regime are doing. Others say Iran's leaders are actively seeking to provoke the West. Either way, they cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks against coalition forces and the murder of innocent Iraqis. The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops. I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities.

Catch that? Bush isn't even sure if Iran's leaders are responsible for what's going on, but he threatens war anyway. Credible reports suggest the administration has already drawn up plans for a massive attack against Iran.

I can't claim to have an answer for dealing with either of these states, Saudi Arabia or Iran. There may be no painless solution (although, there was before we invaded Iraq and threw a gallon of gasoline on what was at the time just a box of matches). I do know, however, that invading Iran may be the worst idea the Bush administration has had, and they've had some bad ones.

The plans are most likely just contingency plans, so we are prepared in the worst-case scenario. But I haven't heard any reports about how the administration plans on dealing with Iran after the attack. If we haven't been able to establish a stable society in Iraq, what makes them think invading Iran will do anything more than destabilize the region even further?

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 28, 2007

Google Government

I prefer the term Government 2.0, but some are now using the phrase Google Government when referring to the idea is that the Internet can be used to promote open government at the federal level and hold politicians more accountable.

An example of Google Government: The Federal Funding and Accountability and Transparency (FFAT) Act, which was introduced by Barack Obama and Tom Coburn. It will require the federal government to post all contracts and grants on a free, publicly searchable website. The Act was signed into law a year ago and the website must be available by January 2008. Some see this is only a first step and are calling for the actual language of the contracts to be available online as well.

So which presidential candidates are most committed to this Web 2.0-style transparency? Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), and Ron Paul (R-Texas) are the only candidates who have signed The Oath of Presidential Transparency, which pledges a commitment to "open, transparent, and accountable government principles" and includes a promise to ensure timely implementation of the Federal Funding and Accountability and Transparency Act.

The transparency issue will likely be overshadowed by the war in Iraq and other domestic issues, such as health care reform, in the 2008 election. But I would argue it's just as important. After nearly seven years of watching a Bush administration made up of incompetent cronies become forgetful under oath, award contracts to negligent corporations, and generally avoid anything that approaches accountability or transparency, I'm ready for a change.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:45 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

August 27, 2007

Afghanistan opium harvest jumps 34%

Afghanistan's opium harvests have jumped to a new high, increasing 34% from the previous year, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime said in its 2007 Annual Opium Survey (PDF). Afghanistan has effectively become the exclusive provider of the world's opium, accounting for 93% of the global opiates market.

U.S. officials say the opium trade is helping fund the Taliban insurgency, which is true. But it has also become an essential cash crop for average farmers in the absence of viable alternatives. Money quote from a BBC profile of the Afghan opium market:

Haji Deen Gul - who is selling 20kg of opium - is critical of the Afghan government and the international community for targeting the farmers. Instead he wants the traffickers to be targeted.

"They should target the ones who are selling the heroin to Western countries. I sell my opium to feed my family and from my heroin they can even make medicine. When I have water and roads provided to me, I will stop growing poppies."

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

An interesting life

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 24, 2007

Friday brainteaser: Sudoku

Below is the first installment of "Friday brainteasers." Each week I'll (try) to post a riddle, puzzle, or some sort of challenging game. Because, let's face it, you don't want to work but looking at captioned pictures of cats gets old after a while and isn't exactly intellectually stimulating.


Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 22, 2007

Many Americans don't read or follow world affairs

I came across two polls today that paint a pretty unflattering picture of the American public. The first, an AP-Ipsos poll, found that one in four adults in the U.S. say they haven't read a book in the last year. Some interesting correlates:

The second poll isn't that surprising based on the results of the first. A Harris Group poll found that two-thirds of U.S. adults admit to being in the dark about political issues outside the United States, and only one-third are well-versed in U.S. politics. Over half said they don't even like learning about political issues in other countries, and 32% have a lack of interest in local politics.

Add in the results of previous polls suggesting more people can name the American Idol judges than the First Amendment (41% versus 28%), and things look pretty grim.

This is why it was so easy to get the public riled up for war with Iraq in 2003, and why the same two families have occupied the White House for nearly 30 years. It's not that everyone is apathetic. Many people spend most of their time and energy earning a living and providing for their families, and following politics and world affairs isn't a top priority. But if we as a society believe enough in the democratic process to force it upon nations halfway around the world, we should also understand that democracy requires active participation.

So many people spend an hour or two a week watching the various American Idol contestants, judging them based on talent and ability, and voting on the most deserving candidate. Is it too much to ask to do the same for the leaders making decisions about health care, education, taxes, and war?

UPDATE: Since this is getting quite a few visitors from Reddit and other sites, I'd like to try something constructive instead of just focusing on the negative aspects of the polls: If you'd like to recommend an informative or interesting book (or blog/website/newspaper), leave it in the comments. It can be what you're reading now or just something you think everyone should read at some point. My recommendation is a book I just started, A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini, the author of The Kite Runner.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:06 PM | Comments (24) | TrackBack

August 21, 2007

Compassionate conservatism at its finest

The Bush administration sent a letter to state health officials last Friday outlining new standards for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which is designed to help states insure low-income uninsured children.

Why is this such a big deal? Partly because it's another case of executive branch arrogance—Congress has been working to expand the program, and the letter was sent in the middle of the month-long Congressional recess.

But the real news is that Bush wants to make it harder for states to expand the program to middle-income families without insurance. Under the new rules, states must establish that a child has been without insurance for a minimum of one year, and a state can't expand the coverage to people making more than 200% above the poverty line until 95% of children eligible for the program are enrolled. Most states say this is impossible.

The official administration rationale is that it wants to keep the program focused on low-income children. But the federal poverty levels are set so low that many "middle-income" families who don't fall below the threshold still can't afford health coverage. Take a look at the federal poverty levels for 2007:

Maybe those numbers are realistic for a few remote regions of the country, but the costs of living vary state-to-state and city-to-city, and the new rules prevent states from adjusting the program based on relative differences. California, for example, passed legislation to allow families making 400% above the poverty line to be eligible for CHIP. That may seem a bit high for rural Missouri, but it's not so outrageous for many areas of California.

So what happens to children without health insurance whose family is ineligible for assistance? If he or she gets sick, they'll probably head to the emergency room, and the government will pick up the bill anyway, so the "fiscal conservatism" argument goes out the window. And the emergency room is no substitute for regular, preventative care.

And keep in mind this is happening while the administration is considering another round of corporate tax cuts. What it boils down to is some politicians are so afraid of the universal health care bogeyman that they're willing to risk the health of children to keep insurance private.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 1:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 16, 2007

Government 2.0

Barack Obama recently made headlines by telling a crowd of supporters that not all of the nation's ills were the fault of Bush and the current administration. The fix isn't simply to replace Republicans with Democrats, he says, but we must repair the system.

"We can't just change political parties and continue to do the same kind of things we've been doing. We can't just go about business as usual and think it's going to turn out differently.

We've got to make sure workers are represented, not just CEOs. We've got to make sure patients are represented and the nurses are represented, not just drug companies."

How does he propose we do this? By involving average Americans more in the political process. In terms of rhetoric, this is nothing new, but some of his actual proposals are. He wants to take the American government online and use the Internet to promote an "open government." Some of his specific policy ideas include:

This is refreshing to hear after years of increased government secrecy and little accountability. But what's more important than his attitude is his willingness to embrace the Internet as an accountability tool. He wants to go beyond providing government information online, and wants to "employ all the technological tools available to allow average citizens not just to observe, but to participate and be heard on the issues that affect their daily lives."

Obama's proposals have only scratched the surface of possibilities for opening up the government and increasing citizen participation. The British Prime Minister's office, for example, already embraces web-based interaction and hosts online chats where citizens can ask cabinet members questions and offer feedback.

It's hard to say where else this merger between Web 2.0-style user interaction and government will go, but it shows promise and I hope the trend continues, regardless of who wins the election.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 15, 2007

Behavior Detection Officers

Next time you go to the airport, try not to look afraid. "Behavior Detection Officers" may be scanning your facial expressions and body language for "signs of bad intentions," according to an article by McClatchy Newspapers.

These officers are working in more than a dozen airports already, and TSA hopes to have 500 officers in place by the end of 2008. So how does it work?

At the heart of the new screening system is a theory that when people try to conceal their emotions, they reveal their feelings in flashes that Ekman, a pioneer in the field, calls "micro-expressions." Fear and disgust are the key ones, he said, because they're associated with deception.

Behavior detection officers work in pairs. Typically, one officer sizes up passengers openly while the other seems to be performing a routine security duty. A passenger who arouses suspicion, whether by micro-expressions, social interaction or body language gets subtle but more serious scrutiny.

A behavior specialist may decide to move in to help the suspicious passenger recover belongings that have passed through the baggage X-ray. Or he may ask where the traveler's going. If more alarms go off, officers will "refer" the person to law enforcement officials for further questioning.

I already get a little nervous going through airport security. It is the place that I am most aware of my Middle Eastern appearance and name. We've all heard stories about innocent passengers' trips being ruined after they were incorrectly placed on the No-Fly list or detained by an overzealous airport official.

Now, our body language is being scanned by detection officers who've had just 16 hours of training and are making judgments about our intentions based on "flickers of expression that last no more than a fraction of a second."

Who wouldn't look afraid?

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:39 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Civilian deaths in Afghanistan

Republicans have been chastising Obama and asking him to apologize for the following comment he made during a campaign stop in New Hampshire regarding his plan to move troops to Afghanistan:

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

It looks like this is what Obama was referring to: The AP did a fact check and found that Western forces are killing civilians at a faster rate than insurgents.

As of August 1, the count shows:

Bush has also acknowledged the problem of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, but his response is a bit different. While Obama wants to send in more troops and actually try to fix the situation, Bush has done little more than blame the Taliban for using civilians as human shields.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 14, 2007

The black Mr. Thompson

We like to think that physicians make diagnoses and prescribe treatments based on empirical observations of symptoms. Patients should be treated based their condition, not based on their personality, or worse, their race or socioeconomic status.

Most physicians strive for this sort of objectivity, but a new study suggests that internalized stereotypes and prejudices have more influence over physician decisions than we assume.

The study was conducted by providing a case study of a 50-year-old man called "Mr. Thompson," a smoker with a history of hypertension, "who presents to the emergency department with chest pain. He appears to be in a lot of pain describing it as 'sharp, like being stabbed with a knife.' "

Some physicians were told Mr. Thompson was white, and others were told he was black. The participants were then asked to decide whether the pain was the result of coronary artery disease and whether to prescribe clot-busting drugs.

The results are surprising:

Doctors were more likely to think "Mr. Thompson" was having a heart attack when he was black than when he was white. But they did not prescribe treatment to reflect this -- physicians who thought a black Mr. Thompson was having a heart attack prescribed thrombolysis less often than when they thought a white Mr. Thompson was having one.

This may help explain some of the racial disparities in medical care, and why the death rate is 29% for African Americans and the death rate from stroke is 40% higher.

Researchers concluded that the bias wasn't the result of "harboring deliberate ill will," but rather based on internalized racial stereotypes. The good news, however, was that physicians were at least "willing to open their subconscious minds for inspection," which often isn't the case in situations like these, such as when researchers recently suggested there may be racial bias in NBA refereeing.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 11:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 10, 2007

Cheney calls invading Iraq a bad idea

In 1994.

Is that even the same guy?

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The next few months in Iraq

Do you ever hear a member of the administration or supporters of the war say "The next six months in Iraq will be the most crucial" and think you're experiencing deja vu? Don't worry, you aren't. They just keep repeating the same phrase over and over.

The Center for American Progress has compiled a time line documenting the promises of "just a few more months" that have been made since the first days of the war.

Sometimes it's "the next few days" and others it's "the next year," but the most common time frame seems to be six months. And it's usually used in the context of portraying opponents of the war—or even those who would like to see a different strategy—as close minded and short sighted. It's not that the strategy is ineffective or that it was poorly planned from the beginning, they say; the real problem is that we are rushing to judgment and trying to change course when we're on the brink of success.

But it's been six short months, many times over. The latest benchmark is September—we're told assessing the effectiveness of the surge any sooner than that wouldn't be giving it enough time to work. This comes straight from Petraeus.

Fine. September is approaching, and I can wait another month. But if an analysis doesn't show that the surge is bringing serious positive results, don't tell me to give it another six months. Come up with another more effective strategy to stabilize the country, with political and economic solutions in addition to a military one, or get out.

Fool me once, shame on you. But you're not going to fool me again.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 3, 2007

Iraq in Numbers: July 2007

I like to view the world quantitatively. A journalist can find anecdotal evidence to support almost any theory or trend, but percentages and hard data provide a more objective view of the big picture (yes, statistics are impersonal, can be manipulated, and are often misinterpreted by journalists, but that's another debate altogether).

That said, here is a quantitative look at what happened in Iraq this July (I may begin doing this monthly, so check back at the beginning of September for updates):

- 78 U.S. troops killed. First the somewhat good news—the number of U.S. troops killed was at an eight-month low in July. I say this is "somewhat" good news because, although it's a short-term improvement, only 43 soldiers were killed in July 2006. And casualty rates are supposed to go down in July because of the 120 degree heat.
- 603 U.S. troops wounded. Bringing the total to around 27,000 since the war began.
- 1,653 Iraqi civilians killed. The number of civilians killed rose almost one-third from the previous month. However, 3,438 civilians were killed in July 2006.
- 214 Iraqi military/police killed. Up from the previous two months.
- 190,000 missing weapons. According to a GAO report, the military "cannot fully account for about 110,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armour and 115,000 helmets reported as issued to Iraqi forces."
- $12 billion monthly spending in 2007. And spending on the war may surpass $1 trillion before it's over.
- 1-2 hours of electricity. Although the State Department stopped reporting on how long the power stays on, latest reports suggest Baghdad residents only get one or two hours per day. This is regarded as one of the most important quality of life indicators related to the reconstruction.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 7:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 1, 2007

No end in sight

A new documentary detailing the lack of pre- and post-war planning in Iraq released last weekend. It likely won't have the success of Fahrenheit 9/11, but the trailer portrays it as a much more in-depth and informative movie. It seems like a film version of The Assassin's Gate . From Raw Story:

First, Bremer reversed the decision of Gen. Jay Garner, who had been overseeing Iraq's reconstruction prior to his arrival, to form an interim Iraqi government. More fateful was his decision to remove former members of the Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party from their positions in government.

"De-Ba'athification was so deep that we weren't able to get the government running as efficiently as we should have as fast as we should have, and you had a lot of disenfranchised Ba'athists," Garner says as the film shows clips of out-of-work Iraqis marching in the streets.

Bremer's "most explosive" decision, according to the film, was disbanding the Iraqi military and intelligence services, which rendered unemployed 500,000 armed men who helped create an insurgency rather than working to prevent one.

"Five days after Bremer issued his order, we were fare-welling Jay Garner because he was going to leave Iraq for good, the next day. We had two Humvees on the highway heading out from the Green Zone and they were ambushed and two soldier were killed," Hughes said. "And that was, in my mind, when the insurgency began."

Visit the film's website for a listing of theaters it will play in.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack