Mad Guy Loses Remaining Bearings

Zimbabwe is now accusing the West of waging biological warfare against that country by deliberately introducing cholera, which has killed nearly 800 people since August. The country's information minister, Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, called it a "genocidal onslaught" and a "calculated racist attack" aimed at paving the way for an invasion. As an example of how Mugabe's craziness continues to astound even the most jaded observers, the Associated Press stoically suggests that "Experts, however, blame the epidemic on Zimbabwe's economic collapse." U.S. Ambassador James McGee warned that the country was "turning into a failed state."

Yes...Zimbabwe is "turning" into a failed state. If the deterioration continues much longer, Zimbabweans might begin to starve or die of epidemics, and crime might explode.

A Zimbabwean friend of mine once suggested that they should argue that Al-Qaeda has taken root in Zimbabwe so that the West does actually invade and put Mugabe out of his misery.

Bombay. Not Mumbai

The city was called both names for centuries; the Marathi-language locals called it Mumbai, English-speakers called it Bombay. Which came first is not easily determined. Some say that Bombay is the anglicized corruption of the pre-existing local name, Mumbai. However, the Portuguese, who arrived in the area before the British, called the city Bombaim. As the wikipedia entry on this subject points out, Bombaim probably derived from a Portuguese name meaning "good bay." In other words, I believe Bombay is the anglicized version of Bombaim and not Mumbai.

In 1996, the ruling, Hindu-nationalist, Shiv Sena state government renamed the city to Mumbai in the English version as well, as part of a rash of colonial rejection that swept India. This moronic "restoration" disease was responsible for such atrocities as changing Calcutta to Kolkata (the local Bengali name), Madras to Chennai (Tamil), and Bangalore to Bengaluru (Kannada). Substituting symbolism for competence, these state governments sought to restore their cultural "pride" as a step to solving all the nation's problems. Read here for more gory details about the loaded reasons for these name changes.

This "logic" has also extended from time to time to the idea of making Hindi the sole official language of India, an honor it shares with English. Unsurprisingly, several regional groups (including the Tamilians and Kannadigas) have rioted at this brazen attempt by the Hindi-speaking "Northies" to suppress regional cultures.

Wonder why I persist in calling it Bombay? The name India itself is derived from the Greek characterization of the area where the Indus river is located, which dates to at least the time of Alexander the Great. Try and remove all the "foreign" influences and what have you left?

Perhaps these Indian "nationalists" should redirect their energies to upgrading the country's police forces, like, I dunno, giving them some real guns instead of the World War I-era, .303 Enfield rifles that they carry, if they're lucky enough to have one. Seriously, these are collectibles:

The Mettle of Indian Security

Right on the heels of my last post that talked about the inept Indian security system and how, in my experience, metal detectors in India are little more than annoying obstacles that people simply walk around, the NY Times published this picture yesterday:

(The Times' caption:) Metal detectors beeped and the word 'stop' came on, but commuters at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus train station in Mumbai, ignored them. Some commuters even squeezed between the metal detectors in their rush to move in and out of the station.

This is not to say that the Indian government is incapable of wielding its formidable bureaucratic muscle to improve things on occasion. According to the AP, security at airports around the country has been stepped up following threats of airborne attacks:

Several extra layers of security were set up and some passengers' bags were scanned for explosives.
"Passengers have been asked to pass through six-stage security checks," said Brij Lal, a senior police official organizing security at the airport in the northern city of Lucknow.
Nirmala Sharma, a passenger who flew from New Delhi to Lucknow, said her bags were checked a half dozen times and she went through a metal detector three times. "Sometimes it seemed tedious, but it seems to be the need of the hour," she said.

Indian airport security always seemed pretty good to me, actually. But, six-stage checks sure sound good. If only they could move one of those stages of security to other parts of the country, things might have a chance of improving.

If you read that last AP article I linked to, the remarkable thing isn't the newly overly convoluted security checks, but the discussion of how Indian officials are interrogating the lone captured terrorist:

Meanwhile, police officers said they were trying to get as much detail as possible from Kasab.
"A terrorist of this sort is never cooperative. We have to extract information," said Deven Bharti, the head of the Mumbai crime branch.
Indian police are known to use interrogation methods that would be regarded as torture in the West, including questioning suspects drugged with "truth serum."
Bharti provided no details on interrogation techniques, but said "truth serum" would probably be used next week. He did not specify what drug would be used.

As the Times (the British one) points out about the drawbacks of "truth serum":

The method was widely used by Western intelligence agencies during the Cold War, before it emerged that the drugs used – typically the barbiturate sodium pentothal – may induce hallucinations, delusions and psychotic manifestation.

The point being, of course, not that the interrogators were concerned for their subjects' well-being, but that these drugs are more effective at causing verbal diarrhea where the person speaks any gibberish that comes to their minds than tell the truth.

Those who criticize the Indians for using these drugs are missing the larger issue: the interrogators are merely seeking to confirm what they have already "extracted' from the terrorist through torture.

Indo-Pak Strategery

The madness of the terror attacks in Bombay has focused the world's attention on South Asia for the moment. India's first reaction, predictably, was to blame Pakistan instead of taking coherent action to take out the terrorists who were still alive and murdering people. Naval-gazing is just beginning, with the consensus so far pointing fingers at a completely inept Indian security apparatus. Helpful intel insiders are clambering over themselves to point out that they had warned so-and-so that this was going to happen, as if that would have mattered when India's anti-terror capacity is non-existent. Here's a revealing bit:

The information was relayed to domestic security authorities, but it was unclear whether the government acted on the intelligence.
The Taj Mahal hotel, scene of much of the bloodshed, had tightened security with metal detectors and other measures in the weeks before the attacks, after being warned of a possible threat.
But the precautions "could not have stopped what took place," Ratan Tata, chairman of the company that owns the hotel, told CNN. "They (the gunmen) didn't come through that entrance. They came from somewhere in the back."

There you go: "tightened security" means that they didn't even think of covering every damn entrance. In fact, having experienced India's security measures first-hand, I bet that the metal detector (I doubt there was more than one) in the front was active for no more than a day before people simply ignored it and walked around it. India has vowed before to take a comprehensive look at gaps in [insert security need] and prevent [insert crisis name] from ever happening again. I think Mark Tully gets it exactly right when he says about what will likely happen this time: '...will India wake up? If the past is anything to go by the answer has to be "no". '

The U.S. and other major powers are worried about an Indian military response against Pakistan and the likely resultant nuclear conflagration. Secretary Rice and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm Mullen are headed to the region to calm India and pressure Pakistan to help with the investigation. Marc Ambinder helpfully calls the region "A Second Middle East":

It's the Middle East with nuclear weapons on both sides. If soft power doesn't work, do you despose the Pakistani government and take possession of their nuclear program? Let them have a nuclear exchange and hope that it somehow does not spread? The next steps for the US aren't clear. President Obama might appoint an envoy to the region, empowered to engage in shuttle diplomacy a la Richard Holbrooke, Geroge Tenet or Dennis Ross.

Which brings us to how the Obama administration thinks it needs to deal with the region. I think it is a mistake for them to put too much emphasis on solving the Kashmir issue in order to normalize Indo-Pak relations. By comparison, I believe it is much more straightforward to solve the Israel-Palestine border issue than to sort out the messy ethno-religious tangles that bog down the Afghan-Pak-N. Indian region. IMHO, it is probably better to look at a region-wide (to include Central Asia) economic strategy of increasing trade and reducing barriers to investment as a means to achieving the political end goals. Natural gas pipeline from Iran to India through Pakistan? Check. Central Asian hydropower to India and Pakistan? Check. Joint Tourism initiatives in Kashmir? Demilitarized borders? Infrastructure projects? Removing tariffs on cross-border trade?

History shows the way. For centuries, Afghanistan and Central Asia (and Iran) were most closely linked to the Indo-Pak region in terms of cultural and economic ties. There is still more that these regions have in common than not. Just figure out where India's Bollywood movies are most popular (outside India).

Sad Day in Pakistani Politics

Pakistan's powerful spy agency, the ISI, has unilaterally decided to withdraw from domestic politics. As the BBC reports, the agency was widely believed to have been heavily involved in the political process over the last several decades in order to "safeguard national security." These benevolent manipulations included funding rival political factions and vetoing potential ministerial and gubernatorial appointments. Without these essential acts of watchfulness, the people might well have elected treasonous leftists who would have gutted the military and capitulated to the country's enemies through "peace agreements."

However, in a commendable display of self-control, the ISI has now decided to retool and focus on its core competencies instead:

A senior security official, requesting anonymity, told the BBC Urdu service on Monday: "The ISI is changing, it wants to keep out of politics and concentrate on counter-intelligence."

...ISI insiders believe the agency's over-indulgence in politics has cost the service the trust of the public.

Public trust being the thing that politicians safeguard most jealously, the agency is once again modeling selfless devotion to the greater good above narrow, parochial interests. Most remarkably, the ISI's withdrawal from domestic politics emphatically disproves the conventional wisdom that those in power do not let go of it voluntarily. Those that despair of the country's future now that the spy agency has recused itself from politicking, should take hope in the fact that the ISI did not actually fire its political wing, merely inactivated the wing's staff. These fine public servants are presumably undergoing major job skills training because they have not yet "been given any new assignments."

The news report did not mention whether the ISI plans to also withdraw from its international politics efforts such as ensuring the Taliban have sufficient support to survive in Afghanistan's young democracy.

ALERT: NUKE USE WOULD BE BAD!

In an uncharacteristically far-reaching assessment, the National Intelligence Council warned yesterday that, "...If nuclear weapons are used destructively in the next 15-20 years, the international system will be shocked as it experiences immediate humanitarian, economic, and political-military repercussions." This gloomy prediction came in the context of discussing a potential nuclear arms race in the broader Middle East if Iran were to acquire nukes. The Council aimed its extraordinary remarks at conventional wisdom that believes nuclear weapons could be used so long as they are judiciously aimed at achievable objectives, such as taking out terrorists or excavating large quantities of earth for building swimming pools. The Intelligents warned that nuke use would actually exacerbate the current financial crisis by, for example, reducing tourism to the affected areas, a major economic driver in Middle Earth. Detractors, however, pointed out that the report failed to take into account the numerous benefits associated with nuclear weapons, including a reduction in global warming effects due to the ensuing fallout cloud, and a much-needed elimination of those pesky butterflies that plague much of the earth. Nuclear hawks were tearful on reading the report, bemoaning the Intelligents' "extreme liberal activist tendencies," and warning that this would destroy the immensely profitable global nuclear arms market. "If that happens," they muttered ominously, "we will have no choice but to ask Congress for a bailout." They were also concerned that the report would cause the Iranians to hastily cancel their nuclear plans, but took comfort in the fact that the Iranian censors were unlikely to let their leadership read the study.

Where Conservatism Needs to Go

'Tis the season to think aloud about the future of the conservative moment, and most seem to agree that some change is needed, even if what is needed still eludes consensus. But, that hip young conservative thinker, Douthat, puts it well:

This problem is not, repeat not, a matter of conservatives needing to abandon their core convictions in order to win elections, as right-of-center reformers are often accused of doing. Rather, it's a matter of conservatives needing to apply their core convictions to questions like "how do we mitigate the worst effects of climate change?" and "how do we modernize our infrastructure?" and "how do we encourage excellence and competition within our public school bureaucracy?" instead of just letting liberals completely monopolize these debates, while the Right talks about porkbusting and not much else.

Conservatism, to me, is about being prudent, weighing evidence, and worrying about unforeseen consequences before embarking on a course of action. These principles derive from a recognition that human reason is fallible, that "majority think" is not the same as being right, and that rash actions are usually far more dangerous than carefully considered ones. What passes for conservatism now, however, is fossilized sloganeering that simply ignores mounting evidence contrary to long-held beliefs.

On global warming, for example, a healthy skepticism was a reasonable reaction back when scientific evidence in favor of this phenomenon wasn't quite as robust as it is now. Today, many conservatives spend their energies denying that climate change even is, as it were. Therefore, there is no conservative input into the real issue, which is, what, if anything, should we and the government do about it. The left mostly begins from the assumption that, of course, the government ought to step in and fix it, like require lower emissions, create green technologies, etc. If, as Douthat says, conservatives discussed ways of applying their core principles to this issue, they might offer a range of conservative solutions, including market-oriented ideas, that do not automatically assume that government will take charge and fix this thing. So long as conservatives stay in denial-land, all they accomplish is to appear anti-evidence and anti-intellectual. Without conservative participation, we all lose when the only solutions we talk about are what government is going to do about this or that problem.

Sure, That Makes Sense

Federal prosecutors in Nebraska attempting to convict a felon for possessing a gun (it's not allowed), had just one problem: the man did not have a firearm.

What attorneys had on their hands was an American double-action revolver that was manufactured between 1880 and 1941.The problem is that federal code states that the weapon is not a firearm unless it was manufactured after 1896. Without a definitive production date, the gun was inadmissible as evidence.

Undeterred by this minor obstacle, they put on their creative thinking hats, doodled ideas on their conference room dry-erase board, voted on their favorite suggestions, and selected the winner: prosecute him for possessing live ammunition. Which worked, natch.

The morose criminal's defense had rested on the entirely plausible claim that some angry pedestrians he narrowly missed running over threw the gun into the back of his car, which was obviously easier for them to do than to shoot him with said not-a-firearm. There being no legal requirement that ammunition be of a certain vintage, the dude now faces 15 years in prison.

ZORG complains that this case demonstrates the problem of criminal laws that are excessively specific. And he raises the point that a functioning revolutionary war-era musket can just as easily kill someone as a modern revolver. (Thought experiment: would the musket's ball and powder be considered ammunition? Also, how exactly would prosecutors convict a dude who kills someone with such a weapon? By proving he "threw" a bunch of tiny pellets, because he couldn't have "shot" them with the not-a-firearm?) My question: does this case not in fact show the larger problem with having multiple laws that can be separately used to prosecute the same crime?