The Bilderberger Meeting Begins

The 67^th Bilderberg Meeting is beginning today, 30 May, in Montreux, Switzerland, and is scheduled to run to June 2nd.  There are reported to be about 130 invitees confirmed from 23 countries.

Needless to say, the conspiracy theorists are besides themselves. They see secret planning events leading to One World Government and a New World Order (damn, these guys like capital letters!) and a general depopulation of the planet. Billions dying! Mind control! Apparent rivals working behind the scenes to attack the common man! Dogs and cats, sleeping together!

Mass hysteria!

Sorry. But it was fun to get that out of my system. And there are conspiracies, always have been. Most of them have failed. The ones that haven't were often working at cross purposes. Seeing a monolith when it isn't there grants the perception of power to people whose greatest power resides in people's perceptions of them. It builds what it claims to be fighting.

If I was inclined to think conspiratorially, I might think the opposition was part of the conspiracy.

And that's why it makes more sense to limit yourself to things that can be seen, and confirmed, and measured. Just because something scares you is no reason to assume it's real. I'd love to see what, if anything, leaks out of this meeting. The fact that these people are selecting themselves as "the elite" (one of them, anyway) is an interesting fact, in and of itself. We can compare what slips out of this meeting with the things that have slipped out over the past sixty-six meetings: white papers, guest lists, agenda items, and so forth. See what's changed, and what hasn't. Make predictions (did ANYONE predict Trump after the prior Bilderberg meeting?) and test them against observations. It's hard to do good work to understand people who don't want to cooperate. Hard, but not impossible.

Then again, Bilderberg meetings may all be Red Herrings. It's not like these people need to get together in a hotel for face-to-face discussions one week a year. I suspect it's more like a professional conference: a place to get away from the office, gossip, and have a few drinks with friends. Maybe even get a little work done, but that's secondary.

It could be an interesting place for some bugs. I imagine the NSA has some there already. The Swiss, too. But I hope there are some from Anonymous. A conspiracy spying on a conspiracy is a good metaphor for our times.

The Bilderbergers in Switzerland

Army Gets How-To Guide for Zombie Invasion

Army Gets How-To Guide for Zombie Invasion:


One day in the not-too-distant future, a mindless horde of cannibalistic killing machines will come shambling through the streets of America. And when that day comes, the U.S. Army will be on it faster than you can scream “BRAAIIIINNSS!”

Lucky for us, the Army Zombie Combat Command has put together a nifty manual on how to identify, fight, and kill those murderous mobs of the undead. Soldiers can now add the FM 999-3 Counter-Zombie Operations at the Fireteam Level to their arsenal – “the primary doctrinal reference on conducting fire team sized infantry operations in a Zombie infested environment in the United States.”

And as far as we know, this is the only (non) arm of the service that “guarantees the survival of the United States in the event of any Zombie emergency.”

Danger Room has already provided the civilian guide for the next zombie apocalypse. We’re glad to see such a forward-thinking authority prepare our nation’s troops to counter the next non-existent threat. It’s “based on intelligence collected from various Zombie outbreaks around the world,” so you know it’s reliable.

So how should our enlisted men and women fight the troves of Zombies who threaten to eradicate our species? Well, since every Zombie outbreak is slightly different, this guide is a handy how-to for dealing with unexpected developments.



First, identifying these flesh-eating monsters. Unfortunately, only “qualified medical personnel” can identify Type A infections (the weaker version that only starts the zombie-conversion process upon death). But never fear, the manual has precise instructions for identifying zombies at any stage of their rotten existence.

• Stage 1, Infection: See someone shivering, vomiting, and whose pupils don’t respond to light or darkness? Quick, kill them immediately. Don’t forget to destroy their brains.


• Stage 2, Recently Reanimated: Things get slightly trickier in this stage. Key movements to note are staggered walking, arms extended, slight groans. The manual advises immediate neutralization.


• Stage 3, Active Zombie: This should be the easiest to identify. No body fat, mostly gray, clothing is probably damaged or missing. You know what to do.

Next up, fighting equipment. While your standard M4 is the weapon of choice for counter-Zombie operations, there are multiple think-outside-the-box options. Try a spear (highly recommended, aim for the head), aluminum baseball bat (the shortest melee weapon practical for use against Zombies) or sword (Attention! Decapitated heads can still bite you). But stay away from chainsaws (waste of fuel), pitchforks (not sturdy enough to penetrate the skull) or axes (they have the unfortunate habit of getting lodged in the target).

Next are elaborate instructions on how to regain order and control in a zombie-infested battlefield (this is crucial to due anticipated chaos and separation). Officers can choose from diamond, triangle, trident or file formations. Roof tops, very steep mountains or large trees are ideal defensive points in urban settings. Avoid islands, if possible – zombies will just walk under water and emerge on the other side.

Of course, no manual is complete without a thorough review of terrain and weather. Unfortunately, this section is short – zombies can operate in almost any condition, although they slow down once it dips below zero degrees Celsius. But remember, a frozen Zombie is still dangerous, once it thaws.

Now, this manual is intended for trained soldiers of the United States Army – so don’t rush home to try any of these anti-undead tactics yourself. Unless, of course, your living room has been invaded by a bunch of corpses who want to eat you alive. Then, all we can say is, best of luck.

Murphy’s Laws of Combat

Murphy’s Laws of Combat:

Murphy’s Laws of Combat -- for Memorial Day

[put together by Marines]

If your sergeant can see you, so can the enemy.
If the enemy is within range, so are you.
Incoming fire always has the right of way.
What can be seen can be hit, what can be hit can be killed.
There is no such thing as an atheist in a firefight.

Friendly fire — isn’t.
Recoilless rifles — aren’t.
Suppressive fires — don’t.
Interchangeable parts — aren’t.

The most dangerous thing in the world is a second lieutenant with a map and a compass.

There is always a way.
The best way is never the easy way.
The easy way is always mined.
The important things are always simple; the simple things are always hard.

No combat ready unit has ever passed inspection.
No inspection ready unit has ever passed combat.

No operations plan ever survives initial contact.
There is no such thing as a perfect plan.

Sniper’s motto: “Reach out and touch someone.”
Sniper’s philosophy: “If you run, you’ll only die tired.”

Read more ....

Mueller Report

Still browsing the Mueller report. A few tentative conclusions:

(1) Mueller and his group were very professional, and thorough;
(2) The report _would_ have drawn conclusions, but the Office of Legal Council prohibits him from inditing a sitting president. It said that if the weight of the evidence exonerated the president on any charge, they would have said so. They didn't. The best other option was to say they couldn't clear him, they've accumulated significant evidence, and it's up to other people (read: Congress, or other investigators) to take the next step;
(3) The Russian operation to undermine and interfere with the election of 2016 was originally to (a) sow confusion, divide Americans, and wreck American democracy, and (b) keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House. This began long before Trump declared himself a candidate;
(4) The Russians quickly recognized that there was no better disruptor, and no greater threat to American democracy, than Donald J. Trump. They quickly shifted the majority of their support to him;
(5) Trump and people in his circle (including, but not limited to, the official campaign), had long-standing communications and connections to people in the Russian state (both the government and the Oligarchs). Russia saw Trump as someone they could work with for mutual benefit;
(6) There is not sufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy in this matter. There didn't _need_ to be a criminal agreement. Russia was doing what it did for its own reasons, the Trump campaign was aware of it, and Trump's people (especially Manafort) were providing information to help them do it.
(7) Manafort was already involved as an agent of Russia for years prior to the Trump campaign. His job, in part, was to install leaders in Western countries who would serve Russian interests. Getting Trump elected was part of his job even before he joined the campaign;
(8) The president actively tried to block the Mueller investigation. He was blocked at several points by his own people. He succeeded occasionally. Either way, he committed several acts of obstruction of justice. Since the OLC prohibits indictments of a sitting president, he passed the evidence to people to do whatever they chose to do next.

A few speculations:
(1) The House can start impeachment proceedings. At the very least, they can open and expand multiple investigations;
(2) If the House has a vote, they will likely impeach the president. It's a political question;
(3) Making it an official impeachment proceeding would probably make it easier to get desired evidence, but once they get the evidence the House may choose not to impeach if they don't want the trial in an election year;
(4) There are no known "tapes" or "smoking guns" to force Republicans to abandon the president. Without that, and with the role of Trumpanistias in the Republican Party, it's unlikely that Trump will be be convicted in the Senate. If there is a major shift in the Senate after the 2020 Senate, but Trump is re-elected, the vote might go the other way.
(5) Whether or not Trump is impeached, he is vulnerable in other ways. He is already an unindicted co-conspirator in one Federal proceeding, and is vulnerable to indictment at the State level today and the Federal level after he leaves office.
(6) Eventually, Trump will be in court. Once there, he will lose. While he may or may not be removed from office, it increasingly looks like

 

Actually, I don't expect him to die in prison. Manafort will (and deservedly so). Trump will suffer some punishment--loss of properties, perhaps some loss of freedom--but (if he isn't pardoned in the interest of ending the agony) he'll eventually be out. Much as I'd like to see him without money, and without any hope of getting a loan, it's likely he will still have fans stupid and numerous enough to keep enough of the cash flowing to allow him to live in upper-class prosperity. And he'll find someone to ghost-write his version of events. But compared to where he's been, and where he's claimed to be, he'll be just another "loser." He'll find it hard to cope with that, so he'll probably do his best to ignore it. Given his talent for seeing only what he wants to see, plus his age, he may spend his declining years pretending to be "the president," surrounded by a staff that encourages that illusion.

Not that different than today.

Markets, politics, and religion

One of the defining questions in global political economy is as old as it is meaningless: what's more important-- politics or economics? You could have a more meaningful discussion of "nature versus nurture," or "structure versus process," or "the chicken or the egg?"

"Politics" and "economics" established themselves, in part, by walling off and ignoring the fact that they are both elements of a larger, codeterminative, whole. What was once "political economy" divided itself into artificial disciplines that maintained the orderliness of the university at the expense of messy, interdependent understanding. (And please don't get me started on sociology and anthropology.) Since then, theorists have emphasized one element over another, setting one concept or relationship as the key to understanding. And it does simplify things, at least in the short term. Marx could start with the mode of production, and everything follows. Morganthau defined the national interest in terms of power, and built his structure on that. Waltz attempted to simplify still farther, making the distribution of power in a system the key to understanding and prediction. Neoclassical economics still begins with the myth of the rational man, and builds an enormous artifice from there.

Reality is more than that. The map is not the territory. The menu is not the meal. When pressed, the best theorists admit that, and talk about necessary tradeoffs. But as we press those maps into our students, or repeat them in our speeches, or assume them in our editorials, we reify.

We pay good money to go to the best restaurant in town, and we eat the menu.

Which brings me to Tucker Carlson. As a rule, I don't watch his show, or pay attention to what he has to say. Anyone on Donald Trump's speed-dial is someone I don't want to know. In fact, one of my favorite moments of live television is when Carlson, "from the right," and his long-time debating partner "from the left" were called on their left/right nonsense in his show on CNN, by none other than guest Jon Stewart:



The show went off the air soon thereafter. Carlson eventually moved to Fox, and polished his act.

But sometimes even Tucker Carlson gets something important. His critique of the American "elite" is on point.

Our leaders don’t care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule. They’re day traders. Substitute teachers. They’re just passing through. They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can’t solve our problems. They don’t even bother to understand our problems.
_______
The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy. Both sides miss the obvious point: Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined. Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies possible.  

_______

You’d think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they’re not. They don’t have to be interested. It’s easier to import foreign labor to take the place of native-born Americans who are slipping behind. 

_______

There’s no option at this point. But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You’d have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.

Of course, he can't help but get into an anti-immigrant, culture-war theme as well.  But this particular point is correct: market capitalism (which we don't really have anyway, but we pretend that we do) is too often treated as a religion. And in a globalizing economy, if maximizing profit is the goal, there's no reason for any elite to place the interests of "their country"--the locals, the nationals, whatever you want to call them--ahead of what pays them. People recognize this. And they react: with Trump, with Brexit, with the rising tide of nationalism and protectionism.

And in the process they shoot themselves in the foot. The elites still game the system.  They have the resources and the motive to do it. If the balance sheet tips, they leave and take their assets with them. Even in the most "favorable" circumstances, if there was no place left to go, the people would round up the elites, form a circular firing squad, and shoot everyone.

Fortunately, some of the elites are figuring out that's a solution that hurts them, too. Eventually. So it boils down to how much they discount the future. Can they "cash out" before the casino collapses? "In the long run, we're all dead," Keynes joked. But it can get very unpleasant for everyone before that happens.

Unlike Carlson, I don't think the goal should be to move backwards. We need to have a sense of community, yes, but that community shouldn't be--can't be--Mayberry. It has to have room for everyone. Everywhere. Our telos can't be in preserving the past, but in exploring the future, together.

So how do we do that? American progressives talk about a "Green New Deal," long on goals and short on details. That can be one of the starting points. Trump rallies his troops in opposition to American "socialism" (as if he had any idea what the word means). That can be one of the starting points, too. But both are thinking too small. The economics of the world is global. The politics of these proposals is national. At least the progressive's vision has the potential to be universalized--certainly not now, maybe not soon, but someday. "America First," if it comes down to "America Only," means we've lost before we've begun. And by "we" I mean everyone--Americans and the world.

I seem to have drifted somewhat from the original point. Oh, well, the advantage of a blog is you can post a first draft. Maybe it will prompt a discussion, and I can better figure out what I'm talking about.

Retirement

The president's State of the Union speech is tonight. I have low expectations. Very low expectations. But it's as good a moment as any to report on myself, and where I expect to go next.

So--I've retired. I haven't officially checked yet, but from what I heard last semester I suppose I'm a "professor emeritus" now.

Actually, it wasn't my first choice. Although I feel fine, my Parkinson's Disease had progressed to the point that I couldn't handle the full load of teaching and advising, etc., that goes with the job. An hour of commuting (each way) didn't help. So long as I take my pills and get enough sleep, it's something I barely notice--but when was the last time someone in our business kept to a strict schedule and got nine hours of sleep a night? The good news is I can think, and occasionally write, and I see more of the IR-related stuff in Pittsburgh than I ever could when I was putting in my hours at Slippery Rock. It's a little bit like grad school, but without the pressure.

I was afraid I would just waste the time, while the time wasted me. For a few months, as the inevitable grew closer, I couldn't imagine life without the daily "professor" role.  But four classes a semester, plus advising, plus all the other service to the department and the university that goes with that role, was too much. Parkinson's emerges slowly--at least seven years ago, I suspect, in my case--but it's cumulative. I started taking short naps between classes and appointments (neglecting my research, writing, and other service). Then the naps grew longer. I was hard to stand in front of a class for an hour. I'm sure I wasn't doing my best work. Not by a long shot.

The point where I should have called it off and applied for disability was probably December of 2017. During finals week, there's no chance to take a nap. I made it until my last final exam (the third of the day, in the evening), but when the time came I had dropped to the floor of my office, unable to get up. There's only so much you can ask of your body before it shuts down. I was awake, I was thinking, but my muscles wouldn't work. Fortunately it was one of my advanced classes, and the students had the good sense to come up to my office to remind me where I was supposed to be. I suppose seeing me on the floor shocked everyone. I still couldn't sit up. Of course, they wanted to help. But there really wasn't anything anyone could do. I explained what had been going on, assured everyone that I would work around the problem so nobody's final grade would be affected, and asked them to leave me to get a few hours sleep. After that, I would be ready to pick myself and drive home. They were concerned, of course, and I was embarrassed, but I couldn't see any better options. So they got to finish early, and I slept for slept for three or four hours, and after that my body was ready to get up, walk to the car, and drive to Pittsburgh.

I should have thrown in the towel then, I suppose. But I'm stubborn. I don't like to think I can give my body a reasonable order and it will refuse to obey. And as I regained my strength over the winter break I told myself I could organize things to make everything work. But I couldn't. I made it to May (barely), but I really wasn't doing my job. The Dean (and Human Resources) were kind enough to allow me sick/disability leave, but that was to get me past my 60th birthday, so I could collect on my pension without penalty. My last official day of employment was January 4th of this year. 

Since then, I've been making adjustments. Finances, insurance, all the usual stuff. But the biggest adjustment had to be mental. I don't have to take this as an end to my life's work. If anything, it removes some of the distractions. I can still think, and read, and write. So long as I stick to schedule, take my pills four times a day, and allow myself nine hours of sleep, I actually feel pretty good. I even have the first draft ready of a paper I'll deliver at a conference in March (and I must arrange my sleeping arrangements in Toronto!). My greatest enemy is me: trying to ignore my limitations, or giving in to a temptation to watch a movie when I have better things than TV. Losing myself in the news would be an easy way to remain occupied but unproductive, So I'm not doing that, and I won't do that. (Usually. There's always the temptation to piece together the pieces of the Trump scandals.)

So that's the State of My Union. I'll probably be checking in more here, from time to time, and connecting some of the interesting stuff to Facebook. Social media can easily be another time sink. But it's also allowing me, through "professional" social media, to keep in touch with current and prospective colleagues. I can read more of their work now. I can, and do, contribute. I still have things to say, and I will say them. 

Raising our eyes to the stars

Happy Moon Day!  On this day, in 1969, people first set foot on the surface of the moon.  I was nine years old.  The computer in the Apollo spacecraft had less computing power that the cheap digital watch you might get today in a Happy Meal.  There was a lot of math involved, of course, but it was generally done on the ground, and much of it with slide rules.  It's hard to remember, sometimes, just how much has changed.

Apollo was a decade-long, incremental, and monumental project.  Only two countries could have assembled the raw power necessary to get to the moon, and one of them pushed so far past the limits of their capabilities that their best minds died in an explosion linked directly to the politics of an arbitrary deadline.  Today there are billionaires in the process of building orbital hotels.  Some are making plans to skip the moon entirely and head directly for Mars.

It was, in many ways, the equivalent of building the pyramids.  It was a contest for bragging rights with the USSR, and when it was done it rolled on by inertia for only a few more missions.  But it was also an achievement "for all mankind."  This was a day for every person on Earth to be proud.  How many of those have there been?

It was the dawn of a new age.  And then we paused to catch our breath and lower our sights.  Leave it to government to make the world's greatest adventure boring.

But maybe we are waking up again.  Today, more people are coming to wrap their heads around the fact that we must go and live (and yes, die) out there.  This planet is too small.  Too vulnerable.  We are still in a race, not just of nation versus nation or corporation versus corporation, but as a species against time.  To survive, we have to become a multiplanetary civilization.  And today, forty-nine years ago, was the first step.

Photo taken from the Moon.  July 20, 1969.

Reading between the lines in Strzok's testimony

It's an old joke among lawyers: If you have the law on your side, argue the law; if you have the facts, argue the facts; if you have neither, pound the table. 

There was a lot of table-pounding (and the occasional foaming at the mouth) at the open hearings yesterday, which attempted to make Peter Strzok into some kind of dark figure and (somehow) defend the president.  It was a failure.  If this is the best they could do, Donald Trump might want to reconsider returning from his foreign trip.  Perhaps Putin would let him stay in Russia. But I doubt that he would.  It's not like Trump was actually an agent.  More like a useful idiot.  And apparently he hasn't been reading his briefing books, and the pros have been avoiding talking to him about sensitive sources and methods, so he may not have all that much useful intelligence to trade for his dacha on the Black Sea.  

If anything, the hearings (what I saw of them) made Peter Strzok into a hero. Credible.  Calm in the face of insults and stupidity.  Clear about what he could, and could not, talk about in an open hearing.  He came across as a professional counterintelligence agent.  He sort of reminded me of my Dad (and that's rare praise).  

But there was one statement he made in the hearing that caught my attention. Actually, it pulled me out of my chair. And since I don't see anyone else making this connection, I guess I will.  Strzok (with permission, I'm sure) pulled the curtain aside just a little bit on the early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation.  This is what grabbed my attention:

The information we had which was alleging a Russian offer of assistance to a member of the Trump campaign was of extraordinary significance. It was credible. It was from an extraordinarily sensitive and credible source.

What, exactly, does that mean?  "Intel-speak" tends to avoid exaggeration.  If anything, it tends to be overcautious.  Peter Strzok was a senior counterintelligence official, with years of experience in investigating, disrupting, and prosecuting Russian intelligence operations in the United States.  His record is exemplary.  He was, in fact, one of the first of a handful of people who knew what the FBI knew about Trump-Russia.  He could have, with a few words, undermined the Trump campaign.  He didn't do it.  The best available evidence is that he didn't even think of doing it.  He is that kind of professional.  Which means that every word he uses in an official capacity is considered.  Every word means something--no more, no less.

So what, exactly, was he saying?  It's been decades since I had any special access, but the meanings of some words were drummed into my head.  Most of the politicians probably missed it--exaggeration and spin are their stock in trade.  But, to me, it was like he stood on the desk with a bullhorn.  

The use of verbal probability estimates in National Intelligence Estimates has changed over time (for an overview of word counts see the MA thesis of Rachel Kesselman (Mercyhurst, 2008)).  But this is about the usual: it comes from a (now declassified) 2007 NIE.

Estimates of likelihood.  Because analytical judgments are not certain, we use probabilistic language...  Terms such as probably, likely, very likely, or almost certainly indicate a greater than even chance.

A chart of the continuum provided in the NIE makes it clear that probably or likely is around a sixty or seventy-five percent estimate of likelihood. Very likely is around eighty to ninety percent.  Almost certainly is over ninety percent.  There is no such thing as a certain assessment (100 percent)--there is always room for error.  But if you have to bet, likely is good enough to bet your money, very likely is good enough to bet your job, and almost certainly is good enough to bet your life.  

One can also chart the confidence in assessments, which is based on the quality, scope, and sourcing of the evidence on which the estimate is based.  A high confidence is an indication of high-quality information.  It's not certain, but it's damn near close.  Moderate confidence means the information comes from a credible source.  It's plausible.  Low confidence means there are questions about the source's credibility or plausibility.  It's possible, but you wouldn't want to base your decision on it.  Curveball, the Iraqi source passed along by German intelligence to the US, was in the judgement of the Germans a low confidence source.  The Americans chose to trust him because he fit the prejudices of senior administration officials, which led (in part) to the Iraq War of 2003.

So let's take another look at the testimony.  Strzok tells us the source was extraordinarily sensitive and credible.  This is the level of having a loyal agent inside the other side's agency--an agent with access to information most other insiders would not have.  This is a source so important, so sensitive, that to even release his report into normal channels (let alone to the public) would lead to an immediate manhunt, his discovery, torture, and execution.

No wonder Strzok kept his mouth shut!

And no wonder, once the Trump-Russia story began to surface through other channels, we began to see a series of murders of people in Russia who might have had some involvement in the operation.  This is not just about the "Steele Dossier".  Steele is a good spy, using the sources available to him outside of Russia, and it looks like he did a pretty good job.  But Strzok had his source before seeing anything from Steele.  And Strzok's source was someone with inside knowledge.  If not inner circle, then pretty damn close.

And Strzok is telling us he knew--perhaps not well enough to prove in an American court, but well enough that he would have been willing to bet his life and the lives of the people he cares about--he knew the Russians were openly offering assistance to at least one member of the Trump campaign.  And if it was happening at all, it was an operation planned and approved at the top.  The top of the Russian government--certainly.  The top of the Trump campaign?  That was something that deserved a much closer look.

***

OBE--Overtaken by Events--the news has broken that the Mueller team has indicted a number of senior Russian military intelligence officials for breaking into DNC servers, precisely when Donald Trump was calling on them, publicly, to do something like that.  Interesting.  I have to admire the timing.  I have to wonder--did the FBI officials who authorized Strzok to open the curtain, just a little, know this was coming today?

Torture (II)

A draft review of Manfred Nowak, Torture: An Expert's Confrontation with an Everyday Evil (Philadelphia: U of PA Press, 2018).  Translated from the German by Roger Kaminker.

The author was the UN Special Rapporteur for the Human Rights Council from 2004 to 2010.  He has also worked with the EU, universities, and NGOs to  investigate cases of torture, promote prosecutions of offenders, and improve conditions of detention.  Yet one of his first observations is that past all the definitions and descriptions of torture, "we cannot fully grasp its essence if we have never experienced it."  And while torture is universally condemned in international law, this direct attack on the essence of what it means to be human is used--"routinely"--by the police of most of the world's states.  The author hopes, by exploring the depths of the evil torture involves, to promote the sense of outrage prompted by the reporting on the Holocaust. Clearly, instruments of international law are not enough. He wants "a new global consensus to effectively eradicate torture."  I sense he will be waiting a long time.

Novak's description of the operations of the United Nations follows a familiar pattern: noble goals, undermined by state practice. Systematic cruelty is hidden behind a wall of lies.  So he describes how, as an investigator, he had to work under the rules promulgated by each state he was investigating. And he explores how it was possible, sometimes, to work within those rules and still learn something of value. Arranging confidential interviews and medical examinations was crucial.  When victims would describe, without police in the room, what had been done to them the evidence would almost always back up their stories. And these are the states that allowed interviews.  At some level, the officials of those states believed (or told themselves) it "wasn't so bad."  Or at the very least they thought they could whitewash the conditions sufficiently to get out of the international spotlight.  It says a lot that neither Russia or the United States would allow these interviews to take place.

The book is divided into two parts.  Part one is an overview of torture, inhuman detention, and other "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment.  Despite the Convention, what counts as torture varies by region and culture. Corporal punishment and capital punishment? At the insistence of many Islamic states, the UN Convention against torture does not include pain or suffering arising from "lawful" sanctions. Like those who define "terrorism" as the act of a non-state, this is potentially a loophole that renders the Convention meaningless.  At the same time, if a state does not enact legislation (and enforce it) against private acts of dehumanizing violence, it endures as the norm.

Part two is a survey, chapter by chapter, of torture in individual states. These are based on Nowak's investigations, ranging from Georgia to Mongolia, Nepal to China, Jordan to Austria, he established torture had occurred in seventeen of eighteen states.  The only counterexample he found, Denmark, began with a very different model of what a prisoner is and what a prison is for.  A retributionist system must be replaced by one that sees the prisoner as a human being, with all the rights that involves,working to integrate himself back into the community. We have a long way to go.

Torture

First, where are we now?  Since I haven't written about my life (or much of anything) for several months, I feel I should probably do some catching up.

First, I have Parkinson's Disease.  Have had it, for at least several years.  It's now gotten to the point that my performance as a professor (teaching, research, administration) has suffered.  It has gotten to the point that I'm probably going to go on sick leave in the fall semester., and retire as disabled in January 2019.

It's damn frustrating.  For the most part (not always) I can get my body to do what I want it to do.  But standing in front of four classes a week is too much.  Besides, I have to spend more of my time and effort on the act of maintaining my focus.  Doing it on demand, day after day, every day, is beyond me.  I get tired.  I also can't handle the two hours a day (or more) driving between my home in Pittsburgh and my office in Slippery Rock.  Not every day.

My father died of Parkinson's, so I have some idea of what my future might look like.  In the meantime I live, I exercise, I read and I write.  I get to give my wife the attention she deserves (although the focus issue still comes up--I have to write myself more notes, I have to be more scheduled and less spontaneous).

Actually, for the immediate future it's not all that bad.  I'm as intelligent as ever (my IQ has actually gone up a few points, as a result of getting my depression under control). I can learn.  I can contribute.  If I can arrange the money (still in progress) I can visit some of the places I normally couldn't go when the full-time professorship got in the way.  Maybe I can give a guest lecture or three.  Maybe I can see what's going on with others' projects.  Maybe I can get some people to take a critical eye to mine.

In some ways, it feels like grad school--but without the arbitrary assignments and the anxiety about grades.

I know, I know--I may not be in denial, but I'm clearly putting the best possible spin on events. It's a conceit--but I'd like to think it's a healthy one.

So what am I doing today?  Among other things, reading a book entitled Torture for a short book review.  With a title like that, written by a former UN Special Rapporteur, it's bound to be a laugh a minute for the whole family.  But it should also be valuable.  You see, most of us Strategic Studies types don't read these horror stories because we like what we learn, but because it might help us to do something to improve the situation.  It's much like an oncologist reading the latest research on cancer, or a political psychologist who examines a case study on president Trump (and yes, that parallel was intentional).

But enough of this.  Back to the book...