Next stop: Norms. With connecting service to Denver and Salt Lake City.

This week's assignment is to discuss how one's everyday behaviour is governed by norms, rather than persuing one's own interests in a rational manner, using an example from daily life.

I'd like to discuss the norm of queuing. This comes to my mind as I made a short trip by plane in the last couple of days, and we all know the production that flying is anymore. And it's an experience that is governed by both written rules (those of the government) and ad hoc social conventions. I'll discuss both.

Flying got a lot less fun since 9/11. Every few months there's some kind of terror threat that causes the rules and procedures of flying to be revised slightly. Some bastard tries to blow up a plane by lighting explosives in his shoes, so all shoes must be x-rayed and lighters are banned in both carry-on and checked luggage. Someone tries to do something else dastardly with toiletries, so now they may only be carried on board in less than 3 oz/100 mL quantities, in clear bags that must be examined separately. (you'd think the screeners'd never seen cocoa butter or shaving gel before)

These security-related changes are on top of those implimented by the airlines for reasons of economy, efficiency and style. There are hardly any agents anymore, one checks in at a kiosk while one agent overlooks to help with baggage and make sure everyone is helped. This is great when there are a few people who know what they're doing and the computers are working. But when there's a slow system day and a convention of grandmas from Kansas, the old fashioned way of an agent using the computer looks oddly appealing. ("I cain't figger this dang thang out! I don't know what mah con-fir-mation number is! Where the heyell is mah con-fir-mation number on this dang e-mail thang I got!")

And then there's weather. When it's good, it's great. When it's bad, you're going to be stuck sleeping on the floor in the airport. Or worse, trapped in a plane on the runway. Not much can be done about it, but it's a real source of trouble.

So, considering these issues, when you're in the airport, running desparately behind, and (critically) not sure how long it will take to get to your gate from the outside, why do you tolerate long queues behind grandmas with no computer skills, clueless people who haven't traveled since 1975 and security screeners who want you to practically strip naked, when storming the counter to get your ticket, queue-jumping at security and running like a maniac to the gate are much more efficient, rational ways to act. (They get you want you want with much less mental effort, if increased physical effort.) (oh, and if you knew the number of times I've almost lost my pants at a security checkpoint because I had to take my belt off....)

I think a major-part of not queue-jumping is the fact that we, in the US, are socialized to wait nicely in the queue (as our plane takes off without us on it) until our turn at the desk, checkpoint, whatever, has come. If you question this, take a packed 500 or 71D bus on Fifth Avenue some morning and watch the pushing and shoving and non-queuing of the Chinese and Indian students at CMU (and they're all Chinese or Indian)-- in their countries, they don't queue. If we in the US do queue-jump, that makes us rude and in the social wrong, even if you managed to get where you were going. So there's a social penalty for doing what's rational. Even your friends would chastize you for queue-jumping. (Not to mention being arrested by TSA at a security checkpoint for causing a distrubance, but that's a side point.)

This queueing business applies elsewhere: getting on/off buses, the frustrating experience of trying to get a coffee at Einstein's in less than 25 minutes at a class break, in stores (if you've ever been stuck at WalMart in line for two or three hours, you know what I'm talking about, while the cashiers gossip with each other and not pay any attention at all...) In many places elsewhere in the world (China, India, Africa), people really aren't fussed by queuing-- it's just a free-for-all til you get what you want. Maybe it's cultural, maybe it's because there are so many people in so little space, whatever, but that's how it is.

See, I promised you a RoW-related posting, hon. And yinz doubted me n'at.

If you have 1/2 of an apple and 2/3 of a pear, how much fruit do you have?

Who ever would have thought that a math professor would be advocating that fractions not be taught in schools to young children anymore? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-01-23-fractions_N.htm)

There are many good reasons for teaching fractions:

1. We don't use the metric system, so if you want to do anything involving any sort of distance, volume, quantity in the imperial system, you need fractions. (We'll not discuss how I'm still a bit uncertain at reading a f-ing inch-demoninated ruler, and VASTLY prefer centimeters)
2. The right of passage that is suffering through years of being forced to learn how to add, subtract, multiply and divide fractions by hand. (I vaguely remember how to do these tasks, but maybe that's because it's almost second nature and I don't have to think about it?)
3. The joys that those mean bitches who get jobs as elementary school teachers get from torturing their innocent students with endless fractions-problems. (Guess what Mrs. Mean 4th Grade Teacher From Hell, I still don't do math fast-- if I ever was on a bus that would blow up if I didn't add/subtract fractions quick enough, we'd all be toast)
4. Surely there's another.... oh, yes. The conceptualization of partial units. Seriously, when was the last time you had a subtract fractions? (I'm not sure that I even know how to do it, now that I think about it) But when was the last time you dealt with the concept of a part of a whole? My point exactly.

Kids need fractions, calculators or not. Metric system or not. And as much as I hate to say it, Mrs. Loud, Fat Shrew With Stirrup Tights (evil 3rd grade teacher) might have done me a favour, when she wasn't breaking my spirit.

Yet again, not RoW material. I promise a RoW posting very shortly.

Yinz can learn about Pittsburghese on da inter-webs, hon!

Since I'm a huge dork and was once upon a time a linguist (sorta, kinda ), I thought I'd share this finding about online lessons in Pittsburghese with y'all. So anytime it's slippy outsahd, you can stay insahd and listen t'the podcasts, hon, and not have t' go oooover dayre...

Enjoy!

http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=41403

I'll be posting a norms-related rant very shortly, I promise. Stay tuned, hon.

Marky Mark, George Clooney, the obligatory 2 hicks and the other soldier guy who's in every war movie

So we had to watch "Three Kings" and observe the violations of IHL, and blog them from coast to coast. So I did, having returned from a most bizzare weekend in Maryland: best friend's birthday with concurrent family emergency. Before I enbark on listing some 20-odd items, I just want to share some impressions.

1) War is complicated. And so, even with the best of intentions (or at least not atrociously dishonourable intentions), bad things happen. So I understand how IHL gets broken even by (mostly) upstanding world citizens: the rules sound straight forward and obvious, but applying them to real-world situations is tricky. When is it correct to bazooka a fortified compound? What are the ramifications of self-exploding cattle? Further, military action is situationally complex-- lots is going on and little is clear at any one time, but you have to decide and act in the meantime. (This is why I no longer work in catering, except in war there's no recouperation period while the bride and groom give toasts)

2) Why are more reporters not used for target practice? Lord have mercy, they're an irritating bunch, inventing things to be excited about and calling it "news." Seriously, who thinks it necessary that reporters be "embedded" with troops in the field? They're dead weight and a security risk, giving out important information as to troop movements and such. One lesson from the Gulf War was that Saddam Hussein was watching CNN too. "Loose lips sink ships"-- it's not just a WW2 slogan.

(Saddam watching CNN goes something like this:
Embedded reporter: "Good morning Chet. I'm reporting with Coalition troops about 2km north of Axmaxaxaxaxax, in the eastern province. We're staying in the green tents and have cleverly hidden our gate between some scruby hills.... oh ****, there's a SCUD missle coming our way!! How did they know!?!?!?!?!?! "
*static*)

(I also feel this way about reporters and "news" programs domestically-- the media is creating an economic mess as we speak now, by creating panic over a stock market hiccup. Maybe countries in poorer stages of devlopment have it right in limiting panic-inducing reporting on the economy. Just a thought.)

3) At the very end, I almost got all teary about how George Clooney was like an Oscar Schindler in the desert, leading his people away from the wicked, murderous regime. *sniff* (Oh right. I don't cry at movies. But if I did... um... no. still, no.)

Moving on. Here's my list of things I believe are or may be violations of IHL.

1. Not aiding a wounded enemy soldier but taking a photo instead.
2. Screaming and yelling at POWs in English. Ok, so POW camp is not the Hilton and one doesn't need to be polite to them, but trying to communicate with them in their own language might help calm them down and make them do what you want. It might not be a violation of IHL but it's frustrating and counter-productive, and could lead to (more serious) violations.
3. plotting to steal plundered gold and goods that may have been the subject of reparations agreements (granted, the plot of the movie, but that doesn't make it right!)
4. Not repatriating/properly and respectfully disposing of the dead
5. destroying livestock (though I think the cow stepped on something and went boom)
6. breaking into houses to look for treasure. I don't think there are 4th amendment protections in IHL but it makes the locals hate you
7. Iraqi soldiers taking provisions from children and civilians
8. Iraq set the Kuwaiti oil wells on fire as they retreated. Some people might consider this an environmental crime--- the oil still pollutes the environment 15 years later. (I remember watching the burning wells on TV after the liberation)
9. The American 4-some entering Iraq without authorization. I'm sure there's some kind of procedure for that.
10. Iraqi torture of prisoners/civilians (Shiite rebels?)
11. the Iraqis' fondness for looting from Kuwait
12. Arbitrary killing of civilians by Iraqis
13. Perhaps the use of tear gas, though that depends on who is asked
14. The Iraqis want to shoot Marky Mark when they capture him
15. the Americans for aiding an insurgency?
16. Electrotorture of Marky Mark
17. the Iraqi interrogator of Marky Mark torturing him in revenge for the war damage?
18. Forcing Marky Mark to swallow oil
19. pretending to be a head of state in order to take a compound
20. the near refoulement of refugees at Iranian border, until George saves the day and Marky Mark.

Enjoy!

I just want a normal coffee!!

While my Hebrew is very, very limited (I can communicate by prayer), I get the jist of this HYSTERICAL video. If anyone actually speaks Hebrew well, please let me know what they say!! (I do know that the redhead is speaking with a heavy Arabic accent-- listen for the glottal stops everywhere)

Ok, this isn't RoW-related, but it cracks me up and everyone needs to know about it. ;)

Lt. Watada: dissenter or disobdient?

We've been assigned to read a short op-ed about Lt. Watada, an Army officer who has refused to be deployed to Iraq based on his understanding that the Iraq war is an illegal one under international law. As of January 2007 he was facing a court-martial for this stance, with the possibility of prison and a near-certainty of a tarished career.

It's difficult for me to evaluate this situation comprehensively based on this one article. It is an op-ed piece, from a website that would appear to support him personally. But there are issues raised that I can comment on, drawing on this article and what I learned in Dr. Nolan's "Ethics and National Security" class. Still, it is difficult to comment coprehensively, as I'm unfamiliar with the applicable Military Code and the law.

From the standpoint of the US Army, it is easy to see Lt. Watada as a disobdient solider. He was given orders (to deploy) and he has refused those orders on grounds that are not crystal clear at his level of the organization. Therefore he must be brought into compliance, and failing that, punished. Afterall, the Army is a strongly hierarchical organization, and chaos would errupt if everyone declined to do what they don't 100% agree with.

Further, Lt. Watada joined the military of his own free will. He recognized that when he signed that contract, he was giving up a certain level of personal autonomy; he agreed to take orders: to do and go as instructed without question in the vast majority of the things that would required of him.

Additionally, even if the Iraq war is indeed illegal under international law (which it may or may not be-- I do not evaluate that here), it is not Lt. Watada's place to decline to participate. Participation in a potentially internationally illegal war is not necessarily on the same level as commiting more "typical" crimes of war, for example, killing or injuring civilians without cause. If Lt. Watada was concerned that he might be tried with war crimes for having merely participated in the war, he should be able to take solace in the fact that, if the Iraq war is later determined to have been illegal, it is unlikely that he persoanlly would take responsibility-- the government of the United States would, should it be sued in the International Court of Justice by the Government of Iraq, for example. (There is some support to this: soldiers who have been implicated in serious offenses against civilians and prisoners, much higher up on the mens rea foodchain, have gotten little more than smacks on the wrist)

From the perspective of Lt. Watada, as he deeply felt that what he was being ordered to do was illegal, he should not be prosecuted for speaking up. This is the principle that is taught to soldiers in how to avoid committing atrocities in the field: soldiers have the duty to refuse orders they legitimately believe to be contrary to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and they have the right to bring the situation to the attention of higher authorities as tactical conditions allow. (Remember Goldie's "TAKE THE HILL!" film?)

Did the terms of his contract with the Army negate his ability to contientously object to certain missions? (we'd have to see the text of this contract and compare it against the regs on objection to say more definitively) From a practical standpoint, isn't the Army being a tad bit malicious in not allowing him to serve in Afghanistan (which he requested) as a way of navigating his objections? Certainly the Army cannot set a precident for anyone who just doesn't want to go to Iraq to get out of it by claiming a slightly nebulously-grounded objection-- who *wants* to go to Iraq to be shot at, place life and limb at risk and, at the very least, suffer the privations of being 10,000 miles away from family and friends? But are there not internal rules that govern when service members may and may not object? In a similar vein, is the Army's quest to make an example of Lt. Watada (which seems clear enough) an abuse of his due process rights? (granted the UCMJ works differently from civilian law, but it's a valid question)

(The treat to limb is very, very real-- I used to live outside of Washington and used to see regularly around town young men (often no older than 19 or 20 years) missing legs, arms, hands, eyes. A guy roughly my age lived a couple of buildings up from me and I used to see him struggle to get in his truck with a crutch in place of his right leg. A friend of mine who moonlights as a waitress once told me about a customer of hers who had such devestating brain damage that he could not speak or feed himself. And we mustn't forget those who come home physically intact but psychologically injured.)

So, I take a balanced view of Lt. Watada's unfortunant situation: he's acting in accordance with his beliefs and is seemingly being punished for it, while the Army is holding him to his contractual obligations and trying to contain what might be a wildfire. But what are the costs of their actions? Lt. Watada may be setting an example for anyone who is considering joining up, but he might be waging his campaign in thw wrong forum. Army might be protecting itself (as organizations are wont to do) but it might be embarrassing itself and acting needlessly heavy-handedly with Lt. Watada. I do wonder what will happen to him.

(I'd also like to point out that service members who have challenged the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on LGBT people serving openly have often faced the same set dilemmas, but they usually get witch-hunted and booted out with much less fanfare. If you're gay and in the military, silence and discretion are your friends and saviours.)

RoW as a Western conception?

While reading ch 1 in Johnson last night, about the philosophical origins of the Rules of War, I had flashbacks to my undergrad class on international human rights. Both concepts, HR and RoW, have their philosophical underpinnings in Judeo-Christian morality and ethics, as advanced over the centuries by Christian thinkers such as St. Augustine (of Hippo) and Thomas Aquinas, and Reformation-era thinkers such as Grotius. These concepts later developed into "natural rights," based on God's divinity and creation of people; 'natural rights' are something that are vaguely familiar to us in the form of 'proto-rights.' Johnson talks a bit about this progression in terms of RoW through the centuries to the modern era. Rightly so, as our focus is not on the past but on the present and future.

Having said all of this, there remains the fact that HR and RoW derive from a Judeo-Christian, and later Western, tradition. And unfashionable as it may be, is there not the same tension in the world of RoW as there is in the realm of HR about exactly how universal these principals are?

(This is the part where I remind my dear readers that I believe in the need for respect of RoW and HR, so don't leave me obnoxious posts calling me a fascist and such, cuz I'll delete them. I'm engaging in a thought-exercise-- nothing more, northing less. If your bleeding heart is offended, quit reading.)

In the various debates on the universality of HR, some countries have asserted that "western" HR standards don't apply to them, as they are non-Western cultures. While the motives of the questioning countries must be carefully considered (Burma, China, Iran anyone?), is it not possible that they just might have a point?

Different countries have different cultures and mores. Different things are considered appropriate in different places: in the US it is appropriate for females not to cover their hair when in public, while in religious neighbourhoods in Israel, it is inappropriate for females not to cover their hair in public. Of course, there is a major distinction: what is socially appropriate and what is legally required. If a lady does not cover her hair in a religious neighbourhood in Israel (say she's a visitor), she may be asked politely to cover herself, or perhaps jeered at by the inhabitants. But it's *highly* unlikely she would be subject to arrest (or worse) by the police. Not so in a place like Saudi Arabia, where she could be fined and whipped publically, or in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, where she could be fined, whipped, gang raped or executed for such a "crime." (Or in certain areas of Iraq under the control of religious extremists, where women are routinely murdered for visiting the hairdresser and wearing make-up) (I also have plenty to say about the barbarity that is Shari'a, but that will have to wait for another time)

In a similar vein, countries that have cultures that are more group-focused than individual-focused have different conceptions on what is appropriate treatment for individuals. Some countries with Confusian cultures have made this argument (Burma, China). Assuming that these states are not merely covering up or explaining away their own poor behaviour towards their citizens (a tall order indeed), isn't this a legitimate claim? We Westerners do things our way, they Chinese do things their way. In their culture, what we call "the rights of the individual" are not as strongly emphasised as in ours. So, in their context, it's not improper to treat citizens in a manner that appears more brutesque than in our culture. Why can't HR be relative? And further, what right do we Westerners have to impose our philiosophy on the non-Westerners?

I have to say that these arguments do have a certain ring about them. However, I'm less inclinded to believe them since they appear as a way of brushing off international criticism over how certain governments treat their citizens. I'm not sure that all HR are relative; some might be, especially economic-social ones. But I, personally, believe that all people have a set of fundamental rights, such that they are able to live in peace and with physical security, and not fear mistreatment at the hands of their government (from both what gov'ts do and don't do).

Taking this same concept and applying it to RoW, is it not possible that different societies have vastly different views on appropriate conduct in wartime? Are some of the things that we Westerners find so appalling and repulsive merely a part of another culture's pattern of warfare? Are there certain things that are now banned by the RoW regime a result of modernization of Western warfare, but still are practiced by less advanced militaries (for example pilage for the purpose of supply)? And again, who gave Westerners the perrogative to establish what is appropriate and not?

Hopefully I'll have some ideas on how to answer these questions by the end of the term.

Initial thoughts

So something occurred to me today in class after Dr C handed out the additional readings she'd had copied for us. I started flicking through one of them and the introductory paragraphs caught my eye. They described, in gory detail, just one of the war crimes/crimes against humanity from the Yugoslavian war, Rwanda, and the Holocaust. And they described some infamous hate crimes from the 1990s in the US: James Byrd Jr, who was drug to his death by skinheads; Matthew Shepard, who was robbed, beaten and left for dead in a homophobic attack. (I remember reading these stories in the newspaper and feeling the revulsion at not only those who could do such things, but at those who essentially advocate such actions. But I digress.)

And this made my blood run cold for a minute. I mean, I'm well used to discussing every kind of man-made disaster in terms of high politics: "Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939.", "Napoleon's armies marched across Europe..." But the small details catch your eye and attention, and they stick with you.

It then occurred to me. I spent 4 years in undergrad studying the best of the human mind and capabilities: the elegance and wonder that is language. This one feature is what makes us human, in my opinion, and is what allows us to express ourselves and communicate with others so efficiently and elegantly. If you were to look at a morpheme-by-morpheme deconstruction of a sentence, you'd see the brainpower it takes just to put together a two-clause sentence. (If you have no idea what I'm talking about, I refer to how linguists take sentences and words apart to understand their structures and relationships. It's like looking at a piece of furniture and examining how it's built.)

And now, I have a grisly, front-row seat to the worst of the human mind and character: wanton violence, the infliction of torture and suffering on others, the use of destruction and death as a tool. This is the nature of the IR beast: not everything can always be couched in the delicate terminology of diplomacy. But it's shocking when you've been away from it for a while.