Yes, It Is Child Porn

I'm really beginning to hate the media. Wait, who am I kidding, I'm way past beginning.

This latest rant is brought on by the Elton John fiasco involving a photograph entitled "Klara And Edda Belly-Dancing" that was seized by police because it was kiddie porn. John defends himself by stating that it's been exhibited in many countries, the implication being that it is art. Well, I don't know what the child porn laws are in Britain, but here in the US that is no defense, nor should it be. When it comes to laws suppressing expression, it shouldn't matter one whit what anyone thinks about the content. What does matter is almost unique to child porn--that a person who is unable to understand what he/she is getting into, and who therefore cannot consent, is being exploited to create it. And that's exactly what happened here.

But if you read the news reports, you'd think the police were just overreacting to something innocent. this article describes the photograph as "depicting two naked girls." Another article provided a bit more detail, mentioning that one of the children's "legs were apart." That's not really enough to make a judgment about whether the photo is exploitative, and the absence of any reference to anything worse suggests innocence. Obviously, since the press is aware that the photo is probably illegal, I don't expect them to post the photo in the story, but in lieu of that, they should at least provide enough of a description for the reader to be able to make an informed judgment. "We report, you decide," right?

Well, it's on the net for anyone who wants to find it (hopefully not for much longer), but I will not link it. But I'll fill in the details the press is leaving out. One of the girls isn't actually naked. She is, however, down to her underwear, and is standing over the other girl, directly over her face, legs apart. The other girl is completely naked, on her knees, spread eagle--completely and overtly exposed to the camera--leaning all the way back (essentially lying on her back, but with her shins tucked under her rather than being completely supine). Those are the facts.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on here. The kids obviously had no idea what was going on. The photographer, on the other hand, knew exactly what she was doing. John's defenders are going blue in the face yelling about how it's not sexual, not erotic, it's just innocent children playing. Well guess what, that's exactly what child porn is, because children don't any any sexuality, it isn't erotic to the (normal) viewer, and the children don't understand what's happening! The only question that matters is whether the children could have consented to having this photo taken. It's not a question of taste or artistic value. The answer is obvious.

I just hope US authorities go after the photographer, who is of course the real criminal. John's defense that it is widely regarded as art isn't relevant to whether it is child porn, but I think it has implications with respect to notice that are mitigating at least. It's not fair that he should be the one paying for this, or at least, he should not be paying the highest price.

The Women of BSG (The Most Awesome Trailer Ever!)

Well, not really a trailer. There is some new stuff in there though

Rednecks Have More Fun

"Water Skiing"




I think I need to try this--the Redneck Rocket Launcher!

Iran: A Prediction

If we go to war with Iran,
And If that war takes the form of a sustained air campaign directed against their nuclear facilities,
I offer the following prediction:

The effectiveness of our cruise missiles will be substantially impaired against high-priority targets such as air defense hubs, airfields, and the strategic objectives themselves (the nuke sites). This ineffectiveness will be due to local point defenses, such as the SA-15 (aka, Tor-M1), and to a lack of penetration of hardened targets. This ineffectiveness will also be limited by the Iranian military's resources and priorites; in other words, lower priority targets may not be well-defended and will be vulnerable to cruise missile attack.

The overall effect of this will be that manned aircraft will have to fly the sorties to take out high-priority targets early in the conflict, and that most targets eventually hit by cruise missiles will be those which could have been hit by a manned aircraft with little to no risk to the crew. Cruise missiles will not have fulfilled their strategic purpose.

Benchmarks of Success

With the testimony of General Patraeus and Ambassador Crocker taking place this week, I've become a bit of a news junkie once again. And inevitably, after forcing myself to listen to the talking heads, I get a little miffed with the crap that they spew forth.

There's plenty of talking points with reference to Iraq that I'd like to counter-spew on, but there is one that outweighs all others, and that is this nonsensical focus on these so-called "benchmarks."

Let me be absolutely clear on this point. There is only ONE benchmark that matters in Iraq. One, and that's it. And that benchmark is the legitimacy of the democratically elected government. That legitimacy is what Al-Qaida and opportunistic warlords are trying to undermine; to cause it to crumble and be replaced by something more to their liking. Success in counterinsurgency means preventing that from happening. All other goals in counterinsurgency are subordinate to this goal.

Yet, when the pundits spout off about the "benchmarks," there is no context--no reference how these supposed failures indicate that our strategy is failing. In fact, even the majority of the media covering the story don't even bother to tell you exactly what the benchmarks are. Well, here they are, on page 3 of this pdf.

The Iraqi government's failure to achieve many of these benchmarks is significant, to a point. But taken in context, they don't mean we're losing. This list is all about legislative progress... legislative progress expected of a parliamentary system in a time when the population doesn't even know for sure what sort of state they want Iraq to be! We Americans couldn't even get our first Constitution to work at all before we had to throw in the towel and start again, and to this day our Congress doesn't get much done. And that's without a war going on during the drafting and in a 2-party system! Yet somehow we expect the legislature in Iraq to crank out crucial law after law with all the efficiency of an assembly line? Get real... That isn't a sign that we're losing---it's NORMAL, especially under the circumstances.

To be sure, effectiveness of a government is important to establishing and maintaining its legitimacy; and this is especially true in cultures used to more authoritarian forms of government. The benchmarks do matter--but the way that matter is that they are a sign that could indicate that the people might become frustrated with the government and turn away from it. And turning away could simply mean electing different representatives, or amending the constitution to fix the problem. It isn't necessarily indicative of the rejection of democratic rule in favor of theocracy, or even the rejection of national rule in favor of breaking the state along sectarian lines. To evaluate our strategy, you need to look at other signs that factor into the one benchmark that matters--legitimacy.

Those factors are mentioned all over Ambassador Crocker's testimony, but apparently no one was listening. The gains in the security situation are reviving Iraqi markets and their economy. Local businesses are being simulated and employment is rising. Foreign direct investment is on the rise. 74 states have pledged economic assistance to Iraq. Oil revenues are being shared, even without the benchmarked legislation going through. Informal reconciliation is taking place with the reintegration of former insurgents into the Iraqi security forces--also without the benchmarked legislation on amnesty being passed yet. Most strikingly, the people of Anbar overwhelmingly rejected Al-Qaeda and volunteered to work with the coalition to remove them, and AQ is being broadly rejected overall. Al-Sadr has reigned in the Mahdi army in response to the backlash against the targeting of worshippers and Iranian meddling.

Not all signs are positive. Particularly troubling to me is the electricity situation (also mentioned in Crocker's testimony), the stagnation in the training of Iraqi forces (from General Patraeus's tables), and the polls indicating (1)that the Iraqi public considered life to have gotten worse during that surge; and (2) that the people were divided about 53-47% as to whether US forces should stay or leave (respectively). Those indicators say at least as much about legitimacy as the failure of the central government to enact certain legislation.

In the greater scheme of counterinsurgency, political gains should follow institutional and economic gains, and institutional and economic gains should follow military gains. The military gains are definitely happening; you'd have to really stick your head in the sand not to see that at this point. Economic and institutional indicators appear largely positive. Political gains are occurring mostly at the local level, while progress is lacking at the national level. With the new strategy in place less than a year, and the surge in full swing only a few months, it's very encouraging to see many second-order and some third-order effects already. The data at this point overwhelmingly indicates that the strategy is working.

Which shouldn't be too surprising. General Patraeus, after all, literally did write the book on counterinsurgency. Success is mostly a matter of taking back the initiative we gave away to the insurgency by having our heads up our asses when the occupation began. It would appear from the military situation that the initiative is ours, and the rest will flow from that.

You Can Never Wish Harm Upon Your First Love

Well, it now appears that the international community is buckling while Iran is more stubborn than ever. As long as our intelligence community continues to believe the purpose of Iran's nuclear program is the development of nuclear weapons, war is looking very likely. The most likely form such a war would take is an air campaign that would probably last 1-2 weeks.

Quite frankly, I'm horrified. But not because Iran can hurt us more in Iraq (they're already doing about all they can clandestinely; we'd clean their chronometers in open warfare so really things can't get any worse) and not because they have a fearsome air defense network (and they do). I just worry about the horrible atrocities that may be forced upon our aviators--some of the "newer" (but certainly not younger) F/A-18E crews, in particular.

Iran has a halfway decent air force. Most of its aircraft are obsolete. Some are top rate. I'm sure any MiG-29s sent up against us will prove to be worthy prey for our Hornets and Eagles, and the aviators and pilots (respectively) fortunate enough to have had the privilege of meeting the Fulcrum in battle and skilled enough to emerge victorious will come home heroes.

But what about Iran's Tomcats? We retired ours mainly because they were a bitch to keep flying. There is a good chance that nearly all of Iran's F-14s are simply no longer airworthy. I hope this is true of all of them; that they all died quietly in their sleep, gently drifting away. And to those that are still flying---please, please let them meet their end at the hands of a B-2, as if mercifully garroted while in their hangars in the middle of the night.

But not at the hands of our fighter pilots. It would be a war crime to ask one of our own to commit such an unnatural, heinous abomination. She may be wearing the uniform of the enemy--and it looks horrible on her--but she's still beautiful and still one of our own.
I know if it was a MiG-29 in that TD box, the warble-ey buzz of the heater in my ear would be the most joyous sound imaginable. But it pains me to think about what would be going through the heads of our aviators if they heard that sound while locked onto an F-14. It would be god-awful, blood curdling, nauseating, and worse--it would be hatefulness manifest in a compression wave. Because the very thought of a figure so beautiful, so heroic, being torn asunder, doused in flames, spiraling hopelessly toward the ground with all the grace of a wounded elephant, is hateful.

I don't think I could do it. I don't see how I could live with myself afterward if I had to. And I hope beyond hope that our finest are not put in that position.

Let her go gracefully.