Journalism


23
Aug 10

“The Point of No Return” by Jeffrey Goldberg Will Knock Your Socks Off

There seems to have been a great deal of speculation in regards to what Israel may or may not do to prevent Iran from continuing down the road to acquiring nuclear weapons.  Yesterday I happened to read an article in the Atlantic about this very thing.  The article was titled  The Point of No Return, and it was written Jeffrey Goldberg, and I’d go so far as to say that it was one of the best pieces of long form journalism that I have read in recent years. 

The article basically lays out the facts that make it seem very obvious that if the United States does not do something more drastic than create sanctions against Iran, then the nation state of Isreal will take it upon itself to use force to “rectify” the situation. 

From the cover of this Month’s Atlantic…

Here’s the scenario: one day next year, Isreal’s national-security adviser and defense minister will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon to inform them that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has just ordered roughtly 100 Israeli air-force jets to fly east toward Iran.  The Israelis will say they are attacking because a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the survival of the Jewish people.  They will tell the Americans that Israel was left with no choice.  They will not be asking for permission because it will be too late to ask for permission. 

They stand a good chance of changing the Middle East forever…

If that caught your attention (as it did mine), if you’re concerned about the price of oil / gas in the future, if you’re interested in the possibility of the United States becoming involved in some sort of military operation in the land situated in between Iraq and Afghanistan, or if you care about the relationship the United States has with the Nation State of Israel, I highly recommend that you read the rest of the article.  It will knock your socks off!

For what ever they may (or may not) be worth, here are a few of my thoughts on this issue: 

1. I don’t want the nation state of Iran to have nuclear weapons because they are a nation which at this point in time (and for many years now) has been lead by a group of religious fundamentalists (please note the use of the word religious as opposed to the use of the word Islamic). 

Full disclosure – I’m a light weight Athiest.  Meaning that I don’t believe in God, but at the same time I don’t have any problem with people who do, so long as their religious behaviors don’t cause harm, or appear to be getting ready to cause harm, to others. 

In the case of Iran I believe the current (fundamentalist controlled) government has made it clear that they see it as their personal, political, moral, and spiritual duty to cause harm to the Jewish people and/or the nation state Israel and the citizens who live there.  Feel free to disagree with me if you like, but religious fundamentalists all over the world have shown time and time again that when they get their hands on a weapon -any weapon- they have far fewer qualms about using said weapon than those people (religious and non-religious alike) who are not fundamentalists.  This time the religious fundmentlists happen to be in control of the nation state of Iran, and they have their sites on the nation state of Isreal. 

2. If Isreal does bomb Iran their government will have to deal with backlash from numerous political, economic, and ethnic groups. 

Backlash, by its definition, is not something that can’t be prepared for.  Be that as it may,  I really believe that Isreal needs to be as ready as they can be by having a bunch of smart people sitting in a room with lots of coffee gaming this thing out as much as they can, for as long as they can. 

The more time Isreal spends on (please forgive the term) pre-game preperation the better this will be for them. 

3.  No matter what Isreal should keep its “bomb in the basement” in the basement.

If Isreal were to publicly state that it has nuclear weapons, which is something that has never been stated but is totally understood, it would place Israel at a disadvantage in the short and long terms. 

The short term disadvantage – Iran would look more justified in pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

The long term disadvantage – an increase in animosity directed towards Israel, and by proxy, Jewish people all over the world. 

~~~

I plan to keep up with this issue and blog about it throughout the next week, possibly longer.

Share this with other foolish humans:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Posterous
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Slashdot
  • email

13
May 10

FOLLOW UP: Bad Reporting on Acupuncture

Just a little update on my last post.

As I suspected, Science-Based Medicine and Dr. Novella picked up the slack on the primary study cited by the NewScientist article I recently criticized.  The first part of Dr. Novella’s post deals with the paper that claimed acupuncture provided a neuroprotective effect and aided recovery (in a rat model) from induced spinal injury, and he came to similar conclusions regarding the media reporting:

The bottom line with this study is that it provides weak evidence for a very extraordinary claim. It is of no practical use unless and until it is independently replicated with proper blinding. If you believe what you read in the media, however, you would be led to the conclusion that spinal injured patients could be made to walk again simply by sticking needles into magical locations on their body.

He also discusses another recent study plagued by related issues and echoes the fact that electroacupuncture cannot be considered true acupuncture:

Further, this study mixed acupuncture with “electroacupuncture.” I strongly maintain that there is no such thing as “electroacupunture” – it is, rather, the application of transcutaneous electrical stimulation through an acupuncture needle. This is no more acupuncture than the application of morphine through a hollow acupuncture needle should be considered acupuncture.

I highly recommend reading the full text of Dr. Novella’s post on this.  Naturally, he provides a much deeper insight into the issues at hand than I do.

Share this with other foolish humans:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Posterous
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Slashdot
  • email

29
Apr 10

Bad Reporting on Acupuncture

http://www.flickr.com/photos/migrainechick/ / CC BY 2.0

So this article on the NewScientist website really chapped my ass.

It cites the publication of a new study that outlines successful use of acupuncture to treat spinal injuries induced in rats.  Now, I’m not a doctor, and I’m unable to access the full-text of the study in question.  My suspicions are that some qualified party will cite methodological issues, or more likely, the study will remain a footnote  in light of the overwhelming weight of evidence in favor of the interpretation that acupuncture possesses no therapeutic benefit beyond that of placebo. (Maybe not.  We’ll see, but I doubt it.)

From the article:

Acupuncture’s scientific credentials are growing. Trials show that it improves sensory and motor functions in people with spinal cord injuries.

Well, not really.  For a great review of the current literature regarding acupuncture and an even greater deal of irate bitching about a fishy article written by The YOU Docs, Drs. Mehmet Oz and Mike Roizen, I highly suggest reading an article on the subject written by Dr. Mark Crislip over at Science-Based Medicine.  In it he outlines the results of numerous systematic reviews of the medical literature as well as dubious claims made about the mechanisms by which acupuncture works its supposed magic.  It appears that Drs. Oz and Roizen are attracted to the mysticism surrounding traditional Chinese medicine.

(Harriet Hall has also written a very thorough overview of acupuncture.)

Furthermore, the scientific paper to which the NewScientist links in the blockquote (different than the paper the article is discussing) does not deal directly with traditional acupuncture but with electroacupuncture in which an electrical impulse is introduced to the nerve.  This is an actual intervention that will induce some type of physiological response and cannot be considered acupuncture as Dr. Crislip asserts in his piece.  It seems dishonest to equate the two since there is a big difference between simply placing a needle into someone’s skin and running an electrical current into their body.

Of further interest is another post by Dr. Steven Novella regarding the placebo effect, one of the more misunderstood health-related phenomenons due to the complexities of interpreting study results.  The standard perception goes like this:  you walk into the doctor complaining of pain, the doctor gives you a sugar pill that you think is a pain reliever, and because you believe you’ve received treatment, your brain responds in kind and ramps up the production of natural healers, presumably the immune system.  Viola!  You’re better, and you didn’t have to ingest any dangerous drugs.

As you’ll see when reading Dr. Novella’s article and the mostly excellent discussion on the comment board that follows, the placebo effect doesn’t really work that way.  Most of it can be chalked up to study artifacts, bad study design, and reporting biases on the part of both doctors and patients.  Without an objective way of measuring pain or nausea or other types of discomfort, many of these studies are hindered by the need for patients to fill out a pain evaluation, the results of which can vary greatly from study to study.

You’ll notice all of my links are from Science-Based Medicine.  So sue me.  They devote their time and energy to evaluating dubious claims and pseudoscience, and they are an absolutely fantastic resource for anyone interested in the complicated study of medicine.  At the very least, reading many of these posts should help elucidate why all-or-nothing claims made by various pseudoscientific outfits are silly and don’t incorporate a nuanced approach to the business of getting things as right as possible.

Share this with other foolish humans:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Posterous
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Slashdot
  • email

13
Mar 10

The Cost of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar?

Attribution: This picture isoriginally from The New Republic article linked to in this post.

Today I read a great article by Michael Crowley titled Our man in Kabul? which appeared in the March edition of The New Republic.

The article is the typical highbrow journalism that you see in publications like The New Republic, or The Atlantic. It talks about a complex issue, in this case the United States government using an Afghan warlord named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to accomplish a set of goals, in a way that showcases (rather than ignoring) the complicatedness of the situation.

A bit about Hekmatyar. He is a ruthless scary ass dude who seems to be totally willing to do anything and/or sacrifice anything to gain power. And when I say “anything” I mean any-fucking-thing. For real.

Case in point: The United States has hooked this guy up during the cold war. His ruthlessness made him a valued and effective proxy to use against the Soviets.

After the Soviets completed their withdrawal in 1989, Hekmatyar expected to rule the country. But so did other mujahedin leaders, and vicious fighting ensued. From 1992 to 1994, the Afghan capital became a battleground as Hekmatyar, still in possession of a U.S.-supplied arsenal, wantonly shelled the city. “He was sitting in the suburbs of Kabul, and he was sending rockets, regardless of where they would land. Thousands of Afghans died,” says Ali Jalali, who served as Afghanistan’s interior minister from 2003 to 2005. (In a strange historical footnote, one rocket struck a compound where Hamid Karzai was being held captive by political rivals, allowing him to escape and then flee the country.) “We have already had one and a half million martyrs,” Hekmatyar remorselessly explained in 1992. “We are ready to offer as many to establish a true Islamic republic.” But the Afghan people disagreed. Hekmatyar’s brutality marginalized him, and he was no match for the anti-warlord Taliban movement. Unable to hold his ground militarily when the Taliban stormed Kabul in 1996, Hekmatyar fled to Iran.

i.e. this guy made the Taliban look reasonable. That’s saying something.

Clearly the kind of guy you would expect to be on the list of people that the Obama administration (or any administration for that mater) would never want to deal with right? Think again. Despite the fact that Hekmatyar is a madman perfectly ready and willing to sacrifice every drop of Afghan blood in return for power, he has something going for him that power brokers seem to like. He is for sale.

Obama administration officials don’t expect to crush the Afghan insurgency militarily. The current U.S. surge aims to turn the momentum of the war and then attempt a political “reconciliation” with elements of the insurgency. The effort will be aimed primarily at low-level combatants and local leaders who fight more for money and parochial reasons than for grand ideology. Senior insurgent leaders, like the Haqqanis and top Quetta Shura Taliban members, are probably just too fanatical to deal with. But Hekmatyar is another story. During the Afghan civil war, he was notorious for casually shifting allegiances, even if it meant allying with blood rivals. “This is a man who has switched sides his whole life,” says the Brookings Institution’s Bruce Riedel, who led the Obama administration’s first Afghanistan review.)

The United States has tried to use Hekmatyar as a tool in the past. He helped to keep the world “safe” from the Russians. But doing business with someone like Hekmatyar has a high moral cost. Truth be told, it has a high economic cost as well, and I’m not sure that the United States will ever fully pay off the debt it incurred by working with the likes of Hekmatyar.

This article makes its readers confront a few difficult questions:

Where do we draw the line?

How much is the United States government, and its military, willing to gamble?

Can doing a deal with “the devil” help to accomplish a “greater good”?

All good questions to ask. All difficult questions to answer.

Something to think about over the weekend.

[[Further reading: Man Versus Afghanistan by Robert D. Kaplan.]]

Share this with other foolish humans:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Posterous
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Slashdot
  • email