Russia: Wagner Group insurrection (updated)
Well …. You know it’s bad when state-owned RT covers it as an “armed coup.” This armed insurrection is fair repayment to Putin for relying on a convict army to do his thuggish will. The Wagner Group reveals itself to be the prison-based cultural cohort we knew it to be. Read the article(s) linked in […]
Well …. You know it’s bad when state-owned RT covers it as an “armed coup.” This armed insurrection is fair repayment to Putin for relying on a convict army to do his thuggish will. The Wagner Group reveals itself to be the prison-based cultural cohort we knew it to be. Read the article(s) linked in comments. While Putin may reap what he sows, Americans blindly pulling for the Wagner Group to take control have no grasp of the potential consequences. This is not the group you want taking control of Russia. <img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" class="size-medium wp-image-1195 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/IMG_8965-300x204.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="204" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/IMG_8965-300x204.jpg 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/IMG_8965-768x523.jpg 768w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/IMG_8965-1024x697.jpg 1024w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/IMG_8965.jpg 1170w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />Prigozhin’s units are grounded and in Russia’s prison culture, where “brutally imposed caste systems govern life and death” and where society is dives into blatniye (thieves), muzhiki (men), kozliy (billy goats), and petukhi (roosters). Highly recommended reading: Kristaps Andrejsons. “Russia’s Convict-Soldiers Have Their Own Brutal Rules.” Foreign Policy. May 16, 2023. P.S. Americans: This is what an “armed insurrection” actually looks like. The Wagner Group won’t be leaving at curfew. ====== Updates: Russia tightens security in and around Moscow. All mass outdoor events scheduled before 1 July are cancelled. The mayor of Moscow warns residents not to travel. In a televised address to the nation, Putin characterized Prigozhin’s actions as a “betrayal” and “treason” and promised to punish rebels. ===== 24 June 2023 ===== According to Russian TV channel Rossiya 24, after his public statements Putin can’t easily deal directly with Prigozhin and so Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko is serving as a bridge of communication and has helped convince Prigozhin to at least temporarily stand down. ===== The BBC reports Prigozhin has instructed his forces to abandon their march on Moscow to “avoid bloodshed” and to return to their bases. ===== Prigozhin denies attempting a coup aimed at the political leadership (Putin) but rather that is focus is on rebellion against and a call for changes in Russian military leadership (and rescinding an unconfirmed Russian MoD move to absorb Wagner minus Prigozhin). Russian state media report Prigozhin will go to Belarus. ===== There are multiple reports that Wagner forces are moving out of Rostov-on-Don leaving and seized military facilities in Voronezh ===== Dmitry Peskov, President Putin’s press secretary, says Wagner mercenaries can sign a Ministry of Defense contract and fighters who took part in the uprising will not be prosecuted. === (KLL Comment: This essentially puts Wagner forces (or former Wagner forces) inside the formal Russian military structure yet still allows Wagner to exist an an independent entity. A short term solution with long term danger. If, as it appears, Prigozhin will keep his neck, then he gains influence with the Russian MoD (or he may have negotiated leadership changes within the Russian MoD) and this solution may keep Wagner a separate entity (note: Wagner also operates in Africa). If I were Ukraine, I would not want Prigozhin active in Belarus.) ===== Given the chaotic and unclear nature of the information coming out of Russia — especially with regard to whether Wagner will be absorbed into the MoD or allowed to continue as an independent force — it is hard to make any high confidence assessments. ===== As Wagner pulls back, the question becomes “What is Putin’s next move?” If he compromised with Prigozhin, how does Putin reassert legitimacy and authority among his own loyalists. What steps does he take to prevent further attempts to undermine his authority. Doe he dramatically escalate attacks on Ukraine to avert attention, show strength, etc.?
Russia and Ukraine edge toward a radiologic abyss
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has demonstrated Churchill-ian and Reagan-esque leadership qualities since the Russian invasion in 2022. I’ll have more to say about this down the road, but it has been a long time since we’ve seen an essential quality of leadership — the ability to act like a leader — so aptly demonstrated on the […]
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has demonstrated Churchill-ian and Reagan-esque leadership qualities since the Russian invasion in 2022. I’ll have more to say about this down the road, but it has been a long time since we’ve seen an essential quality of leadership — the ability to act like a leader — so aptly demonstrated on the world stage. But one must always remember that truth is often the first casualty of conflict. Both the Ukrainians and Russians know the power of propaganda, and they both exploit it. Don’t read my caution in this regard as a lessening of my support for Ukraine in this particular conflict. My support is unequivocal, but that does not mean that information from the conflict needs simply swallowed before being well chewed. We know Russia’s RT is a propaganda machine, but I’ve also seen many Western media reports over the past year that uncritically devolve to simple cheer-leading for Ukraine that could also end in disaster for Ukraine. Dating to the Soviet era, Russian use of propaganda, disinformation, and misinformation is both reflex and operational norm. Moreover, anyone who thinks his own country does not engage in such activities is, at best, profoundly naive. Especially early on, Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian leadership were desperate (and they still face long odds). In such, circumstances it is important for a leader to be out ahead of the news. <img decoding="async" class="size-medium wp-image-1187 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/Screen-Shot-2023-06-23-at-09.18.31-300x168.png" alt="Ukrainian President Zelenskyy " width="300" height="168" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/Screen-Shot-2023-06-23-at-09.18.31-300x168.png 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/Screen-Shot-2023-06-23-at-09.18.31.png 693w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />With such cautions noted, President Zelenskyy yesterday warned via Twitter that “We have just had a report from our intelligence and the Security Service of . Intelligence has received information that Russia is considering a scenario of a terrorist attack on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. A terrorist attack with radiation leakage. They have prepared everything for this…” As President Zelenskyy aptly went on to aptly note, radiologic contamination observes no international borders. Not all nuclear contamination and/or leaks, however, must be explosively Chernobyl-like with broad atmospheric dispersion. Parties with the intent of committing nuclear terrorism can also create damage that disables nuclear power plants and primarily contaminates surrounding soils and water tables. Such sabotage could also prove debilitating to military operations in the region. It is also important to note that while the Russian have occupied and controlled the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (the largest in Europe), there are other nuclear power plant targets of opportunity in Western Ukraine. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant has six reactors. the breach of the Nova Kakhovka dam downstream from the facility in May lowered reservoir levels of water used to cool the plant, but experts predict the facility retains months of cooling water reserves In the west, the Khmelnytskyi nuclear power plant has two existing operating reactors with two unfueled reactors under construction. In November 2022, it was knocked off the grid following missile strike sin the region. Rivne nuclear power plant has four operating reactors. South Ukraine nuclear power plant has three reactor and has three times since the Russian invasion sustained damage. It was twice disconnected from the grid in 2022 following nearby shelling and missile strikes. After its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russian forces occupied the damaged Chernobyl nuclear power plant and external power supplied to the plant was disrupted. Ukraine claims the site’s analytical laboratories for radiation monitoring were destroyed and analytical instruments were stolen before Russian forces transferred control of Chernobyl back to Ukrainian personnel at the end of March 2022. At Chernobyl, Unit 1 is still in the decommissioning process. Units 2 and 3 were respectively closed in March 1999 and December 2000. The Unit 4, reactor that exploded in 1986 is protected by the sarcophagus built over the reactor following the accident and the New Safe Confinement dome moved over the sarcophagus in 2016 into position in 2016. Units 5 and 6 at Chernobyl were never finished. Chernobyl also houses the Central Spent Fuel Storage Facility (CSFSF), a dry storage site for used nuclear fuel assemblies from the reactors at Khmelnytskyi, Rivne and South Ukraine nuclear power plants. The Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology housed an experimental nuclear reactor used for research that was shut down (placed in a deep subcritical state) immediately following the Russian invasion. The facility was used to produce radioactive isotopes for medical and industrial use was heavily damaged by shelling during fighting around the plant, but no radiotin leaks have, as of 23 June 2023 have been detected. In February 2022 news reports that the State Interregional Specialized Plants for Radioactive Waste Management (SISP) of UkrDO Radon in Kyiv was damaged by a missile proved unwarranted. The SISPs are used to store used to store radioactively contaminated materials used in industry, medicine and scientific research. No radiation leaks have subsequently been detected. Nuclear power stations at Chyhyryn, and in Odessa and Russian-annexed Crimea were never made operational. The electricity grid of Ukraine was successfully synchronized with the Continental European Grid in March 2022. Photo: Twitter Screenshot (c) K. Lee Lerner / LMG
Of all my lectures on physics, my favorite to deliver is on wave-particle duality. The Q/A is always fun. You can tell by the comments below the articles linked below that people have trouble wrapping their head around the concept of duality. That is understandable, especially for people who have not studied quantum physics. The […]
Of all my lectures on physics, my favorite to deliver is on wave-particle duality. The Q/A is always fun. You can tell by the comments below the articles linked below that people have trouble wrapping their head around the concept of duality. That is understandable, especially for people who have not studied quantum physics. The misunderstandings they hold primarily arise from the human need to impose understandable answers and concepts on phenomena that we do not fully understand. <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-medium wp-image-1176 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/B2907576-CF84-4B73-AFF5-1147B9A64BF4-300x284.jpeg" alt="" width="300" height="284" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/B2907576-CF84-4B73-AFF5-1147B9A64BF4-300x284.jpeg 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/B2907576-CF84-4B73-AFF5-1147B9A64BF4-768x727.jpeg 768w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/B2907576-CF84-4B73-AFF5-1147B9A64BF4-1024x969.jpeg 1024w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/B2907576-CF84-4B73-AFF5-1147B9A64BF4.jpeg 1170w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2367388-light-interacts-with-its-past-self-in-twist-on-double-slit-experiment/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=psc&utm_campaign=paidfbnps&utm_content=light&fbclid=IwAR3uaBtabBfvlbIQQUE0MLasRoDlYVYiKSL7i8n7Dq1JFgoxOaPXZ3yFk8o <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1177" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/9AAA6623-9201-4F65-8BF8-C93228071560-300x215.jpeg" alt="" width="300" height="215" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/9AAA6623-9201-4F65-8BF8-C93228071560-300x215.jpeg 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/9AAA6623-9201-4F65-8BF8-C93228071560-768x552.jpeg 768w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/9AAA6623-9201-4F65-8BF8-C93228071560-1024x735.jpeg 1024w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/06/9AAA6623-9201-4F65-8BF8-C93228071560.jpeg 1160w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /> https://www.iflscience.com/light-interacts-with-itself-when-squeezed-through-slits-in-time-68282 I can tell by the comments below the article (linked in comments) that people have trouble wrapping their head around the concept of duality. That is understandable, especially for people who have not studied quantum physics. We are often limited by how our brains are neurologically hard-wired in trying to understand. The imposition of constellations on the night sky are ancient testament to this need. Math helps a bit. Using probability theory, and allowing for a wave-particle duality, quantum mechanics replaced classical mechanics as the method by which to describe interactions between subatomic particles. Quantum mechanics, for example, replaced the electron orbitals of classical atomic models with allowable values for angular momentum (angular velocity multiplied by mass) and depicted the position of electrons in terms of probability clouds and regions. Both particle and wave treatments of nature have their uses. By extending the well-known wave properties of light to include a treatment of light as a stream of photons (i.e., treating them a particles), Einstein was able to explain the photoelectric effect. On the other hand, De Broglie showed that the electron was not merely a particle but also a wave form. This proposal led Schroödinger to publish his wave equation that described electrons as “standing waves” surrounding the nucleus. Born and Dirac made further advances in characterizing subatomic particles (principally the electron) as waves rather than just particles and in so doing reconciled portions of quantum theory with relativity theory. It was left to Heisenberg, however, using matrix mathematics to formulate the first complete and self-consistent theory of quantum mechanics. In 1926, Heisenberg put forward his uncertainty principle that states that two complementary properties of a system, such as position and momentum, can never both be known exactly. This proposition helped cement the dual nature of particles (e.g., light can be described as having both wave and a particle characteristics). When misapplied to larger systems –as in the famous paradox of Schrodinger’s cat — quantum mechanics was often be misinterpreted to make bizarre predictions (i.e., a cat that is simultaneously dead and alive). On the other hand, quantum mechanics made possible important advances in cosmological theory by accepting the duality of light, electrons, and other particles. It is, however, human limitations that make think in terms of duality, per se. Simply put, our brains are hard-wired by evolution to impose the concepts of particle or wave upon the photon or electron in order to describe them and treat them mathematically. All of this is fine, in our everyday position between the relativistic and quantum worlds, such hard-wiring give us good answers. Yet it is misleading to think of photons and electrons, for example, as being able to be EITHER wave or particle. They ARE — integrally and simultaneously — BOTH waves and particles. Yes, via experimental design, we can force photons or electrons to act either as waves or particles, but they are what they are — it is just that we have no concepts, words, or mathematics for what they actually are and so we must use the concepts of particles and waves to define them, measure them, and predict their behavior. One of the most important attributes of good science — and of good scientists — is the ability to look beyond “common sense” or intuitive answers, for the results of such comfortable thinking often proves too simplistic or errant. Moreover, in our attempt to understand nature, we must also remain mindful of our own cognitive limitations and bias. Just as some animals see different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, the cosmos often contains phenomena like wave-particle duality that lies beyond our everyday experience and conceptual ability to characterize without mathematics or experimental models. Phenomena like wave-particle duality force us to accept nature as she reveals herself to us via observation and experiment. Read more https://scholar.harvard.edu/kleelerner/publications/development-quantum-mechanics-2001
Recommended reading and veritas incommodum on nuclear power and the harm done by “activists.”
Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island were nuclear / radiologic accidents that vary widely in their causes, damage, lethality, and in the future perils each pose. Even if one accepts the most extreme assessments and predictions, however, they pale in terms of harm and potential harm to Earth’s environment and human health caused by human […]
Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island were nuclear / radiologic accidents that vary widely in their causes, damage, lethality, and in the future perils each pose. Even if one accepts the most extreme assessments and predictions, however, they pale in terms of harm and potential harm to Earth’s environment and human health caused by human use of fossil fuels, mining (including) rare-earth mining, and other activities related to the production of energy needed to compensate for our lack of development of safe and environmentally sustainable nuclear power. <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-1112 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-22-at-13.23.10-300x282.png" alt="" width="269" height="253" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-22-at-13.23.10-300x282.png 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-22-at-13.23.10.png 751w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 269px) 100vw, 269px" />Movies like the China Syndrome, and the actions of activists — ranging from those with well-intended environmental concerns to howling lunatics — created a milieu of unfounded fear and prejudice that retarded use of nuclear fuels. Corporations that treated nuclear power development the same as other commercial projects (with attitude toward cost cutting and minimal compliance to safety standards) also degraded public trust. There is no solution to minimizing human contributions to global warming and climate change that does not involve a robust reliance on nuclear power. That is a fact well- grounded in science and engineering. Until we have serious discussions about building an energy infrastructure primarily dependent on nuclear power — along with dedicated efforts toward solving the safety problems and engineering challenges related thereto — there are no reasonably workable solutions to the environmental perils future generations face. If you don’t accept that fact, you are not a person who accepts science and evidence as the basis of making policy. If you don’t accept that fact, for all your best intentions you are either a believer in or seller of something that uses the perils of global warming and climate change as a cover or means to another end. Further reading: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262047180/the-leak/?_ga=2.169366244.499262463.1684779454-1329483287.1684779447 <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1111" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-23-at-00.46.25-199x300.png" alt="" width="199" height="300" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-23-at-00.46.25-199x300.png 199w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-23-at-00.46.25.png 320w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 199px) 100vw, 199px" />
What do these three things have in common? He archeological site at Glanum in Provence, Van Gogh’s, ‘Fountain in the Garden of Hospital,’ and his ‘Olive Trees with the Alpilles in the Background.’ (see paintings below in comments) Troubled with mental illness that resulted in the self-mutilation of his ear, in 1889 van Gogh voluntarily […]
What do these three things have in common? He archeological site at Glanum in Provence, Van Gogh’s, ‘Fountain in the Garden of Hospital,’ and his ‘Olive Trees with the Alpilles in the Background.’ (see paintings below in comments) Troubled with mental illness that resulted in the self-mutilation of his ear, in 1889 van Gogh voluntarily committed himself to the Saint-Paul-de-Mausole monastery-run asylum located just south of Saint-Rémy-de-Provence. <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1082" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/France-Provence-archeology-IMG_5920-300x193.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="193" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/France-Provence-archeology-IMG_5920-300x193.jpg 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/France-Provence-archeology-IMG_5920-768x495.jpg 768w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/France-Provence-archeology-IMG_5920-1024x660.jpg 1024w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /> <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-1083" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-14-at-02.05.12-300x240.png" alt="" width="237" height="190" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-14-at-02.05.12-300x240.png 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-14-at-02.05.12.png 743w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 237px) 100vw, 237px" /> <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-1084" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-14-at-01.58.46-300x245.png" alt="" width="235" height="192" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-14-at-01.58.46-300x245.png 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-14-at-01.58.46.png 463w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 235px) 100vw, 235px" /> While a patient, van Gogh was free to paint in the many olive groves, cypress tree stands, and wheat fields surrounding the asylum. His paintings and landscapes of that region, including the Alpilles mountains, are now among his most well-known works. Shortly after leaving Saint-Rémy on the road south to Les Baux, a left-hand turn leads 300 feet to Mausole compound, while on the right, just another 100 feet or so along the road to Les Baux, are the unprotected Les Antiques ruins at Glanum. Although scattered Roman remains were discovered in the area as early as the 17th century, discovery of Les Antiques awaited the extensive excavations conducted by Jules Formigé from 1900 to 1924, well after the time van Gogh painted the area’s landscapes. Glanum, first conquered by the Romans in 121 BC, was built upon settlements of the Celto-Ligurian people that date to the 6th century BCE. After being sacked in 260 AD by the Germanic Alemanni tribe, archeological evidence shows that Glanum was inhabited until the 6th century when it was abandoned. Les Antiques consists of an arch dating to the second century AD built to honor Caesar’s triumph over the Gauls at the decisive Battle of Alesia in 52 BC and the Mausoleum of the Juli dating to 40 BC. Nearby there is also an expansive Roman forum (shown below) typical of the period. Archeologists have uncovered the Cryptoporticus, a subterranean passage dating to the 1st century BC as well as a spring dating to the scared Celtic-Ligurian era that the Romans also thought had healing powers. Much of the Glanum site remains to be excavated. It’s less than 500 feet from Glanum to the location of the van Gogh’s asylum and records from the era indicate that, during the era van Gogh painted, olive orchards were located over what is now the Glanum site. Moreover, the view from Les Antiques is similar to that in his masterpiece, ‘Olive Trees with the Alpilles in the Background.’ About 200 feet north of the Mausole monastery is the famous fountain that was the subject of van Gogh’s ‘Fountain in the Garden of Hospital and thus, given the proximity, it is quite possible (the French Ministry of Culture says “likely”) that the olive orchard used to inspire ‘Olive Trees with the Alpilles in the Background’ was, unknown to van Gogh, located over Les Antiques and other Glanum ruins. Photo: Glanum archeological site. 2000. (c) K. Lee Lerner / LMG. All commercial rights reserved. Van Gogh prints courtesy MOMA, New York.
The baton is passed: The shame-stick of anti-science has changed hands
8 May, 2023 Highly recommended and, if you care about science, essential reading: ‘A Paper That Says Science Should Be Impartial Was Rejected by Major Journals. You Can’t Make This Up,’ by Pamela Paul, published in The New York Times (link below and in comments). Anti-intellectual, anti-liberal, and anti-science movements shift about over time with […]
8 May, 2023 Highly recommended and, if you care about science, essential reading: ‘A Paper That Says Science Should Be Impartial Was Rejected by Major Journals. You Can’t Make This Up,’ by Pamela Paul, published in The New York Times (link below and in comments). Anti-intellectual, anti-liberal, and anti-science movements shift about over time with regard to who holds the shame-stick. In the U.S., that baton is now firmly in the hands of the progressivista Leftists who have gained an outsize influence in the Democratic party. <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="wp-image-1060 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-08-at-13.30.36-300x227.png" alt="" width="250" height="189" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-08-at-13.30.36-300x227.png 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-08-at-13.30.36-768x581.png 768w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/05/Screen-Shot-2023-05-08-at-13.30.36.png 860w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 250px) 100vw, 250px" />Science is inherently able to withstand and eventually overcome the arguments of those who allow partisan or trendy ideology to supersede evidence, but they can do substantial damage that crosses generations. The recent assaults on science–as opposed to science practice–as fundamentally racist and/or in need of decolonizing are fundamentally neo-racist and neo-religious in their worldview, and so allowing them to control science policy and publishing is akin to allowing the Spanish Inquisition to be in charge of science policy and publishing. It’s very frustrating. As someone who has spent a good part of his life trying to encourage women and empower the marginalized to study science, I’m ready to round up these folks and ship them off to science re-education camps, leaving the helicopter door open for more than a few. Their broad-brush characterizations of science (often based on history and ideas long rejected) do nothing to promote meritocracy in the sciences or to equip and enable those from previously marginalized groups to participate in the glorious adventure of science. The paper underlying Paul’s opinion piece has some weaknesses (e.g., it editorializes, is too long, buries and muddles some data and examples, etc.), but it is hard to believe it was rejected rather than being subject to additional editorial refinement. This is especially perplexing given the importance of the paper’s content. If you think I am alone in my views on this issue or on the perils facing science from ideological extremists, I invite you to read the comments on The Times. Suffice it to say that the NYT readership is not known for its warm welcoming of opinions that challenge Leftist orthodoxy, yet the comments resoundingly (18 of the top 20) echo Ms. Paul’s observations and fears. Pamela Paul. ‘A Paper That Says Science Should Be Impartial Was Rejected by Major Journals. You Can’t Make This Up.’ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/opinion/science-evidence-merits.html The underlying paper, ‘In Defense of Merit in Science’ can be found at: https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/1/236?fbclid=IwAR0i0oMX6SW7fmWI1ADcAEpztHSLXlk-a7rEKLen-l30Q_hvl6mNgVRPdKs
Rosalind Franklin’s contributions to the discovery of DNA’s structure revised
Highly Recommended Reading: What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure. Nature. April, 2023. (see links to all articles mentioned herein in the comments section below) Rosalind Franklin deserves more credit for her role as a collaborator in the discovery of the structure of DNA and her other profound and foundational contributions […]
Highly Recommended Reading: What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure. Nature. April, 2023. (see links to all articles mentioned herein in the comments section below) Rosalind Franklin deserves more credit for her role as a collaborator in the discovery of the structure of DNA and her other profound and foundational contributions to molecular biology, but she wasn’t the victim many have asserted, nor were the Nobel winners James Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkens the sexist intellectual property thieves some have asserted over the years. Rosalind Franklin deserves much more credit than she has formally received for her integral contributions to the revolutionary discovery of the structure of DNA in the 1950s. Moreover, her broader contributions to molecular biology place her in any pantheon of science or scientists. As revealed in a paper published this month in Nature, however, recent reviews of Franklin’s notes provide persuasive evidence that prior contentions that James Watson and Francis Crick “stole” her work, or that she had the both the structure and molecular mechanism of DNA worked out before Watson and Crick published their model are false. Watson and Francis Crick’s seminal paper detailing the discovery of the DNA double helix, was published as part of a trio of papers (one authored by Franklin) in Nature 70 years ago this month. [1] [2] [3] Watson and Crick’s breakthrough was the intellectual culmination of many past discoveries in molecular genetics, and included the work of Franklin. While the recent discoveries show Franklin’s uncertainties over the correct double helix structure for DNA (and her lack of work on a functional model) they also reveal how integral and essential Franklin’s work was to the articulation of the structure of DNA and the confirmation of the Watson and Crick model. Without Franklin’s work, it is quite probable that U.S. scientist Linus Pauling would have won the race to publish the correct double helical structure of DNA. (Pauling was close, having a paper in which he proposed a triple helix structure for DNA). For many years it has been fashionable in some circles to hold Franklin out as simply a victim of sexism. Sexism is real, of course, including sexism in science but without sufficient context, opportunities are also lost to explore the many facets of sexism that help us all recognize and mitigate its manifestations. Moreover, it masks that Franklin, who was Jewish, was also troubled by antisemitism. The recent papers in Nature also confirm what I argued in 2015 and what I have written over the years into my own writings on the discovery of DNA As I wrote in 2015 [4], When they published their model of DNA in Nature’s April 1953 issue (Dr. Franklin also published a paper on the structure of DNA in the same issue). Watson and Crick (who worked at Cambridge) did mention Dr. Franklin. They wrote, “We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished results of Dr M H F Wilkins, Dr R E Franklin and their co-workers at King’s College, London.” Did they give her adequate credit for her contributions? To their shame, I think not, but this is a far different offense than stealing Franklin’s work. Watson and Crick went beyond the elucidation of DNA structure. Their Nobel was awarded for “discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids AND its significance for information transfer in living material” and it’s that last bit that was uniquely Watson and Crick’s contribution. They made the link between DNA’s structure and the molecular basis for how the genetic code works. . It was Wilkins who showed Franklin’s famous “photograph 51″ to Watson. With Franklin’s photo (also with help for data from a report authored by Franklin in 1952) to help guide them, Watson and Crick constructed a model also built on decades of other intermediate discoveries by other scientists. The recent work reveals that Watson seeing “photograph 51” wasn’t, however, the eureka moment Watson later claimed but rather a key piece of evidence that the model they were building was correct. In fact, it was other data from Franklin and Wilkins that proved equally crucial to confirming the Watson and Crick model, and that such data wasn’t, as suggested by some over the years, acquired surreptitiously or dishonestly. The new findings show Franklin was cooperative in sharing her data. Between Johann Miescher’s isolation of DNA in the 1870s and the 1962 Nobel Prize shared by Watson, Crick, and Maurice Wilkins, in addition to the work of Franklin, there were many intermediate steps and contributions to the Watson and Crick model. Working with crystallographer John Bernal, William Astbury used x-ray diffraction to determine crystalline structures and attempted to build a DNA model to see how its sugar and phosphate might fit. Erwin Chargaff at Columbia University critically determined that in DNA, the proportions of adenine (A) and thymine (T) were almost the same as those of cytosine (C) and guanine (G). Linus Pauling’s own x-ray crystallography work showed that some proteins had helical shapes. Rosalind Franklin was also an extraordinarily gifted scientist and skilled x-ray crystallographer. She received her doctorate from Cambridge in 1945, and worked on multiple projects while with the Laboratoire Central des Services Chimique de L’Etat in Paris. In 1951, she went to King’s College, London, to study the crystalline structure of DNA with Wilkins. While Franklin may have had a hypothesis about the double helical model of DNA structure, she could not confirm it. In fact, early in 1953 she expressed uncertainly about the double helix model. Watson and Crick had nothing to do with Franklin ‘s rejection in early 1953 of the helical structure for DNA. Franklin’s own note show she rejected modeling the data — the very exercise that allowed Watson and Crick to make the leap from structure to mechanism of function. Publishing in Nature in April 2023, the authors of a review of Franklin’s work argued, “Franklin did not apprehend complementary base-pairing — that A could bond only with T and C only with G, with each pair of bases forming an identical structure in the molecule. In fact, she was not working with the correct forms of the bases, so she could not have made a satisfactory model had she tried (the same was true of Watson and Crick until the very last phase of their work). Neither did she realize that her data implied that the two strands were oriented in different directions — or that the B form, found at high levels of humidity, must be the biologically functional form. (The A form is found only under laboratory conditions.) She did not have time to make these final leaps, because Watson and Crick beat her to the answer.” [5] Ultimately and critically, it was Crick who realized, as Franklin did not, that DNA consisted of two helical chains running parallel to each other but in opposite directions. With that insight the Watson and Crock model fit. Moreover, and equally as important to their Nobel Prize citations, the model provided a biophysical basis for replication, transcription and translation that now sit at the core of modern molecular biology. It is also important to note that while Watson and Crick may not have given Franklin sufficient credit in their April 1953 paper, less than a year later – and many years before the Nobel prize was awarded — they published a more detailed model, that openly acknowledged “the formulation of our structure would have been most unlikely, if not impossible ” without Dr. Franklin’s data and other work done at King’s College). Franklin technically did not win the prize because, by charter, no more than three recipients can share a Nobel, and none are awarded posthumously. Like Marie Curie, Franklin’s work exposed her to high doses of radiation before its dangers were fully known and she died at age 37 of ovarian cancer in 1958, four years prior to the Nobel Prize was awarded to Watson, Crick, and Wilkens. Over the history of science there is ample evidence that sexism — and other prejudices based on race, ethnicity, and politics — certainly conspired to deny women due consideration in science. In some cases, men have been given sole credit for significant discoveries at least partly made by women. In some extreme cases, women were written out of textbooks. The “Matilda Effect” (denial/repression of contributions of women) is still an issue with which historians of science and modern academic tenure committees still grapple. Scientists across a number of disciplines, for example, claim the work of other women scientists merited at least a share of a Nobel Prize, including, but not limited to, Nettie Stevens (sex determination by chromosomes); Lise Meitner (physics of nuclear fission); Chien-Shiung Wu (physics related to disproving mirror image parity in subatomic particles); Ester Lederberg (microbiology advances and bacteriophage discoveries); and Jocelyn Bell Burnell (pulsars). If the Nobel trust or terms of the prize could be altered to award Dr. Franklin, I would strongly support that effort. I have been studying molecular biology for close to 50 years. In all that time I have never had a professor or colleague fail to laud the importance of Franklin’s work and contributions. In fact, they were always careful to point out that Franklin’s work might have put her in the running for several Nobel Prizes. Franklin’s later work helped revealed the structure of tobacco mosaic virus and she did seminal research on the polio virus. No serious historian of science has, however, ever argued that Franklin was MORE deserving of the Prize than Watson, Crick, or Wilkens. In all of my own lectures, and across writing and editing in many books, I have tried to ensure that Dr. Franklin gains the credit and respect she deserves, not by denigrating the legitimate work and contributions of others, but by writing a richer and more inclusive history that more completely tells the story of the discovery of the structure of DNA and other advances in science. When Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier deservedly won the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their pioneering work with CRISPR gene editing, a technology that has also revolutionized molecular biology. Many claimed that the exclusion of Feng Zhang from a share of the prize was in some way retribution for Franklin not receiving her fair share of acclaim for her work. Many thought Zhang’s omission was simply ugly politics and a stain on this prize While prize awards may inequities that can’t be rectified, history does not need to be a zero-sum game. We do not need to reflexively reduce the contributions of others in order to elevate the contribution of those previously marginalized. Where there is a will –quite literally in the case of Alfred Nobel – there is a way. As I wrote in 2015, “Without having to bestow cash awards, it would cost the Nobel Prize committees nothing to revisit history and more fully honor women and others who were overlooked because they died or — more commonly– had contributions minimized because they were women or belonged to other marginalized groups in science. Such a move would not only partially rectify past historical wrongs, but also go a long way to providing a more comprehensive and diverse pantheon of great scientists to inspire future generations.” Such a move would not only partially rectify past historical wrongs, but also go a long way to providing a more comprehensive and diverse pantheon of great scientists to inspire future generations. ==== [1] Watson J. D. and Crick F. H. C. “A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid.” Nature 171, 737–738 (1953) [2] Wilkins M. H. F., Stokes A. R. & Wilson H. R. “Molecular Structure of Deoxypentose Nucleic Acids.” Nature 171, 738–740 (1953). [3] Franklin R. and Gosling R. G. “Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate.” Nature 171, 740–741 (1953). [4] K. Lee Lerner. “Rosalind Franklin deserves more credit for her role as a collaborator in the discovery of the structure of DNA, but she wasn’t the victim many assume.” Taking Bearings Harvard Blogs. October. 2015. Available at <a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x6umtig x1b1mbwd xaqea5y xav7gou x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1fey0fg" role="link" href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fblogs.harvard.edu%2Fkleelerner%2Frosalind-franklin%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0OYdmHt8RPKfcu-KF2bxTBK_Gqk6ATG5akR6HaVauyXTlFOKrqeR1ovsE&h=AT2T2zjlqgN3Ivsz1xh-dhoKeWqPwVNswUHamFyXEqe5XnjF9nmYr4E6dKoPogtIv78vZYx00gAkGyeqdWW7ptFZQJmMqwCvPbIw_tGJxfGgwBdfVvFsS6Z6ougvMbG8ETV344k&__tn__=-UK*F&c[0]=AT1QnaK3-i4FFgssOlZST8PPyh32t_JD76tFomIvDobUsndxdHJDWX2JELg-ozv7w99hQ4ixo2t9yU7o1GAOPv0K5bA33d4JdqpeMinZ33QRU60sjcyJ_uPvB3XSJf9DymosGMoUzu3lsxCB2RY3SCGNliU" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/rosalind-franklin/ [5] Matthew Cobb and Nathaniel Comfort. “What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure. “Nature April 25, 2023. Available online at: <a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x6umtig x1b1mbwd xaqea5y xav7gou x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1fey0fg" role="link" href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fd41586-023-01313-5%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0eCSljd3TiojQl1N2L8p0Mle6A0YUbvxr2iAbYS1qTfHB9hT4WBeMpUNI&h=AT1nRGflIHf7FVe-tTliJaKmfMeIj4bNRBKaS5cz3we3E4hJdSUDo14dLy2YG6KgfSd-Vpx5L_KjDZNNLDnm1_2u2Hq9NpiNuoWpyjL8hiO-HC4Ia4x4EhNeX4y3cNFrMhNa8Ac&__tn__=-UK*F&c[0]=AT1QnaK3-i4FFgssOlZST8PPyh32t_JD76tFomIvDobUsndxdHJDWX2JELg-ozv7w99hQ4ixo2t9yU7o1GAOPv0K5bA33d4JdqpeMinZ33QRU60sjcyJ_uPvB3XSJf9DymosGMoUzu3lsxCB2RY3SCGNliU" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5
Florida Lawmakers Claim Museum Director Violated Florida’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Law
In our contemporary culture, where ideology is more important that truth, the idea that a teacher or museum director might receive criticism from both the Left and Right for displaying a well known classical work of art or accurately describing classical history or culture is all too real — and certainly not a joke. While […]
In our contemporary culture, where ideology is more important that truth, the idea that a teacher or museum director might receive criticism from both the Left and Right for displaying a well known classical work of art or accurately describing classical history or culture is all too real — and certainly not a joke. While the facts about the statue are all true, ‘Antinous as Agathodaemon’ still resides at the Ailes Museum in Berlin, this particular story — at least for now — is my April Fools Day jest.
Trust, but verify: ChatGPT can be a powerful tool, but also one that leads students and researchers astray
Librarians, teachers, and students beware! ChatGPT can be prone to wildly wrong answers. Treat ChatGPT as a tool and resource that needs additional vetting. I have already documented problems with ChatGPT answers about STEM subjects and issues. I have found many answers to be antiquated or errant. One reason for these errors is because the […]
Librarians, teachers, and students beware! ChatGPT can be prone to wildly wrong answers. Treat ChatGPT as a tool and resource that needs additional vetting. I have already documented problems with ChatGPT answers about STEM subjects and issues. I have found many answers to be antiquated or errant. One reason for these errors is because the ChatGPT knowledge base is akin to an inverted pyramid. Distant events should enjoy a wider base of texts upon which to train large language models. Documentation of recent discoveries or events is usually less, therefore rendering ansers more susceptible to single -source errors or outdated material. While doing genealogy research last week on Adams and Boylston ancestors (e.g., one of my 7th great-grandfathers was Peter Boylston Adams (1738-1823), the younger brother of President John Adams Jr., John Adams Sr is an 8th great grandfather, and Susanna Boylston is an 8th great-grandmother) I decided to see how ChatGPT performed outside STEM in an area where the base of historical knowledge available is both wide and deeply vetted. I was shocked at its failures Things ChatGPT ERRANTLY claims about Peter Boylston Adams (1738-1823) included that he was: (1) the father of The 2nd U.S. President John Adams (who was actually his older brother); (2) the grandfather of Abigail Adams; (3) a lieutenant in the Continental Army (he was A Captain in the Mass Militia); (4) the grandfather of President John Quincy Adams. None of that is true. When I hit regenerate, ChatGPT “apologized” for its prior errors but then made still wilder mistakes by errantly claiming the that Peter Boylston Adams (1738-1823): (5) was a second cousin of President John Adams (he was his younger brother); (6) was a sea captain and merchant; (7) was a captain in the Continental Navy; (8 ) as a sea captain was twice captured by British ships but that managed to escape both times. Again, none of that is true. When I specifically asked if Captain Peter Boylston Adams (1738-1823) was the brother of John Adams, ChatGPT said “no” and doubled down on its prior false answers. Three strikes and you’re out ChatGPT! These are not trivial errors. Many correct genealogies for the Adams family are available online and in physical library collections. These are also the type of errors, set in seemingly authoritative paragraphs, that lead students and researchers astray. <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-895 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/03/ChatGPT-errors-300x148.png" alt="" width="497" height="245" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/03/ChatGPT-errors-300x148.png 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/03/ChatGPT-errors-768x378.png 768w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/03/ChatGPT-errors-1024x504.png 1024w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/03/ChatGPT-errors.png 1032w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 497px) 100vw, 497px" />
I’ve been intending to revisit my policies since the tragic murderous mass shooting in Uvalde last year. Alas, there are no easy answers to prevent such evil. Moreover, the Second Amendment’s interpretation by the courts must trump my personal preferences. Regardless, we collectively need to get after the serious business of crafting effective gun laws […]
I’ve been intending to revisit my policies since the tragic murderous mass shooting in Uvalde last year. Alas, there are no easy answers to prevent such evil. Moreover, the Second Amendment’s interpretation by the courts must trump my personal preferences. Regardless, we collectively need to get after the serious business of crafting effective gun laws that reduce gun-related violence while still protecting the inalienable right of an individual to self-defense. Across a range of issues, history and complex arguments are now constantly sifted by Left and Right partisans to fit ideological boxes. When it comes to gun policies, our hyperpolarization greatly diminishes chances for consensus on rational, evidence-based, and effective measures. America’s gun culture, Constitution, and the broader philosophical underpinnings of the inalienable right to self-defense are inexorably intertwined. For both better and worse, we do have a gun culture in America. It is in our founding and frontier marrow. It has brought us glory and freedom; it has brought us sorrow and shame. Those on the Right who deny that we have a gun culture deny both our history and current reality. Such denial is as silly as those on the Left who simplistically look to places with very different histories, cultures, and attitudes about gun use for laws and policies to import. In such cases, wishing we had the gun culture or laws of other countries becomes nothing more than impotent virtue signaling. I am sickened by those who use guns to kill people who do not deserve to be killed. My heart also breaks when anyone–especially the tender and innocent–is cruelly killed by twisted monsters using guns. But neither misplaced fear and loathing of guns nor “thoughts and prayers” over the misuse of guns help us toward crafting reasonable, enforceable, and evidence-based laws that reduce gun-related deaths without stripping away the inalienable–and in the United States, that term is critical to this debate–right of an honest citizen to mount a reasonable yet effective defense of person, family, and property. In many ways, the United States remains exceptional, a relatively recent outlier in social and governmental experiments. The foundation of our republic is a natural philosophy that establishes an inalienable right to self-defense that implicitly establishes our individual right to defend ourselves, our family, our property, and our other rights. I am, of course, referring to natural philosophical concepts, including the right to own property–which inherently means the right to protect property. It is also important to note that our inalienable rights were clearly intended to be individual rights, not rights of the state. Simple declarations that there are too many guns in America are not helpful. In a society awash in guns, no one is buying guns and giving them away indiscriminately. Moreover, people and groups wanting to ensure that guns are reasonably available for purchase by those who determine they have a legitimate need for a gun as part of their inalienable right to self-defense are not “pushing guns.” Gun purchases are mostly made one at a time, based on individual decisions. Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of murder. According to 2019 data, California had a rate of 4.9 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, while Texas had just .1 higher at 5.0 per 100,000. Because of its larger population, California records about 550 to 600 more murders than Texas annually, yet nearly twice as many people in Texas own guns as in California. The wholesale, or even significant, removal of guns from the United States is a fantasy that flies in the face of the philosophic concepts upon which the country was founded. Even if it were possible, given the realities of geopolitics–smuggling, porous borders, etc.–any overly broad bans on guns won’t do more than save us from a small percentage of homicides based on impulsive actions. While that would be positive, it would also shift the balance of lethal power wildly toward the criminal elements of society and thus diminish the right of honest people to a reasonable and effective means of self-defense. We also need to be observant of evidence. Contrary to the claim that more guns means more violence and deaths, until recently, violent crime was in a decades-long decline while–during the same period–gun ownership soared. Gun phobia and “ban guns” hysteria are not helpful. Some people have developed an almost visceral dislike of guns or anything they perceive as related to “gun culture.” I’ll grant that some of this reaction, especially in the aftermath of despicable acts committed with guns, is genuine. I would also argue, however, that there are those who see guns as a form of protection, who think some portion of the anti-gun lobby simply seeks to disarm law-abiding gun owners. The more conspiracy minded extend this to include attempts by totalitarian and authoritarian governments and political parties to disarm their political opponents. While this is an extreme argument, it is not without global historical precedent. It is always important to remember that legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide. Regardless, gun phobia and “ban guns” hysteria are not helpful. Guns are useful tools when properly used, and there are people who have a need for guns and who, at a minimum, are well trained and are responsible with their guns. Rules that help keep guns–which are inanimate objects–out of the hands of people who should not have them, or should not have them in certain places, are laudable but too often not followed. Simplistic memes, slogans, and policies crafted without evidence or by partisan ideology simply help us evade the tough task of formulating effective gun laws. I recently saw a partisan meme saying, “Well-regulated militias don’t kill schoolchildren.” Below the meme was a comment about how the Second Amendment had been radically reinterpreted as an individual right because soldiers returning from World War II wanted to keep their weapons. That’s manifestly false, but even if it were true, those WWII veterans had good reason. Across history, “well-regulated” militias have killed–and in many places in the world still do kill–schoolchildren. Those returning soldiers wanted to keep weapons because they saw what horrors both criminals and well-regulated regular armies, militias, and governments could manifest. Mass shootings with semiautomatic weapons are horrific but should not alone drive gun policies. While mass-shooting events like Sandy Hook and Uvalde are heart wrenching and horrific, they actually constitute a very small percentage of gun violence. The principal public safety concerns with respect to guns are suicides and illegally owned handguns, not mass shootings. Mass shootings, as unfathomable as they are, account for less than 4 percent of gun-related deaths. Attempts to ban “assault weapons” are impractical and unnecessarily divisive The evidence is abundant that automatic and semiautomatic weapons can kill many people in a short period of time. Even the most skilled soldier can’t use a knife to kill or injure people as quickly as a deranged killer or terrorist can with a semiautomatic weapon. Accordingly, there are good reasons to treat the dangers posed by high-capacity automatic and semiautomatic weapons as fundamentally different from those posed by rifles, shotguns, and non-semiautomatic pistols. I do that in the policies proposed below. We live in a world, however, where risks and risk assessments can quickly change. The single-shot and slow-to-reload muskets in use when our rights were codified could not reasonably be considered an effective means of self-defense against today’s weapons and threats. People who use what I term the musket argument often get this backwards and actually make a case that people can mount to establish a need for individuals to own semiautomatic weapons. Even if the codification of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is seen as relating only to the right of the state to a well-regulated militia, a musket will no longer suffice. Moreover, our inalienable rights were clearly intended to be individual rights, not rights of the state. Focusing on banning semi-automatic weapons is unhelpful; bans are impracticable for the reasons outlined, not likely to be as effective as desired, and so highly politically divisive that they impede reasoned compromise on gun policies. There is precedent, of course, for limiting or restricting even inalienable rights in some circumstances. On that basis, there is hope that effective gun policies and laws can be crafted. The realities of the lethality of semi-automatic weapons, along with an increase in homemade guns and guns that can be made of harder-to-detect materials, are incorporated into the policies I propose later on in this essay. The evolution of my personal philosophy and practices My personal views about weapons are grounded both in experience and expertise, but I’ll also admit that I am, philosophically, a cowboy at heart. I’m also a strong “you will need to pry it from my cold dead hands” and “come and take it” supporter of the Second Amendment. Despite those beliefs, however, based on evidence, I have long advocated for reasoned gun controls far more stringent than exist today. I am also always willing to adapt my thinking in response to new evidence. I strongly argue that we should value our Second Amendment responsibilities as much as our 2A rights. I believe that with ownership of a weapon comes the responsibility to learn to use it legally, safely, and effectively, if needed. This includes, but is certainly not limited to, proficiency in shooting. I was introduced to the responsibilities of owning a weapon as a child and, as a young man, I received extensive expert training with weapons, including courses in combat, close-contact, and urban shooting. As a naval officer, I earned expert marksmanship medals with both pistol and rifle. Without practice, however, those skills rapidly deteriorate. Accordingly, I make a dedicated effort to keep up with gun laws, use case studies, new training methods, and my own proficiency. I have used a variety of weapons both personally (on the ranch, hunting, fishing, shooting, etc.) and professionally. There are photos of me taken earlier than my memories extend in which I am walking with a BB rifle, hunting birds. My first kill was a bird perched on a wire. I remember a mixture of pride, regret, and fascination with the still and lifeless bird. When I was eight years old, my grandfather gave me a single-shot .22 rifle and two bullets that were intended to last the summer. With the first bullet, I killed a skunk that was a bit too close to the house. The odor was strong, and my grandmother was not pleased. I used the second bullet to shoot the lock off the shed where my grandfather stored ammunition. Thankfully, my grandfather laughed at my ingenuity, but I was still not allowed more bullets until the next summer. By the time I was 14, I vowed never to kill any animal I wasn’t going to eat. What turned me off hunting was the attitude and lack of skills many wannabe hunters displayed. I had my fill of doctors, lawyers, and such invited to the ranch who had yahoo attitudes and poor shoot skills. They had no respect for hunting, the land, nor the animals they killed. As years passed, my evolving attitudes drew more of my time and interests toward fly fishing. When fishing, I carry a .357 in a shoulder holster, in case a bear with a bad disposition appears. In 50 years of fly fishing, I’ve had to draw it only twice, and never had to fire because other measures sent threatening bears off in other directions. I hunted elk with a bow in the mountains of Colorado, but I never took one. I had enough of the mountain hunting experience helping friends pack out meat from their kills up steep cliffs in freezing snowstorms. While poor sportsmen were rarely invited back to the ranch, I had enough of appalling and meaningless death helping out with dove hunts hosting lawyers and business types out from the city who shot birds for fun while drinking beer. They had no intention of eating their kills. The better of them at least gave their birds to the Mexicans working on the ranch. During deer season, it became my job to track down and put wounded animals out of the misery some inept hunter had inflicted upon them. Years of those experiences quickly removed my taste for hunting, except to teach my son the essential skills. Most of my own time hunting was spent just walking the pastures or riding a horse back into the draws. I would tie up by the windmill, pull an orange from my jacket, and read a book until it was time to head back to camp for dinner or a series of shots from some distant part of the ranch required investigation. Multiple shots often meant that another hunter needed help packing out the meat–or that the hunter had missed and a wounded animal would need to be hunted down. The last time I shot a deer that wasn’t already wounded by another hunter was in 1994, when I harvested a buck to show my son how to field dress a deer. After that, I retired my .300 Browning rifle to the saddle or firing range in favor of carrying my Browning side-by-side 12-gauge to hunt quail. For more than 20 years, I earned top scores on combat-shooting courses that required shooting under unusual and difficult circumstances. I now favor a Walther 9mm semi-automatic 17-shot clip for personal protection. Although I am certainly well past my prime, I keep up with my defensive skills and I am confident that, if needed, I can still kill with or without a weapon, shooting with either hand. I still have a multi-state license to carry a concealed weapon, but normally I do not carry a pistol in the United States except when out on the ranch or hunting, fishing, riding my motorcycle, or traveling to certain cities. I do, however, always have ready access to a secured weapon, and so I am careful not to inadvertently travel with it through the gate at NAS Pensacola or other places where weapons are prohibited. My personal prejudices and biases related to gun policies My dad was a cop. I support policemen, and I hope I would be the first to stop and help an officer in danger or distress. I have also taken action against bad cops. But to the essential main point, it is my responsibility and nature to respect laws and law enforcement but also provide for my own self-defense. Accordingly, if someone is threatening by word or action to: (1) hurt a cop, a woman, a senior, a child, or anyone defenseless; (2) point a gun at me; or 3) be part of a threatening mob illegally detaining me, I’m going to exercise my right to defend myself and others with up to deadly force (with or without a weapon) as needed. That position is hardwired in my brain because, in such situations, there is only time to react. Calling law enforcement is part of the protocol when time and the situation allows, but my responsibility to act to defend myself and others before law enforcement arrives is paramount. This may include securing a situation and waiting for law enforcement to arrive, or it may require use of a weapon before they arrive. Rioting, theft, arson, or other deliberate destruction of property that involves reasonably threatening trespass of my home, land, or vehicle (car, boat, plane) is also subject to the application of deadly force (with or without a weapon) as needed. With that personal preamble, I argue that we need better and more rational gun laws because good gun laws can help create a more civil society as well as protecting those charged with keeping the peace. Potentially effective evidenced-based gun policies that respect both Constitutional rights to own and carry arms as well as protect an individual’s right to self-defense: This will surprise many of my Texas friends: I am personally opposed to unlicensed carry (also called Constitutional carry) because so few people are skilled enough with a weapon or able to exercise good judgment with regard to weapons, but I respect the Constitution and the Court’s rulings in this regard. The balanced policies I do advocate are not more burdensome than the requirements for pilots and many other professions. In addition to drastically improving mental health screening and care, I argue we should: (1) Continue bans on automatic weapons: Maintain a federal ban on automatic weapons. Make it a federal offense to modify semiautomatic weapons or be in possession of devices that can modify semiautomatic weapons to mimic automatic weapons in terms of mechanism or rate of fire. (2) Observe higher minimum age requirements to buy some weapons: (2.1) Age 18 for traditional hunting rifles and shotguns; (2.2) Age 21 for pistols and semiautomatic weapons, with exceptions for those age 18-21 serving in the U.S. military, National Guard, or in law enforcement, who would be issued a federal voluntary weapons license (FVWL) as described below. Other exceptions might be considered, but would involve an applicant taking a sanctioned training course and passing a psychological evaluation as per FVWL requirements discussed below. (3) Require two forms of identification for sale of weapons and ammunition: Purchases of weapons or ammunition require two forms of government-issued photo identification (driver’s license, passport, etc.). (4) Establish voluntary weapons license programs that accord responsible gun owners wide use of weapons: Establish a FVWL required to carry a weapon across state lines. States may individually decide to create a SVWL with similar (but not more stringent) requirements. In all circumstances, a FVWL can serve as a state SVWL. (4.1) Obtaining a FVWL or SVWL would require: (4.1a) a criminal background check for felonies, prior weapons violations, domestic violence, pending charges, etc.; (4.1b) the successful completion of a mandated psychological screening; (4.1c) completion of mandatory range safety training at law-enforcement sanctioned gun ranges that includes live fire range exercises that include at least introductory safety lessons related to semiautomatic weapons. (4.2 ) The license must be renewed every three years. (4.3) A FVWL would automatically be issued to those serving in the U.S. military, National Guard, or in law enforcement. Veterans of those institutions who honorably served would need to renew their FVWL every six years. (4.4) We should also establish hardship exceptions to FVWL or SVWL requirements. Those who cannot afford the costs of FVWL licensing can apply for grants to cover such training from a fund supported by licensing fees, concerned organizations, and special federal fees on weapons manufacturers dedicated to such a fund. (4.5) FVWLs and SVWLs can be suspended for cause (set forth by federal and state legislatures) by order of a local law enforcement agency or court for a period of 30 days pending a court or higher court review and subsequent order to reinstate or revoke. Upon suspension, a show cause filing must be made within 3 days to an appropriate court or administrative review body. Subsequent denials or revocations are appealable and, if the applicant ultimately prevails, the agency filing the original show cause petition shall bear all costs of litigation related to the suspension plus liability for actual damages related to said defective suspension of FVWL or SVWL. Weapons and Ammunition Sales (Public or Private) (6) Establish enhanced waiting periods for some weapons. (6.1) Without a FVWL or SVWL, there would be a mandatory 5 business-day waiting period for all weapons and ammunition purchases. The only exception would be sales of ammunition at (and limited to use at) law-enforcement sanctioned gun ranges. (6.2) Without a FVWL or SVWL the sale of any semiautomatic weapon would require a 30-day waiting period. (6.3) Akin to suspicious activity reports related to financial transactions by banks, any attempt to purchase a semiautomatic weapon without a valid FVWL or SVWL would be reportable to local and state law enforcement agencies. (7.0) Restrictions on sales Private sellers and gun shows would be prohibited from selling weapons to those without a valid FVWL or SVWL. It would be a felony to knowing privately sell or transfer a semiautomatic weapon to someone not holding a valid FVWL or SVWL. Gifts or transfers of non-semiautomatic weapons intended primarily for hunting, fishing, and sport shooting among immediate family members (grandparents, parents, children, etc.) shall not be prohibited, but transfers of semiautomatic weapon must be made using a licensed gun dealer as an intermediate (and subject to the limitations stated above). (8.0 Limit Weapons Carrying in Certain Venues When Law Enforcement Is Present (8.1) Except by law enforcement officers or agents, it shall be a felony to knowingly carry or possess a weapon in licensed child-care facilities, schools, universities, hospitals and clinics; government buildings housing courts, law enforcement, or regulating agencies; and/or places of voting. (8.2) People have a right to ban others from carrying weapons into their homes, on their property, etc. Congregations have a right to ban weapons from religious observances held on their property. Business owners have the right to ban weapons from areas of their business. provided they post “no weapons allowed” restrictions where a person may reasonably be expected to observe such a restriction prior to entering. It shall be a misdemeanor to unknowingly violate such a restriction by holders of a FVWL or SVWL, but a felony if the failure is proved to be deliberate, continuing, or conducted with a specified class of weapon (e.g., semiautomatic pistol with extra clips, semiautomatic rifle, etc.) (8.3) Stadiums, sporting events, licensed public concerts in parks, etc. that provide armed security may prohibit all weapons provided they post “no weapons allowed” restrictions where a person may reasonably be expected to observe such a restriction prior to entering. It shall be a misdemeanor to unknowingly violate such a restriction by holders of a FVWL or SVWL, but a felony if the failure is proved to be deliberate, continuing, or conducted with a specified class of weapon (e.g., semiautomatic pistol with extra clips, semiautomatic rifle, etc.) (9.0) Other restrictions specifically regarding semi-automatic weapons: (9.1) With regard to semiautomatic weapons, carrying or use of multiple or high-capacity clips (clips allowing 10 or more shots) beyond one’s home, regular place of residence, property (e.g., land), requires a possession of a current and valid FVWL or SVWL. === Additional facts and factors important to formulating additional or alternative evidence-based gun policies. As a scientist – or at least someone trained as a scientist – I am heavily bent toward “all evidence accounted for” arguments. For any reasoned gun policy to work it must in some way address the following facts (as of January 2023) often omitted distorted or otherwise not thoughtfully addressed in our civil discourse about guns: (1) We need more effective laws, not just laws so that we can say we’ve done something to curb gun-related violence and death. In 2019-2020 the lowest murder rate in the country is New Hampshire and they have what many legal experts consider to be among the least restrictive laws. States like Idaho, North Dakota , South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Colorado, Nebraska, and West Virginia all have lower per capita murder rates than Massachusetts and its highly restrictive gun laws. Washington D.C. has among the most restrictive laws yet consistently ranks high among the cities in terms of murder rates. In contrast, places known for an openness to “gun culture” and least restrictive laws like Texas, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania are all solid mid table in per capita rankings of murder rates by state. There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates. A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide. As above, legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide. (2) We need to have an open an honest non-racist discussion about race and gun violence. The per-capita offender/perpetrator rate related to gun crime is also roughly eight times higher for African-American offenders than for white offenders, and their victim rate was similar. About half of homicides are known to be single-offender/single-victim, and most of those were intraracial; in those where the perpetrator’s and victim’s races were known, 81% of white victims were killed by whites and 91% of black or African-American victims were killed by blacks or African-Americans. Specifically, we need to discuss why race correlates so strongly with both perpetrators and victims. Race is certainly not a causative factor, but that simply means we need to dig deeper into cultural and social issues like poverty, lack of education, opportunities. It is frequently said that African Americans and other people of color are disproportionally victims of gun-related crimes. Indeed, FBI data shows that African Americans are more than eight times more likely to be victims of gun related crime. However, what is often left unsaid is the fact that the vast majority of perpetrators of crimes against blacks are other blacks. Many people pull back from quoting or discussing these statistics for fear of being thought racist, but the numbers speak to an issue that can’t be ignored by anyone genuinely concerned about reducing gun violence toward ALL people. No one is well served by silence, especially if we can openly discuss and prove that race itself is not a causative factor but rather the byproduct of problems like poverty, lack of education, and equal opportunity that we can more directly and effectively address. We decry mass shootings in school, and extend to them intense media coverage , but many more young people of color are killed by gun violence in our cities without much more that a quick reference in local news. (3) Gun violence statistics are not easily reducible to red state / blue state analysis. While gun control advocates attempt to portray legal gun owners and users in Republican majority or Republican-led red states as the problem with relation to gun policies and create false and/or deceptive memes about red states having higher rates of gun violence due to their embrace of gun culture and resistance to gun control measures. A more complete analysis of the data shows that gun-related murders and crimes are carried out either primarily — or in highly disproportionate numbers — by demographic cohorts in those red states by cohorts typically associated with strong support of the Democratic party in urban areas under the control of local Democratic leadership. The problem of black-on-black violence in particular does not recognize political boundaries. I am of course referring also to the cultural attitudes expressed by President Obama’s comment at a San Francisco campaign fund-raiser in 2008 about small-town Pennsylvania voters who, bitter over their economic circumstances, President Obama said “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as a way to explain their frustrations. Although then presidential candidate Obama quickly pulled back and regretted those remarks they left a scar on rural red state psyches that polls show still lingers in 2023. Similar cultural and political scars are created by broad calls to ban guns and/or take away guns, The NRA and some gun-rights advocates then lash back in response with call as to reject even reasoned discussion of evidence-based proposals for fear of a slippery -slope approach to gun control that will ultimately hinder responsible citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Summary Until we can engage in respectful dialogue, with gun right advocates and gun-control advocates each focused-on evidence rather than stereotyping and political posturing, we have little chance of crafting effective gun policies. ========= Resources: FBI and Law Enforcement Suicide Data Collection FBI Crime Data Explorer FBI Database on Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted FBI Hate Crime Statistics FBI National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) FBI The National Use-of-Force Data Collection Rand. Mass Shootings in the United States https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html Pew Research. What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
San Antonio, Texas — Remember the Alamo: Both the Heroic Sacrifice and Historical Uncertainties
Remember. History and myth combine to paint a canvas brushed with heroes’ blood o’er thirteen days of glory at the siege of Alamo Of the defenders, only six are Texas born Others find just cause Travis, Crockett, and Bowie Texians and Tejanos Time and tales obscure what is real from […]
Remember. History and myth combine to paint a canvas brushed with heroes’ blood o’er thirteen days of glory at the siege of Alamo Of the defenders, only six are Texas born Others find just cause Travis, Crockett, and Bowie Texians and Tejanos Time and tales obscure what is real from symbolic Victory or Death! Travis’ words drew the line His sword need not part the sand Against hopeless odds, valiant men to be consumed sacrificed their lives *** As with many great battles in history, fact mixes with myth concerning the battle of the Alamo. Historians and other writers who utter certainties about many events–for example, whether Travis literally drew a line in the sand with his sword–are hacks you should dismiss. Honest historians (i.e., scholars and writers not driven by an overarching ideology) who are well grounded in primary sources and intellectually capable of weighing evidence of varying credibility will honestly say, “We’ll never know,” or offer their opinion regarding many of the events associated with the Alamo with a level of confidence far from certainty. About the Alamo and the mythology surrounding Lt. Col. William Barret Travis’ famous “line in the sand,” for example, historians still labor over whether Travis literally drew a line in the sand with his sword. Scholarly sentiment has swayed back and forth over the years, but the truth is that we will never know for sure. I argue that it does not matter because Travis essentially drew a more important, and equally dramatic, metaphorical line in the sand for himself and the men under his command with his triple underscoring of ‘Victory or Death’ in his letter from the Alamo dated 24 February, 1836. The only certainty one can offer about the Alamo is that an honest accounting of all sources, when objectively weighed, leads to the same conclusion. While interpretation of evidence can lead to substantial variations in the narrative (even the number of the Alamo’s defenders and who was fit for duty on 6 March, 1836 are uncertain), all those narratives ultimately lead to the same place: a heroic tale of sacrifice that led to Texas independence. If you read otherwise, the historian or writer is either incompetent, ideologically driven, or trying to sell you something with an incendiary interpretation. For those interested in historical truth, I recommend the following books as a start to serious study about the Alamo and the Texas Revolution. There are many fine books omitted from this list, but these are all excellent reading, as well as historically balanced: “Alamo Sourcebook, 1836: A Comprehensive Guide to the Battle of the Alamo and the Texas Revolution” by Timothy J. Todish, Terry Todd, and Ted Spring “Texian Iliad: A Military History of the Texas Revolution” by Stephen L. Hardin “The Alamo Reader” by Todd Hansen “The Blood of Heroes: The 13-Day Struggle for the Alamo–and the Sacrifice That Forged a Nation” by James Donovan “Alamo Traces: New Evidence and New Conclusions” by Thomas Ricks Lindley “The Alamo: A Primary Source History of the Legendary Texas Mission” by Don Nardo Photo and content by K. Lee Lerner. East side of the Alamo Cenotaph. San Antonio Texas, ca 2010. ©LMG CC BY-NC-ND Otherwise: All Commercial Rights Reserved
Scattershooting with Presidential couplets…
Scattershooting with Presidential couplets… *** Old uncle Joe became kinda slow, a puppet clown for the Leftist show *** He’d be banned in Boston, where he would never do, because Trump was New York City through and through. *** Though schooled at Harvard, Columbia, and Punahou, Obama’s glow still suffered foreign policy woe *** Like […]
Scattershooting with Presidential couplets… *** Old uncle Joe became kinda slow, a puppet clown for the Leftist show *** He’d be banned in Boston, where he would never do, because Trump was New York City through and through. <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-medium wp-image-778 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/02/Screen-Shot-2023-02-17-at-08.59.51-300x246.png" alt="" width="300" height="246" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/02/Screen-Shot-2023-02-17-at-08.59.51-300x246.png 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/02/Screen-Shot-2023-02-17-at-08.59.51.png 314w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /> *** Though schooled at Harvard, Columbia, and Punahou, Obama’s glow still suffered foreign policy woe *** Like “nu-ce-lear” fusion, Texas and W were linked, from war his Administration certainly did not shrink *** The Ivy League and Rhodes scholarship aside, Arkansas’ Clinton was Hillbilly Bill to the snide. *** The elder Bush served his country with distinction and yet, whether he was more Houston or Kennebunkport was anyone’s bet. *** That President Reagan played a part we all knew, yet it worked and the country was born anew *** From Plains, Georgia came a good man named Jimmy Carter, He made a mess, and about Iran should have been smarter. *** President Ford was a fill-in it’s true, But he was a stout Michigan man who fought the Swine Flu. *** And what can one say about Tricky Dick and Watergate? Except that Nixon went to China before meeting his rat-fucking fate. *** A barefoot boy from Texas, a champion of civil rights, President Johnson is best remembered for ill-considered fights. *** Camelot and President Kennedy’s time were too short, as the hope from Hyannis Port did an assassin’s bullet abort. *** About President Eisenhower, I don’t personally know, I was too young and so farther back I shall not go
For decades the threat of nuclear weapons use among major powers has declined. That decline stopped with the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. As a consequence, experts broadly estimate that threat of nuclear war is at a 40 year high. While we rightly focus on the perils of global warming, the use of only […]
For decades the threat of nuclear weapons use among major powers has declined. That decline stopped with the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. As a consequence, experts broadly estimate that threat of nuclear war is at a 40 year high. While we rightly focus on the perils of global warming, the use of only a portion of the world’s nuclear weapon anywhere in the world by any power could kill hundreds of millions of people outside the conflict zone in what scientists term ‘nuclear winter.’ <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-medium wp-image-768 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/02/US-Vermont-Stowe-Clouds-January-2013-300x143.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="143" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/02/US-Vermont-Stowe-Clouds-January-2013-300x143.jpg 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/02/US-Vermont-Stowe-Clouds-January-2013-768x367.jpg 768w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2023/02/US-Vermont-Stowe-Clouds-January-2013.jpg 843w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /> In essence, nuclear winter results from explosions and subsequent fires associated with a nuclear exchange. Vast amounts of smoke, soot, and other particles, would be injected into the upper atmosphere and block sunlight from reaching the Earth’s surface for up to a decade. This would result in a significant global cooling and diminished sunlight that, in turn, will deadly to catastrophic crop failure and global famine. The term was first used by Richard Turco, but the concept of nuclear winter was based on based on data and modeling done in the 1980s by Carl Sagan and others. When a nuclear device explodes its fireball produces a thermally intense shockwave that essentially vaporizes everything within a distance from the base that varies by the strength and altitude of the explosion(s), topography, etc. Incoming return updrafts following a nuclear explosion can be so intense that they push particulate matter up to 50 kilometers above the Earth’s surface, polluting the stratosphere and damaging its constituent ozone layer that protects the surface from harmful UV radiation. Resulting firestorms caused by the incendiary shockwave can burn in cities and rural areas for months while they add to the atmospheric soot and debris levels. Driven by upper atmospheric jet streams, the particles in the stratosphere stream around Earth to dramatically block sunlight for up to a decade. The food ecosystem would collapse as crops fail and livestock die. Without widespread International cooperation, deaths from famine and starvation would certainly follow. A study published in the journal Science in 2007 estimated that even if the US and Russia used only a small fraction of their nuclear warheads (e.g., 0.1 percent of their combined 1450 megaton arsenals, such a conflict could push teragrams of soot into the atmosphere. Modeling suggests that amount is sufficient to cool Earth by absorbing and scattering sunlight.I n 2019, a study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded, for example that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, using 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs (and most US and Russian bombs now are far more powerful), could lead to a decline in global food production by 20 to 40 percent over the subsequent decade. Alterations of surface temperatures could also alter precipitation patterns leading to increased wildfires and/or flooding. The impacts of nuclear winter will vary by region. In 2019, a study published in the journal Earth’s Future asserted that higher latitudes would suffer cooling up to 20 degrees Celsius. Studies also suggest that nuclear winter could linger. In 2018, a study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters estimated that the effects of nuclear winter could last up to a decade. Photo: Stowe, Vermont. Content and photo by K. Lee Lerner
Reading Julius Caesar is a wonderful exercise in propaganda detection and discussions about such detection in Caesar’s commentaries are the quickest way to reveal a person’ s depth of scholarly acquittance with the material. I’m a scientist not a classics scholar, and my skill set — in at least one role I fill — is […]
Reading Julius Caesar is a wonderful exercise in propaganda detection and discussions about such detection in Caesar’s commentaries are the quickest way to reveal a person’ s depth of scholarly acquittance with the material. I’m a scientist not a classics scholar, and my skill set — in at least one role I fill — is better suited to detect deception, disinformation, or propaganda in matters with a scientific and technical component. That’s also my way of saying that I don’t want to pretend that I can offer definitive answers regarding the veracity of Caesar’s writings or what was purely propaganda versus literary artistry. My Jesuit classic instructors did, however, raise my awareness regarding these issues and that awareness (the detection skill set built upon that awareness) is something I find highly exportable across a broad range of topics. Alas, it is an awareness and a skill set largely absent in many young students — sometimes even when they are well into their undergraduate years. One must always interrogate literature for its honesty and not fall into credulity. One of Caesar’s greatest skills was the power to persuade. In fact, many scholars argue that Caesar’s skill in rhetorical arguments were only clearly surpassed by Cicero. Of Caesar’s skills, Cicero himself wrote that if Caesar had not suffered the physical distractions required of generals and a rulers, and had the time to devote to the advancement of his argumentative arts, that Caesar would have become his equal. One way to assess truthfulness is, of course to see how renowned scholars in a field treat the topic. With regard to Caesar this proves little because — as it frequently does — scholarly criticisms often follow scholarly fashion. For most first half of the 20th century, for example, with authoritarianism on the rise globally, Caesar’s commentaries (as well as the work of other Roman historians) was often treated by scholars as self-serving propaganda. This trend reversed itself in the latter half of the 20th century with scholars more apt to declare Caesar’s more questionable assertions as literary flourishes, or perhaps over dependance on the veracity of the reports of others, than outright distortions or outright propaganda. In fact, in the modern era, simply describing Caesar’s work as propaganda is going against the scholarly grain. Another measure of the veracity of writing relates to whether the writing received contemporary criticism. The fact that a writing was criticized within its time, especially from a period when the written record is scant, must however also be carefully parsed. Contemporaneous criticism can be inversely argued to add veracity to a text for if errors were blatant then a chorus of criticism would exist, enough to warrant correction by the author. Put another way, the contemporaneous criticism of Caesar’s work — if itself of merit– would itself have either forced corrections or engendered wider criticism. One must evaluate criticism and assume it is as fallible to the malices of disinformation and counterpropaganda. We read in Suetonius, for example that Pollio contemporarily criticized Caesar for being carelessness with facts and too accepting of the statements of others that were then incorporated into Caesar’s writings as facts. Perhaps this is so. Perhaps also that normal human error and forgetfulness played a part in Caesar’s writings. Perhaps Pollio’s criticisms were leveled only to disparage Caesar. The almost conspiratorial lines of thinking along these lines are almost never-ending. Facts can be selected, discarded, and warped to fit any view or ideology. Therein lies a lesson for evaluating what we see and what we read in our own time.
Scattershooting on the science supporting, and perils of, vegetarianism and veganism
Scattershooting on the science supporting, and perils of, vegetarianism and veganism No, this isn’t a post wherein a Texan lampoons vegetarians and vegans. In fact, I include an experimental vegan enchilada recipe below. Nor is it my intent to dissuade anyone from diet decisions related to their religious belief system. My intent herein is to […]
Scattershooting on the science supporting, and perils of, vegetarianism and veganism No, this isn’t a post wherein a Texan lampoons vegetarians and vegans. In fact, I include an experimental vegan enchilada recipe below. Nor is it my intent to dissuade anyone from diet decisions related to their religious belief system. My intent herein is to respect dietary lifestyle choices that people make that work for them, especially if they sincerely intend those choices to be part of solutions to the many social and ecological problems humanity faces. There are, however, perils inherent in many lifestyle choices, including plant-based diets. Some people choose vegetarian and vegan diets simply based other ethical concerns regarding the treatment of animals. I respect that, but well-intentioned ethics can also blindly bring additional hunger, disease, and famine to the poor in this world. <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-medium wp-image-599 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/10/Screen-Shot-2022-10-12-at-04.43.36-298x300.png" alt="" width="298" height="300" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/10/Screen-Shot-2022-10-12-at-04.43.36-298x300.png 298w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/10/Screen-Shot-2022-10-12-at-04.43.36-150x150.png 150w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/10/Screen-Shot-2022-10-12-at-04.43.36.png 574w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 298px) 100vw, 298px" />My intent here is simply to point out that there are health, environmental, and economic perils frequently overlooked in often ideologically-driven soft and friendly coverage of these lifestyles. According to growing sales figures of plant-based meat substitutes and other plant-based diet options in both Europe and America, the time has come to take a closer look. To be sure, the medical evidence and warnings against too much red meat consumption, and the hazards of toxin bioaccumulation in some species of fish are substantial. While the perils of many omnivore diets continue to be well-studied, the potential perils related to plant-based diets have received far less attention. Regardless, the slate for plant-based diets is not clean. While many assume that vegetarian and vegan options are “healthier” and that plant-based diets and fully substitute for diets that include meat, seafood, and dairy a study (linked below) published in the ‘American Journal of Clinical Nutrition’ found, for example, that children on vegan diets were, on average, 1.2 inches shorter and had up to 6 percent less bone mineral content compared to meat-eaters in their demographic cohort. Empirical smoke may evidence a larger fire. Research continues on the impacts of meat-eating omnivorous diets, but more research needs to be done on the nutritional impacts of lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets (LOV) diets that include milk, dairy products and eggs, but no animal meat as well as vegan diets that do not include any animal products. Many people assume that adopting plant-based diet is also better for the planet and adoption of such dietary practices seems like a science-based counter to methane and other greenhouse gas-producing farming of animals (especially famously flatulent cows). But this ignores argument that, despite the fact that the per calorie and protein production per acre of land devoted to raising plants is higher (see more on these efficiencies below) because of real-world harvesting, transportation, and economics /labor issues, the world would— according to some experts — need approximately 30 percent more cleared agricultural land to produce a plant-based diet for the plant. More agricultural land will in some regions be obtained by deforestation. Energy expended in harvesting and transportation are issues often overlooked by vegetarian and vegan advocates. Farmers currently produce more than sufficient protein for the planet’s population, but inefficient transport means about a third of production is wasted. If plant-based diets were truly a small-farm supporting panacea, one could argue that this might be expected to increase the food transport woes of the world. To feed the world a plant-based diet we’ll also need the plant-based diet agricultural production and transport to be industrialized along the same lines we have now. Whether we want it or not, that will happen because of a number of economic factors that drive agricultural industrialization now. Any conception that a shift to plant-based diets is going to mean a return to small family farms is folly. Contrary to the assumptions of many who have adopted plant-based diets who think only of small famers growing kale, the industrial agricultural giants are already heavily invested in promoting plant-based diets dependent on crops they already grow (e.g., wheat and soy). Especially in cases of industrial farms, but also private farms in some climates, the additional land use will require more natural and artificial fertilizers that contribute to nitrogen contamination of waterways and oceans. Add to that well-documented and observed additional nitrogen burden the need for additional herbicide and pesticide use. Additional freshwater, already in short supply in some regions will also be needed to support the additional agricultural land. The water related peril is exacerbated by the anticipated increase in extreme weather, including drought, that can devastate crops. One answer to this increase, of course, might be found in the research and increased plantings of genetically modified (GMO) crops. While the overwhelming evidence is that GMO cops are both safe and advantageous, they also have some perils to be discussed in future essays. Regardless, use of GMO crops plays against the “naturalist” views of many who embrace plant-based diets and certainly plays to the advantage of large international agricultural companies. One the other hand, there are evidence-based arguments to be made that because so much agricultural land is dedicated to raising animals for meat, along with the crop tonnage to feed them, that demand for agricultural land and the accompanying pollution perils outlined above would be greatly reduced. As above, multiple studies have shown that plant-based agriculture is more calorie and protein-produced per acre productive than animal-based agriculture, produce less pollution and manure based toxins. Multiple studies show that vegetarian and vegan diets produce substantially less greenhouse gas emissions, etc. Again, however, one needs to consider the real-world costs of all facets of production, harvesting, transportation, etc. Many of the non-peer reviewed literature promoted by plant-based diet advocates overlook these realities, No authoritarian system in the world could overnight ban meat production, reallocate land (especially towards optimal local efficiencies), and build the irrigation and engineering infrastructure needed to make some radical shift to plant-based diets that exclude meat. Even if one concludes that the world should move toward plant-based diets, the reality is that absent the type of agriculture control exercised by Stalin and Mao — controls that created great famines that killed millions of people — the world will be using land for production meat for decades and possibly centuries to come. Thankfully a middle path exists. Effective solutions are rarely binary. While plant-based diets have the advantages listed above, studies suggesting that, on balance, the world can achieve the nearly the same positive environmental impacts by reducing rather excluding meat and dairy food groups. While this would not eliminate ethical concerns over the treatment of animals, it would certainly reduce practices people find cruel and objectionable without the imposition of one’s ethics on others. With projected population increases to 9 billion by 2050 our current systems of agriculture and the balance of energy expended on meat vs plant based production is seemingly unsustainable. According to researchers in Copenhagen who evaluated and synthesized dozens of peer-reviewed published studies, the data clearly indicates that “agriculture alone is responsible for fully 10–12 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs).” [Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154110 ] If current practices simply scale up to meet a global population of 9 billion, current published literature — our current best science — estimates that “GHGEs will rise by up to 150% of current emission levels by 2030.” Using the Life Cycle Impact Assessment technique (LCAs) “that factor in impacts of production, transport, processing, storage, waste disposal and other life stages of food production” the study provided evidence that vegan diets and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets not relying on locally produced products — a privileged consumption available to few — or that contain highly processed products can carry a negative environmental footprint larger than locally sourced meat-based diets. Cultural preferences aside, In some cases and localities meat-eating diets can be more environmentally sustainable than plant-based diets. In addition, the Copenhagen study cited showed that people who followed dietary recommendations for the Mediterranean diet, for example, had comparable environment impacts with those on strict vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets vary considerably (e.g., the Atlantic diet, Mediterranean diet, Nordic diet, etc.) and the study concludes that semi-vegetarian diet, also called a flexitarian diet (Full disclosure, my personal preference) that occasional includes meat may be the most sustainable of all. If one is concerned about the environmental consequences of a diet, the key take-away is to reduce meat consumption but also focus on local sourcing. Much more key to reducing environmental impacts than the type of diet is is local sourcing. The best diet is one that takes into account what foods are available locally. However, even local sourcing can be tricky, there are circumstances where centralized production and distribution is more efficient than local production. Moreover, there are some products that are culturally unique, and the export of these commodities supports both local business and local cultural communities. The “feel-good” linkage of plant-based diets with small family farmers is also not supported by the global data. It is, at best a localized linkage enjoyed mostly by privileged economic elites in economically and technologically advanced countries. It’s not the traditional plant-based diet options from cultures based in economically developing nations or people living on remote pastural lands growing free-range quinoa that are appearing in markets, it’s the industrialized meat-substitutes that are growing in popularity. Vegetarianism and veganism are not new. References to equivalent dietary practices are ancient. Restrictive diets have also long been a part of the ethics associated with the practice of religious faith. In the modern era, vegetarianism and vegan dietary restrictions have also taken on the social currency of rebellion, protest, and otherwise incorporated into “return to land” and wide variety of countercultural movements (both left and right leaning). There are even ties to women’s suffrage movements. All of that is fine — people ground their ethics on many varied perspectives in life — but no one should blindly preach that plant-based diets are somehow both scientifically and morally superior. There are too many cultural and local factors to consider. Vegetarianism and veganism can also threaten economies and cultures. Our diets are much more based on cultural preferences and personal experience than caloric energy efficiencies or other factors I have discussed. Do we really want a world without the cultural glories of Coq au vin? Do we want a world where some vegan version of an authoritarian Pol Pot orders everyone to slurp some algae-based slimly stew because it has the optimum nutrition with the lowest adverse environmental impacts? Moderation —and an eye towards fresh and local— often avoids the extremes and supports local businesses and traditional cultures People should challenge the practicalities of their own ethical choices when applied more broadly and on a larger scale, especially if their consumption is a lifestyle choice easily available to only those in economically and technologically advanced nations. Veritas. * * * * * Between bouts of COVID fever (which, alas, has returned in fiery force), I turned Sibley’s kitchen into a laboratory to create an all-vegetarian enchilada, admittedly borrowing liberally from online advice and products already on the market. To complete your mise en place for vegan enchiladas you will need: 4 organic medium-sized organic yellow corn tortillas; 4 Vine-ripe Sand Mountain tomatoes (or any vine ripe tomato); two cloves of thinly shaved garlic’ one -fourth cup lime juice; 3 pinches each of organic Mexican oregano, cilantro leaves, chili powder, and cayenne pepper; one-fourth cup each of pre -cooked or canned organic black beans, pinto beans, kernels of sweet corn, sweet onions (Texas 105 or Vidalia), and zucchini; along with about a eighth cup each of organic diced yellow or red bell pepper, diced green chilies, finely chopped jalapeñoes, and finely -chopped olives. Add finely diced tofu as desired (generally I eschew tofu). Dice tomatoes Set aside a handful of diced tomatoes to use as garnish) and reduce them for use in creating a medium for the enchilada’s filling and for the ranchero sauce to cover the fully- formed enchilada prior to baking. For both, with just a bit of water in the pan to start, reduce diced tomatoes before reducing heat to simmer while adding a touch of garlic, lime juice, and Mexican oregano. Gently fold in chili powder and cayenne pepper to preferred taste. Simmer for 10 minutes. Set aside half of the wet sauce for ranchero topping. Reduce the other half further while adding in a mix of pinto beans, black beans, kernels of corn, shaves of sweet, onions (Texas 105 or Vidalia), and bits of zucchini, bell pepper, green chilies, jalapeño, and olives. Add bits of tofu as desired (As above, I generally eschew tofu) Ladle filling atop a corn tortilla and then fold. Top the enchilada with sauce and a light sprinkle of chives and just a touch of chopped cilantro leaves. Cover with foil and cook in an oven preheated to 350 degrees Fahrenheit for 15 minutes. Uncover, turn up the heat to 400 and cook for 5 to 10 minutes until the enchilada is darkened but before the ranchero sauce is completely dry Serve, garnished with fresh lettuce and diced tomato and a wedge of lime to vegetarian and vegan friends prelubricated with liberal amounts of Sangria (sans blood of the bull, of course). When no one is looking, put the real enchiladas you cooked for yourself on your plate. If your guests say anything or are offended by them in any way, look coldly upon their virtue-signaling hysterics and faux nausea. Humans are well-established and evolved omnivores and so the chances are great that any offense is affectation. Offer them– and yourself — more Sangria. Think about chilled Mezcal shots for dessert.
Briefing points: Explosions and gas leaks in the Baltic Sea
Information and analysis of the massive gas leaks attributed to explosions near Russia’s Nordstrom 1 and 2 pipelines is rapidly evolving. Here are some key points, both strategic and tactical, to remember as you evaluate the news. 1. The leaks are near the Danish island of Bornholm, at 54.8762°, 15.4099 ° where explosions were recorded […]
Information and analysis of the massive gas leaks attributed to explosions near Russia’s Nordstrom 1 and 2 pipelines is rapidly evolving. <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-587 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/09/309394104_10221123211125961_6957417317702894091_n-230x300.jpg" alt="" width="169" height="220" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/09/309394104_10221123211125961_6957417317702894091_n-230x300.jpg 230w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/09/309394104_10221123211125961_6957417317702894091_n-768x1002.jpg 768w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/09/309394104_10221123211125961_6957417317702894091_n-785x1024.jpg 785w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/09/309394104_10221123211125961_6957417317702894091_n.jpg 1170w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 169px) 100vw, 169px" /> <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-588 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/09/308867378_10221123210965957_1925855939418561973_n-300x268.jpg" alt="" width="203" height="181" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/09/308867378_10221123210965957_1925855939418561973_n-300x268.jpg 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/09/308867378_10221123210965957_1925855939418561973_n-768x687.jpg 768w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/09/308867378_10221123210965957_1925855939418561973_n-1024x915.jpg 1024w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/09/308867378_10221123210965957_1925855939418561973_n.jpg 1320w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 203px) 100vw, 203px" /> Here are some key points, both strategic and tactical, to remember as you evaluate the news. 1. The leaks are near the Danish island of Bornholm, at 54.8762°, 15.4099 ° where explosions were recorded by multiple seismic stations. The largest surface disturbance is 1km (0.6 miles) in diameter. 2. At the above location, the pipelines are in international waters at a depth of about 70 meters of water. Diving is difficult but within inspection and repair depths without the need for remote submersibles (which will also be used. It could be days or weeks before the situation is stable enough for closer investigation. Russia maintains a significant naval presence in the area. 3. In June, The CIA issued nonspecific general warnings to EU leaders over potential sabotage to pipeline and other energy infrastructure 4. While a natural accident can’t be definitively ruled out, the evidence is already strong and growing that the explosions are the result of a deliberate act. 5. All sides are speculating and pointing fingers at each other as the potential saboteurs. Without evidence, Russian media has blamed the U.S. and Ukraine. Ukraine has accused Russia of what it called a “terrorist attack.” Open speculation blaming Russia now openly exists among western analysts and commentators. 6. Nordstrom 1 has been inoperative for weeks. The Russians claiming it needed repairs and maintenance that was being delayed by sanctions and ither supply chain issues. The Nordstrom 2 pipeline has never been operational with regard to gas deliveries to Europe. 7. Western analysts have warned that Russian President Putin will attempt to manipulate gas shortages over the coming months to crack EU unity over sanctions against Russian and support for Ukraine. 8. Russia’s Gazprom operates the pipelines, but the EU has also heavily invested in the pipelines. Both sides consider themselves stakeholders and both consider the pipelines to be part of their energy infrastructure. 9. Russian media now openly calls the war a NATO war on Russia. Combined with domestic unrest in Russia, Western analysts are growing increasingly concerned that in the face of stiff Ukrainian resistance, internal resistance to mobilization within Russia, and gains made by Ukrainian forces in a recent counter-offensive that Putin make be backed into a corner and resort to the use of tactical nuclear weapons to regain control. 10. Without supporting evidence , Russian state media is now: (1) openly reporting that US helicopters were spotted “hovering” in the region of the explosions within the last several weeks, (2) asserting that only the US stands to profit from the destruction; (3) trying to suggest the explosions might be part of a US/CIA plot to fulfill President Biden’s promise in February that if Russia invaded Ukraine that Nordstrom 2 would be “stopped” (see screenshots below); (4) using US congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s tweet2 that US support of Ukraine has nothing to do with democracy and is all about gas profits. ========= Initial Analysis: With both Nordstrom 1 and 2 unable to deliver gas to Europe, additional strategic significance and additional vulnerabilities are now placed on overland supplies and pipelines routed through Ukraine. Russian is already threatening actions to sanction the Ukrainian operators and possibly limit or shut down supplies via these pipelines. This gives Putin any easily way to manipulate gas supplies and Use it as a strategic weapon to split the West. There is no doubt that Russia will also accuse the US of being behind the explosions2 and also try to use this accusation to fracture NATO and US-EU cohesion. That’s the additional hidden Russian motive to blow up the pipeline. Footnotes: (1) (2) RT screenshot Sept 28, 2022 Relevant background reading: Simulation and assessment of underwater gas release and dispersion from subsea gas pipelines leak. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957582018305548 Analysis of underwater gas release and dispersion behavior to assess subsea safety risk. https://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/wp-admin/post.php?post=582&action=edit Impact on water surface due to deepwater gas blowouts. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X16306026
My favorite screenshot from the funeral procession for Queen Elizabeth II (credit BBC) is shown below. Having left Westminster Abbey, the funeral cortege passes into Parliament Square under the watchful gaze cast into a statue honoring her first Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill. For all their flaws and imperfections, especially as judged by contemporary standards, […]
My favorite screenshot from the funeral procession for Queen Elizabeth II (credit BBC) is shown below. Having left Westminster Abbey, the funeral cortege passes into Parliament Square under the watchful gaze cast into a statue honoring her first Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill. <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-562 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/09/UK-London-Parliment-Square-Sir-Winston-Churchill-BBC-screenshot-funeral-procession-of-Queen-Elizabeth-II-September-19-2022-IMG_3934-300x180.jpg" alt="" width="342" height="205" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/09/UK-London-Parliment-Square-Sir-Winston-Churchill-BBC-screenshot-funeral-procession-of-Queen-Elizabeth-II-September-19-2022-IMG_3934-300x180.jpg 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/09/UK-London-Parliment-Square-Sir-Winston-Churchill-BBC-screenshot-funeral-procession-of-Queen-Elizabeth-II-September-19-2022-IMG_3934-768x460.jpg 768w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/09/UK-London-Parliment-Square-Sir-Winston-Churchill-BBC-screenshot-funeral-procession-of-Queen-Elizabeth-II-September-19-2022-IMG_3934-1024x613.jpg 1024w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 342px) 100vw, 342px" /> For all their flaws and imperfections, especially as judged by contemporary standards, and for whatever failings history may eventually affix to them, the institutions of the British monarchy and the leadership of Churchill saved western civilization during the Second World War. Had the United Kingdom not been able to stand alone until the might of America came belatedly to the rescue of both Britain and Europe. It is quite conceivable, and arguably probable, that the war in Europe would have been lost to a murderous Nazi regime that, given dominion over both Britain and Europe (and the additional time it would have allowed), would have undoubtably fully developed modern technologies of war (e.g., jet aircraft, atomic weapons, missiles). As it was, the race was close enough. Moreover, World War II might have taken a far different course both in Europe and Asia, had Hitler — frustrated by his inability to conquer Britain — not turned so soon against Soviet Russia to fight a two front war that eventually proved unwinnable. Supported by a nation willing to endure and overcome the gravest of perils, it was fighter pilots flying Spitfires as well as men and women of all rank and station serving on land, at sea, and in the air who won the war, Yet, without the inspirational leadership of George VI and the royal family, including then Princess Elizabeth, standing with the pragmatic and stubborn leadership of Churchill, all the blood and sacrifice of the British might have been in vain. The death of Queen Elizabeth was surprisingly personal to a number of my British friends and colleagues, many rather hardened military and intelligence types not generally prone to sentimentality, but all stirred by patriotism. All also possess a deep knowledge and appreciation for the fragilities of history. I don’t find their emotions surprising at all. The value placed on the virtue of patriotism along with a greater awareness of history, proved to be an underlying commonality in the balanced commentary I observed on both sides of the Atlantic, across the Commonwealth, and among allies around the world. Those who offered more intellectually nuanced and sophisticated commentary — both scholarly and popular — were not nostalgic for Empire, nor blind to injustices and cruelties of slavery and colonialism. They were able, however, to recognize the multiple facets and layers of history and culture touched by Queen Elizabeth II’s passing. Her reign spanned generations and eras of history. The emotions felt after her death related to milestones in both in the lives of people and in history written large among nations and peoples of the world. To honor the queen was also to honor a generation. Those could not achieve this balance in their commentary lessened only themselves. As for my friends and colleagues, those with records of service generally view themselves as part of something far greater than just themselves in this world. Greater, at least, than the plethora of pedestrian and partisan interests that often distract us from our common humanity and interests. They have also proven themselves willing to sacrifice their lives for this “something greater than themselves” often represented by, and embodied in, their queen, country, faith, and on this side of the pond, the Constitution. According, along with those whose lives she touched directly, those institutions she supported, and the subjects she served, those in the kinship of men and women of honor and valor personally felt the loss of a kindred spirit in Queen Elizabeth II. ===== Photo credit: Screenshot of BBC coverage of the funeral for Queen Elizabeth II. London. 19 September, 2022.
Who speaks for Earth? Renewable energy also carries costs and perils
Windmills on the ranch, groaning with wind gusts and shifts, blend into landscapes Will wind farms atop mesas destroy the West’s majesty? Let us be mindful Everything carries a cost There’s a price to pay A photo of a lone windmill on a ranch near San Saba, Texas in the Hill Country contrasted with a photo […]
Windmills on the ranch, groaning with wind gusts and shifts, blend into landscapes Will wind farms atop mesas destroy the West’s majesty? Let us be mindful Everything carries a cost There’s a price to pay <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-543 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/08/Screen-Shot-2022-08-19-at-06.17.42-300x295.png" alt="" width="538" height="528" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/08/Screen-Shot-2022-08-19-at-06.17.42-300x295.png 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/08/Screen-Shot-2022-08-19-at-06.17.42.png 625w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 538px) 100vw, 538px" /> A photo of a lone windmill on a ranch near San Saba, Texas in the Hill Country contrasted with a photo of a wind farm atop a west Texas mesa. I am all for developing renewable, and happy Texas is formed its own independent grid (with the bumps and bruises along the way appropriately noted), but there will be costs and choices to made with regard to our environment as we transition to a cleaner economy over coming decades, including our aesthetic environment. Just as cities are burying power cables and other transmission lines underground, are we creating a new forms of visual pollution along our shores and across our rural landscapes? How can we mitigate this loss and preserve the essence of our landscapes from shorelines to Western canyons, basins, and ranges? This is not a new problem, developers have blighted seashores for decades, and dams and power lines already carry electricity across our countryside. Still the preservation of landscapes os not something we should simply sweep aside in our quest for a cleaner “greener” economy. There’s a place and need for aesthetics in engineering. Emerging beamed energy technologies may eventually help preserve landscapes, but even with green energy we will always be forced to consider the environmental impact related to gathering, transmission, and distribution, of energy. We can develop better, with a higher regard for aesthetics than in the past. Europe has faced this issue far longer (and usually with more sensitivity) with regard to preserving visual aesthetics. Our shoreline and Western landscapes are an essential American treasure. They deserve a voice to speak for them. As always, who speaks for Earth?
Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant perils part of novel challenges regarding nuclear safety
Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant perils part of novel challenges regarding nuclear safety Lerner, K. Lee. Taking Bearings. August 9, 2022. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12852.12168 The Russian invasion of Ukraine has posed novel problems related to nuclear safety for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Western intelligence communities, and media outlets because this is the first time a large scale […]
Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant perils part of novel challenges regarding nuclear safety Lerner, K. Lee. Taking Bearings. August 9, 2022. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12852.12168 The Russian invasion of Ukraine has posed novel problems related to nuclear safety for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Western intelligence communities, and media outlets because this is the first time a large scale shooting war has threatened multiple nuclear power plants. Early concerns about perils posed by radioactive materials stored at the damaged and decommissioned Chernobyl nuclear power plant have now turned to fears about evident damage to the Zaporizhzhia (also spelled Zaporizhia) nuclear plant located on the Dnipro river-fed Kakhovka reservoir in a southern area of Ukraine now occupied by Russian forces. The challenges include sifting sources for misinformation and disinformation. Petro Kotin, chief of the energy consortium NNEGC Eneroatoam that runs the Zaporizhzhia told Reuters last week that Russian shelling had damaged three lines power lines connecting the plant to the Ukrainian electrical grid. Kotin further speculated that Russia was attempting to sever the plant’s connections to the Ukrainian grid prior in order to potentially connect it to the Russian electrical grid before winter. Prior to the Russian invasion, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant provided about 20 percent of Ukraine’s electrical needs. <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-medium wp-image-535 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/08/Nuclear-power-plant-in-Ukraine-300x265.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="265" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/08/Nuclear-power-plant-in-Ukraine-300x265.jpg 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/08/Nuclear-power-plant-in-Ukraine-768x679.jpg 768w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/08/Nuclear-power-plant-in-Ukraine.jpg 976w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />Ukraine and Russia have previously accused each other of shelling the nuclear plant site, the largest in Europe, containing six operational reactors. Three of the six reactors are still producing power. The others have been shut down to maintenance modes the Russian invasion. The plant is still operated by its Ukrainian staff subject to Russian control. Bellingcat, a Netherlands-based investigative journalism group that specializes in open-source intelligence released geolocated drone video footage released on August 5th showed that shells had hit near cooling ponds and concrete containment facilities for 174 casks of spent uranium fuel that remain highly radioactive. While the reactor building is reinforced with steel sufficient to withstand an airliner crash, the cooling pools and dry storage facilities are not as hardened. Neither may be able to withstand explosive munitions impacts, and so a direct or close hit could scatter radioactive debris around the plant. Such damage would make operations and needed renovations extremely difficult and hazardous. Such damage could also produce a radioactive plume of dust that would rise into the atmosphere. The radioactive dust would be at the mercy of weather patterns and rainfall as to where it eventually settles. Depending on the winds, contaminated areas could reach into Russia and other countries surrounding Ukraine. There is sufficient radioactive material at Zaporizhzhia that even if only a small percentage of radioactive material escaped into the atmosphere, subsequent rainfall could render hundreds of square kilometers uninhabitable for decades. Russia claims both prior and recent shelling was done by Ukrainian forces using Western-supplied munitions. In June, Russia invited IAEA inspectors to view the damage and the precautions Russian forces were taking to guard the facility. Kotin also said that according to Eneroatoam inspection records, the Soviet-era plant needs urgent maintenance and renovations. He called for IAEA inspections but said that Ukraine could not guarantee the safety of inspectors because the facility is currently occupied by Russian troops with heavy vehicles. IAEA head, Rafael Grossi, also told the Associated Press that the Zaporizhzhia plant was in need of inspection and repairs. Fearing an IAEA visit would legitimize Russia’s control of the place, Ukraine’s state nuclear company had previously declined to invite IAEA inspectors. Grossi says that Russia, Ukraine, and the UN would all need to sign off on inspections as well as offer guarantees of safety to inspectors. Even without the dangers of shelling, any interruption of electrical power to the plant also poses a hazard to reactors, including the still-hot shut down reactors if the interruption damages Zaporizhzhia cooling equipment or drains the system’s generators and battery reserves. Without constant cooling, even spent fuel rods in cooling pools, can boil off water, overheat and then ignite the rod’s metal cladding. Even shutting the reactors down offers little immediate protection because it can take at least five years before they can be allowed to cool down inside shielded containers. Zaporizhzhia also houses such spent-fuel ventilated dry storage casks manufactured by Sierra Nuclear Corporation (SNC). The Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant remains one of one of the four operating NPPs in the country and can generate up to 42 billion kWh of electricity. The plant, originally designed by the Russian AtomEnergoproekt, consists of five pressurized water reactor (PWR) units, built and made operational between 1984 and 1989. The 6th unit was commissioned in 1990. Each of the six units consists of a VVER-1000/V-320 reactor that drives a 1.0 MW steam turbine. The first five units were built and made operational between 1984 and 1989. Following a building moratorium in the wake the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, and the turmoil surrounding the fall of the Soviet Union, the sixth reactor was connected to the newly independent Ukrainian grid in 1995. Some of the Soviet PWR reactor units are past or near their originally designed 30-year lifespan. After the 2011 Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear disaster, however, Units 1 and 2 underwent lifetime extension upgrades to control, monitoring and fire suppression systems. The plant can provide remote monitoring of conditions within the reactors, turbines, spent nuclear fuel cooling facilities, and the on-site radioactive waste treatment complex. Prior to Russia’s occupation and annexation of Crimea, a Russian nuclear fuel company (TVE) supplied the plant with enriched uranium fuel. After 2104, Ukraine’ Energoatom negotiated a contract with Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC)for enriched fuel. As part of safety upgrades, WEC has also installed passive hydrogen control systems on reactor units 1 and 2. Without IAEA inspections assessing the condition of the Zaporizhzhia plant is difficult because both Russia and Ukraine use propaganda and disinformation as an integrated part of their respective war efforts. The U.S.-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) concluded that Ukrainian reports that Russian forces had mined and threatened to destroy the Zaporizhzhia plant were “likely false.” On August 8, Ukraine’s Energoatom posted statements and screenshots on Telegram taken from the Russian Vkontakte social media group (operated by Russian outlet Lenta Novosti Zaporizhia) allegedly quoting a Russian major-general vowing that the Zaporizhzhia plant would either be “either Russian land or a scorched desert.” The posts also claimed that Russian Major General Valery Vasilev, identified as head of the Zaporizhzhia occupation garrison, claimed that the plant had been mined by Russian forces. Both the Russian Ministry of Defense and Vkontakte claim Ukraine’s posts were fake. The ISW concluded, “Regardless of the origin (or existence) of the original post, the reporting is unreliable. It is indirect and does not claim to cite an official statement or a statement made on any official Russian news or government website.” Other Russian officials on state–controlled media have, however, previously contributed to nuclear tensions by hinting at the possibility of deliberate damage and/or destruction to nuclear plants and even atomic weapons use that Russian President Vladimir Putin has openly said “should never be unleashed” because such conflicts leave “no winners.”
WASHINGTON — It’s been an interesting week to start dealing with clients interested in recommendations for texts and library resources. The question I most encountered this week was, “When budgets are tight, why pay for information available for free on Wikipedia? I answer as follows: (1) Wikipedia is unreliable; (2) Wikipedia articles are often written, […]
WASHINGTON — It’s been an interesting week to start dealing with clients interested in recommendations for texts and library resources. The question I most encountered this week was, “When budgets are tight, why pay for information available for free on Wikipedia? I answer as follows: (1) Wikipedia is unreliable; (2) Wikipedia articles are often written, edited, and manipulated by those with vested commercial and/or ideological conflicts; and (3) Wikipedia articles are spotty with regard to being vetted or curated by subject matter experts. For amusement and illustration, I keep my own list of 50 plus significant errors in Wikipedia entries dealing with basic science concepts (e.g., electromagnetic) and science-related issues (e.g., vaccine trials, microchip security, etc.) that have errant factual assertions that have been corrected by other (I personally avoid editing wars) but then reverted back to an incorrect answer by anonymous Wikipedia editors with more power over the entry. The examples are not controversial or close calls. I have never accepted student citations to Wikipedia, nor have I ever allowed authors writing for me to cite Wikipedia as a source. Sure, everyone uses Wikipedia, at least for a quick check to see what the unwashed think is important (or conversely what they are missing), but entries are now authoritative and ow need screened with the same skepticism applied to partisan news sources. Moreover, Wikipedia is filled with plagiarism. I know because a good bit of my own writing is plagiarized there. The most dangerous thing about Wikipedia is, however, not the howlers regarding science that anyone with reasonable training in any science discipline can spot, but the more subtle and inaccessible errors, errors that range beyond the detection of the well-educated and which can even fool all but experts in the field. Having one of the most accessed Academia sites (harvard.academia.edu/KLeeLerner) means that I receive about a half-dozen letters a week from zealots promoting their crackpot theories everything from advanced mathematics to their own particular applications of special relativity theory. These letters are easy to spot. Most have two things in common: (1) Many of these letters begin with a pronouncement (e.g., “Newton was wrong and “I have invented the true calculus,” or “Everything you thought you knew about thermodynamics is wrong;” and (2) some assertion that contradicts (without any evidence) a well-tested theory (e.g., violates fundamental laws of thermodynamics, biophysics, molecular biology, etc.) Almost inevitably, as I fact-check, I find that these same deranged fools have inserted their usually byzantine ideas into Wikipedia articles– often deep in the body of an article –and then cited themselves. The danger here isn’t that this is going to cost a high schooler a few SAT points or a grade on an AP test, but rather that the errors can mislead graduate students and experts checking something slightly out of field or investors trying to calculate risk. When this happens the same errors — I am sure to the delight of those who first post errant misinformation and to the utter satisfaction of those (including intelligence agencies) deliberately posting misinformation — begins to propagate across multiple articles. There is simply no real accountability for Wikipedia. Some articles are excellent, and many authors and editors may be sincere, but any medium that relies on crowd-sources entries and editing in an age of anonymous trolls, twits on Twitter, greenwashing, corporate and intelligence manipulation of social media and search results, and a general unaccountability for Internet postings is going to be as unreliable as the quality of whiskey in a wild west saloon.
Happy Independence Day: In the land of the free, we still must choose to be free
July 4, 2022 Fairhope, Alabama — I am blessed to have Bella docked just down the bluff. If I am sitting in my study contemplating the cosmos, it takes just 10 minutes to drive down the hill, park right to Bella (no mooring balls or harbor master needed), jump aboard, fire up Bella’s inboard, set […]
July 4, 2022 Fairhope, Alabama — I am blessed to have Bella docked just down the bluff. If I am sitting in my study contemplating the cosmos, it takes just 10 minutes to drive down the hill, park right to Bella (no mooring balls or harbor master needed), jump aboard, fire up Bella’s inboard, set lights and radios, cast off lines, navigate the channel, and cut the engine, and start hoisting sails. I’ve rushed and made it in less time. Tonight’s 2022 fireworks display was cancelled due to threatening weather until just 15 minutes before scheduled showtime. When the weather cleared and the show become a “go,” I still had time to make a last-minute decision to go out to enjoy the show on Bella. Firework displays are plentiful around Mobile Bay and so bursts of light play out across the horizon. Fairhope fires its display from a pier and the shells may literally burst above the boat so that ash rains down\ <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-medium wp-image-488 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/07/US-Alabama-Mobile-Bay-off-Fairhope-Bella-sailing-fireworks-July-4-2022-IMG_2409-300x192.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="192" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/07/US-Alabama-Mobile-Bay-off-Fairhope-Bella-sailing-fireworks-July-4-2022-IMG_2409-300x192.jpg 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/07/US-Alabama-Mobile-Bay-off-Fairhope-Bella-sailing-fireworks-July-4-2022-IMG_2409-768x492.jpg 768w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/07/US-Alabama-Mobile-Bay-off-Fairhope-Bella-sailing-fireworks-July-4-2022-IMG_2409-1024x656.jpg 1024w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />It’s also spectacular because our little town puts on a big city show. The quality of the fireworks display is second only to the every-changing flower displays about town in determining the success of a mayor’s term in office. We have none of the deep problems that plague urbanity, and we are rural enough to enjoy fresh locally grown food and seafood (especially crab and shrimp) harvested and sold by local fleets. People don’t lock their doors, crime is nearly non-existent, the polo fields are green and lush, and the children are all above average (well, at least all the children in the local International Baccalaureate (IB) program. People are exceptionally polite. This is partly due to culture and partly due to the fact that people are well armed. We have only peaceful protests. Any mob would be quickly dispatched by citizens used to keeping the peace after storms We fund our police here and are quick to help them. People are respectful and appreciative of their first responders. They are fellow citizens and treat others as such. Children and teens still say. “Yes, Sir” and “No Ma’am” to strangers. The women can be spectacular. They hold leadership positions (the last two mayors have been women) and minorities — found in all socio-economic classes — are fully integrated into the fabric of the culture and community. It’s not perfect, of course. There’s still work to do, but our minorities are cherished as part of our gumbo culture. Art and music play an important part of that culture. Well know authors and other artists abound. We also nurture local artists. On the 4th, for example, the town hosts our local Baldwin Pops orchestra, set up on the bluff to play the 1812 Overture (sorry, no virtue signaling at the expense of Tchaikovsky here). Today’s tropical weather is an exception to our normally spectacular weather. Except for August, or when tropical systems threaten, the weather is fine for year-round sailing and for walking on long sugar-white sand beaches. If you know where to go, those beaches and dunes are also deserted. I can talk walks on the beach and not see another soul. We have four seasons if you squint a bit at what we call winter. The air and water circulation patterns keep us substantially cooler and less humid than other places on the Gulf Coast (and much cooler and drier than New Orleans). We get a couple weeks where flowers must be protected from frost and freezes, and we get the occasional dusting of snow. Hurricanes? We endure, and then clean up and carry on. They can be both destructive and function to strengthen community cohesion. We take care of ourselves, but also look out for our neighbors. Frequently named as one of the South’s best places to live, our only challenge is growth. We have mini-rush hour now where rural roads can get crowded. Parking downtown (no meters of course) can get sparse at times. This is not an accident. People must choose to live free. They can choose to see America is a glass half full and filling or they can be destructive and divisive to themselves and others by dwelling on America’s flaws and scars. Fairhope is in a deeply red state and county, but the town is an artist refuge and writer’s community known for being purple. A former New York Times editor-in-chief lives here. Fairhope has even voted for a Democrat in a recent senatorial election. Like undisciplined children. people can whine about their rights, or perceived entitlements, or they can roll up their sleeves and pitch in to construct instead of merely deconstruct society. Why do people choose to live in crowed places, live in places hostile to freedom, live without individual capacity, and responsibility, live where places where anger is a persistent form of impotent virtue signaling, or live where they are manifestly neither safe nor able to protect their families and interests? I have traveled the world several times over and I have lived in wonderful cities like Boston and Paris, and yet the answer to my question eludes me. Yes, I know the standard answers. Education, work, opportunities. All of that is fair, and a part of life. People don’t always end up in their ideal spot. Ultimately, however, we must choose where and how we want to live. I am thankful life led me here and that I made good decisions about where to raise a family so that they might enjoy all the richness of life. May God bless our men and women who guard American freedoms, and may God bless those who work to make America a more perfect union striving to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity!
U.S. Border Policies: It’s not just political power that’s at stake, it’s human lives.
San Antonio Fire Chief Charles Hood, a friend and member of my Harvard Kennedy School 2014 Crisis Leadership Class, briefs the press on the deaths of 53 people and injuries to 12 additional presumed migrants, including four children, found inside a tractor-trailer abandoned in deadly Texas summer heat. Forty-six people were found dead at the […]
San Antonio Fire Chief Charles Hood, a friend and member of my Harvard Kennedy School 2014 Crisis Leadership Class, briefs the press on the deaths of 53 people and injuries to 12 additional presumed migrants, including four children, found inside a tractor-trailer abandoned in deadly Texas summer heat. Forty-six people were found dead at the scene, seven died later in hospital. <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-medium wp-image-478 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/06/Screen-Shot-2022-06-28-at-06.29.30-300x238.png" alt="" width="300" height="238" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/06/Screen-Shot-2022-06-28-at-06.29.30-300x238.png 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/06/Screen-Shot-2022-06-28-at-06.29.30-768x609.png 768w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/06/Screen-Shot-2022-06-28-at-06.29.30.png 959w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /> Texas, like America, is torn by partisan divisions. Clowns, morons, misfits, and mental defectives inhabit left and right extremes in Texas politics. The recent Texas GOP convention, par exemple, produced particularly unhinged and cruel positions on issues. In a depressing electoral conundrum that I fear will repeat itself over coming years, in November I’ll be forced to chose between the GOP nominee, the current Governor Abbott, in his reelection race against his leftist progressive Democrat opponent, Beto O’Rourke, who I have elsewhere characterized as an exploitive opportunist manifestly unfit to lead. An alternative I trust with the future of Texas won’t be on the ballot. To his credit, at least in his first response, Beto, restrained himself from the immediate left/right Trump/Biden finger-pointing. Abbott went right for the political jugular by tweeting arguing, “These deaths are on Biden. They are a result of his deadly open border policies. They show the deadly consequences of his refusal to enforce the law.” President Biden’s border policies have been a failure and disaster, but he does not deserve Abbott’s response, especially as the circumstances are still under investigation. Beto instead spoke to a greater truth by saying “We need urgent action — dismantle human smuggling rings and replace them with expanded avenues for legal migration that reflect our values and meet our country’s needs Given our political divisions, Beto is, however, characteristically naïve that such a transformation can be done quickly or easily. He also shows a blissful ignorance in thinking that changes in U.S. immigration policies will dismantle human trafficking and smuggling rings. The fact is that the primary fault for the deaths of migrants in a suffocating trailer rests with callous and murderous human traffickers. We don’t yet know whether, or to what degree, this tragedy is a consequence of Biden’s failed border policies, and/or the larger leftist combination of soft-headedness and calculated exploitation that attracts migrants beyond the capacity of the system to handle them. Disasters like this happened long before Biden took office. We also don’t know the role Trump’s MPP policies where tens of thousands of non-Mexican asylum-seekers are forced to live in camps on the Mexican side of the border play into this tragedy. The camps conditions make asylum seekers easy prey for cartels, kidnappers, and human traffickers. We don’t yet know the facts. Yet, the finger-pointing and posturing started before the bodies could be fully counted. The vast majority of migrants — legally in the U.S. or not — seek only a better life for themselves and their families. Yes, there are criminals in the migrant mix but name any subpopulation free of that pox. Drug dealers and malicious criminals, however, don’t climb in the back of tractor trailers in sweltering Texas heat. Even assuming the trailer’s refrigeration units were operative and turned on prior to the trailer being cruelly and murderously abandoned, it still took a leap of faith to climb into a sealed container and put your life — and the lives of your children — into the hands of others in such a way. Nothing could better attest to the desperation of people seeking a better life for themselves and their families in the United States. Right now, vulnerable migrants are dehumanized into political footballs as the United States border policies swing between overly permissive and overly restrictive extremes. We also need to collectively shoulder the blame every time we — or employers in our communities — exploit cheaper labor performed by migrants illegally in the country. I would hope that people on both the left and right in American politics would look at this tragedy as a reminder that shaping a cogent and consistent border policy that maintains U.S. integrity, discourages illegal migration, and protects us from the worst in other societies is important. It is equally important to treat genuine asylum seekers with dignity and treat those who simply want to work with the basic protections and security green cards provide. In sum, we should strive for policies that are both humane and emblematic of a great nation substantially built by people from other lands. It’s not political power that’s at stake in formulating of border policies, it’s human lives. ============ This essay was updated on 1 July 2022 to reflect a higher death toll. Photo: Screenshot from a BBC coverage of a press briefing by San Antonio Fire Chief Charles Hood, June 28, 2022.
What does the data tell us about the “good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun” scenario
I watched an interview of Adam Lankford, a professor of Criminology at the University of Alabama, on CNN this morning. It was obvious that the interviewer’s intent was to offer up Lankford’s research as an effort to debunk — or at least cast doubt – on the “good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy […]
I watched an interview of Adam Lankford, a professor of Criminology at the University of Alabama, on CNN this morning. It was obvious that the interviewer’s intent was to offer up Lankford’s research as an effort to debunk — or at least cast doubt – on the “good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun” argument offered by many seeking to limit or defeat control measures. In this post, I am not addressing the larger issue regarding the validity of offering the intuitive argument that “good guy with a gun is the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun,” nor am I dismissing the perils of people untrained with weapons attempting to make decisions and use weapons during a crisis situation. I am limiting my comments here to the perils of citing Lankford’s data or accepting the arguments Langford made based on his data. Lankford offers conclusions beyond his data and does not apply proper context or controls for his data At best, it is interesting but tepid scholarship. Lankford argues his data shows that the “good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun” scenario only happens in about 3 percent of mass shooting events because of the rapidity of such events (i.e., they are over before anyone can act). That’s true — most shooting events are over before anyone –citizens or police – can react. But to offer that data as some sort of argument against the “good guy with a gun” argument is faulty. People carry weapons primarily for personal defense and Langford’s data does nothing to address that motivation to carry a weapon. Nor does Langford’s data treat the “good guy with a gun” capacity to personally deterring or stop an incident personal to the carrier, their family, etc. in incidents more intimate and below the threshold of a mass shooting. While many would be willing to help stop a shooter, as above, the circumstances where this opportunity presents itself are exceedingly rare. However, the “good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun” also has a meta “deterrence” component, and Lankford’s data fails to test for the hypothesis that when potential perpetrators know that a substantial number of people are armed, they are less likely to attack such populations and to seek out softer targets. Moreover, Lankford does not evaluate whether armed civilians were in a position to stop mass shooter. In a sloppy bit of reasoning during a CNN interview. Lankford simply cited the fact that America has a high number of guns relative to other countries. While that is certainly true and may be relevant to other facets of arguments surrounding gun control, it says nothing about the context of the mass shootings evaluated by Lankford with regard to whether there were armed citizens in a position to stop the shooting.
Hispanic rejection of exploitive identity politics may save us all
I have said that the Hispanic population will be the force nationally that saves us from entrenched partisan identity politics. They will force us to a moral and rational center. Absent a center, they will swing right into red. That proved true last night in Texas when Republican Mayra Flores won a special election and […]
I have said that the Hispanic population will be the force nationally that saves us from entrenched partisan identity politics. They will force us to a moral and rational center. Absent a center, they will swing right into red. That proved true last night in Texas when Republican Mayra Flores won a special election and flipped a Congressional House seat that has been in the Dem’s column since Reconstruction. As goes Texas, so goes the country. That case has been well-made by many, and any hopes on the left that Texas might at least turn purple vaporized last night when Flores won a heavily Latino — and previously heavily Democratic –district in South Texas. A star is born. It’s really a significant loss for Dems. With beta-boy Beto — who is now seen as an opportunistic self-serving charlatan in large swaths of the Hispanic community — as the Dem’s gubernatorial candidate, the GOP will have a field day turning South Texas purple, which will just turn Texas a deeper shade of red. I have been warning my respected friends on the left in Washington and Cambridge that Hispanics in Texas do not want to be seen or treated as “people of color,” and most assuredly not lumped in with — or treated — like they were black. Hispanics have watched as prominent Democrats, including Biden himself, treat themselves as arbiters of blackness or treat blacks as a monoculture whose votes are always in the Dem’s hip pockets (e.g., Biden’s “you ain’t black” comment). Volumes of polling data show Hispanics crave meritocracy not exploitation or perpetual marginalization as victims. They see the failures of progressive Democrats to acknowledge the differentiation within the black community in terms of history, education, achievement, viewpoints and concerns as a warning. My Hispanic colleagues deeply resent POC presumptions made by the DNC and white liberals who benefit from both the overt and inherent racial exploitations of the identity politics cult. Trends in Hispanic voting in 2020 — especially along the Texas border — were extended last night in the election of Flores. Hispanics voting red are now a tangible political force in Texas. Trump did surprisingly well with Hispanic voters not because they liked or respected the man, but because they far more deeply resented the presumptions made by the DNC about the nature of Hispanic self-image, concerns, and aspirations. Biden’s disastrous border policies which — despite the many polls and signs that should warn them otherwise— leftist Dems errantly think Hispanics overwhelmingly support, are deepening a growing rift with Hispanics. Moreover, proud cultural traditions and values among Hispanics are fundamentally at odds with much of progressive “woke” culture. The harder the left pushes that agenda, the faster Hispanics will walk away from the Dems.
Policymakers must now assume that Iran has the enriched uranium it needs to build a nuclear weapon
Policymakers must now assume that Iran has the enriched uranium it needs to build a nuclear weapon DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33868.69760 [Additional background for non-scientists is appended] June 1, 2022 Policymakers must now assume that Iran has the enriched uranium it needs to build a nuclear weapon. Containment is a failure. Iran’s breakout time is now essentially at […]
Policymakers must now assume that Iran has the enriched uranium it needs to build a nuclear weapon DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33868.69760 [Additional background for non-scientists is appended] June 1, 2022 Policymakers must now assume that Iran has the enriched uranium it needs to build a nuclear weapon. Containment is a failure. Iran’s breakout time is now essentially at zero According to estimates prepared from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports and Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), Iran now has sufficient stores of highly enriched uranium (e.g., HEU or 60 percent enriched uranium ) to fashion a crude nuclear weapon. [1] As I predicted in March, Iran now has sufficient HEU, the required centrifuges, and the skill to rapidly increase enrichment of weapon-grade uranium (e.g., WGU or 90 percent enriched uranium) within a few weeks. [2] After allegedly abandoning its nuclear program in 2003, (e.g., the Amad plan led by Mohsen Fakhrizadeh who was assassinated in November 2020), Iran has built secret nuclear facilities, obstructed IAEA inspections, and repeatedly denied or downplayed its ongoing efforts to enrich uranium International efforts, primarily via the deeply flawed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) focused on limiting Iran’s supply of HEU. It is now clear that JCPOA failed and lack of inspections and enforcement, allowed Iran the time to build its enriched uranium stores to their present state. Despite the manifest failure of the JCPOA and Iran’s history of deception and obstruction, the Biden administration and others in the west dangerously and naively continue efforts to renegotiate a still weaker agreement, even though independent IAEA verification of any deal will again prove to be futile. Using worst-case timeline estimates, according to David Albright and Sarah Burkhard at ISIS “Iran’s breakout timeline is now at zero… In parallel, within a month, it could produce enough weapon-grade uranium for a second nuclear explosive from its existing stock of near 20 percent low enriched uranium. Whether or not Iran enriches its HEU up to 90 percent, it can have enough HEU for two nuclear weapons within one month after starting breakout.” Withing six months Iran could produce at least five nuclear weapons. As Albright and Burkhard point out in their report, even if a new JCPOA was negotiated and implemented, any Iranian pullback from its current capacity would be went into force, any recalibrated Iran breakout date would be an illusion, impeding Iran for a matter of weeks not the minimum year JCPOA once envisioned. The ISIS report also concludes that Iran “could test a nuclear explosive underground or deploy a crude nuclear weapon within several months, certainly within six months, and deploy nuclear weapons on ballistic missiles in a year or two.” Over the years the IAEA has repeatedly warned that Iran was hiding both nuclear materials and enrichment capacity as well as violating other Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty provisions. Evidence Iran submits to IAEA has also repeatedly failed to withstand independent scientific and engineering scrutiny. Based on a recent International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Iran Verification and Monitoring Report of March 3, 2022 [3], and subsequent Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) analysis [4], Iran is continuing to advance its nuclear capabilities, hide nuclear research facilities, and thwart international inspections. Since February 2021, Iran has denied the IAEA the ability to inspect and/or monitor known/declared Iranian nuclear research facilities (including Esfahan or Karaj sites). Gaps also exist in both monitoring and Iran’s accounting for the number and use of centrifuges at other facilities including the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant and Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant. Although Iran has sent 23.3 kg of it HEU to its Fuel Plate Fabrication Plant (FPFP) in Isfahan, according to ISIS, “it is expected that only a tiny fraction will be converted into targets. As such, the production of targets will not remove the proliferation and breakout risks posed by Iran’s stockpile of HEU. This step should be viewed as a cynical attempt by Iran to place a civilian mask on an inherently military material and lay a precedent for future production of HEU.” [4] in early February 2021, Iran began producing uranium metal (see background information below) from both 20 percent enriched uranium and 60 percent enriched uranium for by the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). This an open violation of its JCPOA commitments. In an article published in Science on 15 July 2021 (“Iran’s plans for research reactor fuel imperil revival of nuclear deal”), Andrea Stricker, a nonproliferation analyst at the nonprofit Foundation for Defense of Democracies countered Iran’s claim that it was using the metal to produce medical isotopes. “Iran is pursuing a strategy of brinkmanship,” said Stricker, “It is using civil-use justifications as a pretext to brazenly advance its nuclear weapons–related knowledge.” ================= [1] David Albright and Sarah Burkhard. “Iran’s breakout timeline is now at zero.” Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS). June 1, 2022. https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/iranian-breakout-timeline-now-at-zero [2] Lerner, K. Lee. Iran’s nuclear breakout window narrows. Taking Bearings. March 9, 2022. https://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/irans-nuclear-breakout-window-narrows/ [3] IAEA report. “Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015). International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/22/03/gov2022-4.pdf [4] David Albright and Sarah Burkhard. “Analysis of IAEA Iran Verification and Monitoring Report.” Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS). March 2022. https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/analysis-of-iaea-iran-verification-and-monitoring-report-march-2022 [5[ David Albright and Sarah Burkhard. “Entering Dangerous, Uncharted Waters: Iran’s 60 Percent Highly Enriched Uranium,” ISIS. April 11, 2022, https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/entering-uncharted-waters-irans-60-percent-highly-enriched-uranium =========== Additional background for non-scientists Uranium, atomic number 92 on the Periodic Table is the heaviest naturally occurring element on Earth. The uranium nucleus contains 92 protons but a variable number of neutrons to create uranium-238, uranium-235, and uranium-234 isotopes of uranium. About 0.72 percent of natural uranium is U-235 All uranium isotope are radioactive as they decay, but only U-235 is capable of fission (a spitting of the nucleus) when it absorbs a neutron. This splitting releases tremendous energy Uranium ore treated to form uranium oxide (“yellowcake”) and then combined over a series of steps with anhydrous hydrogen fluoride and fluorine gas to form uranium hexafluoride (UF6). Uranium hexafluoride can exist as a gas used in further enhancement or as a liquid or solid for storage and shipping. Uranium hexafluoride does not react with atmospheric gases (oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc.) but is reacts with water and water vapor in the air to form hydrogen fluoride (a corrosive) and uranyl fluoride (UO2F2). During gaseous diffusion, uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas passes through hundreds of fine porous filters that help separate the faster moving U-234 and U-235 atoms from the heavier and slower moving U-238 isotopes. Accordingly, two output streams — one enriched in U-235 and the other depleted in U-235 are observed. With further processing of the enriched uranium the percentage of U-235 increases. To be used as nuclear fuel the uranium must be enriched 3 to 5 percent. Highly Enriched Uranium is 60 percent U-235 and weapons grade-uranium is 90-plus percent U-235 Centrifuges produce a force much stronger than the normal gravitational force. The spinning of gaseous uranium hexafluoride (UF6) creates a sight separation of heavier U-238 and relatively lighter U-235 atoms. By drawing off the U-235 enriched region and repeating the process thousands of times through a chain or cascade of high-speed centrifuges that spin about 100,000 rpm, one obtains increasing purified or enhanced U-235. Adding calcium to the enriched U-235 creates a salt and a pure uranium metal for fuel rods or if enriched to weapons grade U-235, nuclear weapons.
Memorial Day We honor fallen heroes who served their country Americans called to arms some sacrificed for nothing * * * As the article linked below in the comments section articulates, “Memorial Day is a blank canvas, ours to commemorate in whatever way we see fit… Some will visit cemeteries, others will spend some time […]
Memorial Day We honor fallen heroes who served their country Americans called to arms some sacrificed for nothing * * * As the article linked below in the comments section articulates, “Memorial Day is a blank canvas, ours to commemorate in whatever way we see fit… Some will visit cemeteries, others will spend some time alone, and still others will take a moment amid a chaotic and happy day with family or friends to remember what today is. It doesn’t matter how we do it. It’s just important that we do it.” (1) <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-medium wp-image-421 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/05/US-Alabama-Point-Clear-Confederate-Rest-Cemetery-IMG_1322-300x225.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="225" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/05/US-Alabama-Point-Clear-Confederate-Rest-Cemetery-IMG_1322-300x225.jpg 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/05/US-Alabama-Point-Clear-Confederate-Rest-Cemetery-IMG_1322-768x576.jpg 768w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/05/US-Alabama-Point-Clear-Confederate-Rest-Cemetery-IMG_1322-1024x768.jpg 1024w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />I don’t care much about monuments. Throughout history and across cultures they rise and fall. Things change, and history is always a battlefield. I do, however, care about graves and honoring those who died for their country because soldiers, for both better and worse, do not usually fight for the grand ideologies shifting histories or dishonest historians might eventually ascribe to them. Most soldiers are pawns of war. Some were conscripted, many more mustered their courage to selflessly respond to the call of their country — or what they thought of as their country — based on noble perceptions of patriotism, sense of honor, duty to protect their home and others, etc. In the end, most soldiers fight and die not for a cause, but for each other, for their brothers in arms. We should also take care with our memories of soldiers, for the winds of history shift. Look at the rhetoric of our own time, with phrases such as “illegal wars,” “wars for oil,” “neo-colonialist interventions,” etc., frequently and mindlessly uttered by the ignorant, the politically exploitive, the grifters of history, cowardly misfits, and the chronically malcontent — may one day be used to tear down monuments and to soil the service and memory of those who served with honorable intentions in a host of American wars and conflicts (including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan). The most malicious and malignant among us, for example, would now have us taint our Revolutionary War soldiers as “fighting for slavery, etc.” when the historical record (including primary source diaries, letters and records) is clear that what they fought for was a country and a system that eventually overcame the horrors of slavery and other systems of bondage and indenture that so long profited its Old World founders. Equally malicious and malignant, of course, are those who disrespect the service, pain, and sacrifice of our POWs. America has many scars, but today it still stands proudly as the last flawed but capable defender of liberty and Enlightenment ideals in a dark and dangerous world. Accordingly, we should take caution not to taint those who guard its walls and take care to honor the memories of those who fell doing their duty. Our fallen soldiers, veterans, and soldiers serving today literally provide the “safe space” in which dissent, change, and evolution toward a better country can take place. I have no tolerance for “America first” types, because thousands of American soldier’s graves around the world prove that a mature America — an America at its best — overcomes the isolationism that helped preserve a nascent republic to fight and care for others. We have rebuilt other countries with our blood and treasure. Americans by their nature are not selfish and it is in the DNA of our people to fight for freedom, stand up to tyrants, and to — sometime eventually — do the right thing. We need not be bullies, but we should likewise not fail to stand with others in a just cause. I have no respect for jingoists and “America right or wrong” types because nationalism should not be confused with patriotism (I plan a series of posts on this leading up to July 4th this year) and dissent can also be patriotic. I have little tolerance for those who equate a specific political party or ideology with patriotism, because patriotism can be manifest across a wide spectrum of ideologies. I have still less regard, however, for those who improperly tout — or deny — American exceptionalism because they simply show they do not intellectually understand what the term means. Is right and proper to question wars, policies, and our flaws, and to protest same when in accord with one’s lights (soldiers died to defend that right), but I also have absolutely zero place in my life —and hold an intrinsic disdain — for those without pride in America. I think they are, at best, shallow souls ignorant of history, geopolitical realities, and the very real perils of this world. Especially on Memorial Day, we must always remain careful to honor service and sacrifice for our country. It is never proper to disparage soldiers who served who honorable intentions. In fact, most soldiers, if at times begrudgingly, accord due regard to other soldiers who fought with honor (and that term is key) and equal courage as their enemies. If you want a guide as to how to regard the soldiers of history, listen to the veterans of those conflicts. Listen also to how their recollections change over time, as they age, and the intimate horrors of the battlefield grew more distant. The weight of individual sacrifice and loss may diminish across generations, but within individual soldiers, it increases with time. ============================================= (1) Amble, John. A REFLECTION ON HOW WE MARK MEMORIAL DAY. https://warontherocks.com/2022/05/a-reflection-on-how-we-mark-memorial-day/?__s=smvn2bg43063fmrsy53i Photo: The grave of an unknown Confederate soldier, Confederate Rest Cemetery, Point Clear, Alabama. K. Lee Lerner. 2022
Part I While we remain focused on Ukraine. defense challenges to the west and western companies multiply. America’s lead in technology has narrowed with China and in some key facets it has evaporated. Over the next few weeks, I will be examining threats and potential threats to both countries and companies from an array of […]
Part I While we remain focused on Ukraine. defense challenges to the west and western companies multiply. America’s lead in technology has narrowed with China and in some key facets it has evaporated. Over the next few weeks, I will be examining threats and potential threats to both countries and companies from an array of lesser known radiologic, biologic, chemical, and cyber perils. Many of these threats relate to microchip security and energy demand and supply. Some of these threats involve both low and tech components. For example, at a military airshow in 2016, China demonstrated the capacity to launch multiple precision-guided rockets concealed in standard shipping containers hauled aboard cargo ships. There is no open confirmation that China has widely implemented the system, but the demonstration sounded alarms in Washington, London, and European countries with maritime exposure. The potential threat remains real. Such systems could overwhelm U.S. defense systems and cripple our ability to strike back after an attack. Like submarines, cargo ships are independently positional and controllable systems that can pose a threat from nearby international waters where the cargo containers are beyond inspection. (See “China is building long-range cruise missiles launched from ship containers.” News Navy Naval Maritime Defense Industry. April 2019, Available at https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2019/april/6971-china-is-building-long-range-cruise-missiles-launched-from-ship-containers.html) Without costs of nuclear programs and weapons, these containerized threats can remain subnuclear and thus skirt a strategic nuclear stalemate to yield tremendous tactical advantages. China has, for example a YJ-18C long range cruise missile that could be modified to launch from containers. China also has hypersonic missiles that, given the combination of offshore proximity and their speed, would be difficult to intercept and shoot down. There are also potential weapons that can generate EMPs (electromagnetic pulses) that can cripple unhardened communications and weapon systems for both military and commercial entities. Israel has demonstrated the capacity to launch its own Lora missiles from containers, and the Lora is similar to Russia’s four-pack of satellite-guided Club-K cruise missiles that Kontsern-Morinformsistema-Agat demonstrated back in 2010. (See, “Deadly new Russian weapon hides in shipping container.” Reuters. April 2010. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-weapon/deadly-new-russian-weapon-hides-in-shipping-container-idUSTRE63P2XB20100426). According, despite current defeats in Ukraine it remains dangerous to dismiss Russian capacities as well as the ability of rogue states like North Korea and Iran to acquire and/or develop such weapons systems. The maritime environment is brutal enough for systems not subject to monitoring and constant maintenance, but these systems require significant computing power operate fully independent tracking and targeting systems. The seriousness of the threat these container-concealed missile systems pose, in part ,depends on power and their own microchip security (more about this in Part II and Part III of this series) They computers needed to run the systems require significant electricity and generate traceable heat signatures. Accordingly, the. U.S. is currently countering the container threat with the development and deployment of tracking and senor systems that can also detect trace amounts of volatile rocket fuel compounds. To reduce demands of computing systems, assets are often used to “paint” targets and all sides are moving to space-based measurement and control systems that have access to essential tracking data and satellite imagery. Techniques like virtualization and other means to automatically digitize functions can significantly reduce power and computing demands. Still, relative to larger defense systems, the development and deployment of smaller, smarter and less expensive weapons systems can conceivably match and impair America’s ability to extend influence with advantages in aircraft carriers, fighters, and missiles. Continued in Part II
Insurrection, Coup d’état, Revolution: Know the difference
[Originally published May 10, 2022. Updated: July 3, 2022.] I denounced the insurrection on January 6th. I did so on the day, and I do so now. Regardless what the protestors may have initially intended, the resulting violent assault on the U.S. Capitol — including violent assaults on law enforcement officers — turned them […]
[Originally published May 10, 2022. Updated: July 3, 2022.] I denounced the insurrection on January 6th. I did so on the day, and I do so now. Regardless what the protestors may have initially intended, the resulting violent assault on the U.S. Capitol — including violent assaults on law enforcement officers — turned them into insurrectionists. Regardless their self-proclaimed patriotism, the actions of those who committed violence were despicable and deplorable. Despite the garb and gear on display, many months of investigation have shown that the mob contained about the same percentage of veterans — people who have sworn to defend the Constitution — as is found in the general population. I find it of some comfort that the rioters contained a lot of pretend soldiers out on a pretend mission, yet I still find it unfathomable that anyone who had sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States could violently breach its Capitol. Many years before his 2016 election, I declared former President Trump unfit for office. Few things he did in office proved me wrong. immeasurably crude, even when implementing effective policies, was the best Trump could ever muster as president. But did Trump, after his election defeat, orchestrate an attempted coup d’état with the goal of remaining in office? What I am exploring herein is one about words and terms — specifically the words insurrection, coup (herein, unless further modified, to mean coup d’état) , and revolution. It is not to be construed as an attempt to mitigate or lessened Trump’s series of insidious, reprehensible, and possibly illegal actions that Trump undertook as he clearly lashed about trying to find a way to prove that he had won the 2020 election. Typical of Trump, he accepted no other argument , conclusion, or judgment than his own that the election had fraudulently denied him a second term. There is no doubt that by January 6th, the last hope of the Trump’s toxically quixotic quest to retain power misguidedly focused on obstructing the largely electoral certification of President-elect Biden. Trump explored way to challenge and change the certification process, he encouraged protests he thought might sway the outcome, and pressured members of Congress and his own Vice-President (who procedurally and ceremonially presided over the process) to change the outcome. Whether Trump did so out of a sincere belief that he was the rightfully elected President on called to preserve the legitimacy of government and Constitutional integrity, or whether his actions were the illegal acts of a petty potential tyrant engaged in orchestrating a criminal conspiracy are now matters of partisan taste and may one day be matters of fact for a jury to decide. But that argument is beyond this essay. Words count, and I will argue below they count for important reasons. Accordingly, it is fair to ask whether the insurrection itself was a coup, and/or whether it was a component of an attempted coup. I will argue herein that the January 6th attack on the Capitol was certainly an insurrection but, absent needed elements for a coup described below, was not a coup. I will also explore whether the January 6th insurrection could be considered an instrument or component of a coup. The insurrection tarnished the cherished American tradition of a peaceful transition of power. I will also explore why the facile application of the term coup further harms America. Insurrection, Coup d’état, and Revolution An insurrection is simply a violent uprising against an authority or government. It transcends protest. As such, that the term has been vasty underused in recent years is now a topic set aside for another essay. There is, however, no universally accepted definition of the term coup d’état). No definition of a coup is definitive, unproblematic, and all are subject to personal or political bias. Accordingly, the term is best defined by its historical use in the news and in scholarly literature. The term is also subject to modification by adjectives that describe type of coups which contain some, but not all, of the traditionally accepted elements of a coup. Because there is no definitive argument one can mount that the events of January 6th did, or did not, constitute an attempted coup, we are left to semantics and contextual arguments based on the legality of underlying actions. Like facts, however, semantics count. In practice toward others (e.g., in determining when a coup has taken place elsewhere, the U.S. has narrowly defined what constitutes a coup. Our relations with other countries often depend on how we characterize their changes of power. We may, for example, suspend aid to nations run by leaders who come to power by what we deem a coup. Our European allies follow similar practices. In determining whether January 6th as an attempted coup or part of an attempted coup, I argue that we should apply the same standard to ourselves as we do others. Coups resulted in a seizure of power and change in leadership of state. Historically, coups have ranged from actions by a small group to wider military efforts to displace an existing government. The mechanisms ranged from direct displacement at arms to displacement following seizure of critical infrastructure or government processes. Many coups are acute and rapid. In fact, the term coup is French meaning “stroke” a fluid or rapid motion. Some coups take place more slowly vias a series of events (Hence the need to modify some coups as “slow motion coups”). [I] The necessary elements of a coup. Coups share many of the same elements that define revolution (a change in the form of government), rebellions, civil wars, a putsch, and other forms of governmental change, but the traditional definition of a coup d’état includes the following three elements: A coup or coup attempt is an (1) ILLEGAL attempt by (2) the military or others holding office or in the STATE apparatus to (3) unseat the SITTING executive.” All three of these constitutive elements are necessary to classify an event or series of events as a coup. Accordingly, the insurrection itself can’t be considered a coup. A coup is performed by actors within or belonging to the state. Accordingly, a coup may only be executed by the military, a legislature, the judiciary, or members of the bureaucracy (a deep-state coup). There is no evidence yet present that anyone so classified DIRECTLY participated in the trespass and violence at the Capitol and this is precisely why the House Committee is trying to tie Trump or and other members of the government to the events of January 6th. Moreover, the insurrection itself was not a coup because a coup changes or attempts to change an existing government or head-of-state and Trump was already the sitting president. In a more general sense, the first element, that of LEGALITY of actions, is key to understanding whether the insurrection was, perhaps, a component of a coup, but questions of legality and illegality can’t be judged by the one-sided prosecutorial proclamations and prime-time presentations being made by the blatantly partisan House Committee investigating the January 6th insurrection. Extraordinary political pressure applied while disputing an election outcome may be unwarranted by underlying facts, and such pressure and related actions may be unethical, unprecedented, and even deplorable, yet not rise to being illegal. Although not part of the three essential elements of a coup, where there is a constitution there is also commonly at least a suspension of the constitutional order. This criterion distinguishes a coup from legal procedures of removal allowed in democracies (impeachment, popular recall, vote of no confidence, court orders, etc.). Congress certification of the 2020 election — an official process government — was certainly was certainly briefly interrupted by the January 6th insurrection, but there was never a suspension of constitutional order in the United States. [II] Coups with adjectives (adjective coups) Events that may not contain all the tradition elements of a coup — or highlight some unique aspect of a coup — may be described as coups with adjectives. The adjectives modify or add something to the essential criteria defining a coup. There are now “constitutional coups,” “electoral coups,” “judicial coups,” “parliamentary coups,” “self-coups,” “slow-motion coup,” “soft coups,” “parliamentary coups,” and more. Lugo in Paraguay, Rousseff in Brazil, Zelaya in Honduras, Maduro in Venezuela, Ortega in Nicaragua are all examples where facts need to be carefully parsed to determine whether their removal from office was the result of a legal process or form of coup. For example, was Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff removed from office via legal impeachment or a coup? While most coups are acute and quick events – indeed term coup itself in French means “stroke” (i.e., a fluid or rapid motion) — slower evolving coups with many components that unfold over time are now often described as “slow motion coups.” As before, a coup is an action or blow against an existing administration. If acts are illegal and the perpetrators are part of the government or military, but the beneficiary is the sitting president (i.e., Trump) while the target is a president elect (i.e., Biden), then the events constitute a self-coup (also called an autogolpe or incumbent take-over). Some contend that Trump’s action constituted an electoral coup, but that term is traditionally reserved as the use of elections as a tool to illegally keep or change power. [III] The illegality element of a coup is critical When we talk about the appropriateness of the use of the term coup, we must consider whether we are applying it specifically to the events of January 6th, or, as the House Committee is doing, casting the events of the insurrection as part of larger coup or self-coup attempt by Trump (e.g., the House Committee’s seven-point presentation). What the current January 6th House Committee evidence presented shows — and it must be strongly noted that the current presentation is akin to a prosecutor’s opening statement where facts are both blatantly cherry-picked and, more importantly, not yet subject to rebuttal and cross-examination — was that then President Trump, from the time of his election defeat in November 2020 to January 6th was actively seeking a way to contest his election defeat with the intent to stay in office. In an essay published in Politico just days after the insurrection, Fiona Hill argued that the January 6th insurrection was an attempted “self-coup.” Hill correctly asserted that there’s a standard coup checklist that analysts use to evaluate coups. To successfully usurp or hold power, coup-plotters need to “control the military and paramilitary units, communications, the judiciary, government institutions, and the legislature; and mobilize popular support.” While Hill needlessly dissected many of these facets in tortured paragraphs , she consistently ignored the key element of illegality. Once again, as above, extraordinary political pressure applied while disputing an election outcome may be unwarranted by underlying facts, and such pressure and related actions may be unethical, unprecedented, and even deplorable, yet not rise to being illegal. I have yet to see a persuasive argument that Trump’s belief that he was a victim of election fraud, or his overtly false declarations related to his beliefs were illegal per se. Hill did, however, correctly point out that some of the elements people commonly associate with a coup, especially “the idea that a coup is a sudden, violent seizure of power involving clandestine plots and military takeovers” did not preclude considering Trump’s actions taken over “a period of months and in slow motion” to be form of self-coup to “keep himself in power.” I also think Hill was correct in observing that “Maduro perpetrated a self-coup in Venezuela after losing the 2017 elections.” Following his election loss, Trump remained Commander-in-Chief until noon on January 20, 2021. As Hill alleges, Trump may have regarded the military to be his “Pretorian Guard,” but that did not make them so. The military consistently pushed back on matters about concerning what constituted legal orders and the proper role for the military to play in matters like quelling violent U.S. protests and riots. The military also played no part in the January 6th insurrection, not even tacitly. While tactical-looking paramilitary uniforms seemed to be plentiful in news coverage, analysis of the crowd and those subsequently charged show that the percentage of those insurrectionist who were veterans with real military service and training only slightly exceeded the percentage found in the general population. Given the prevailing power dynamics, harangued state election officials and other form of political intimidation may have moved Trump’s actions closer to illegality, but whether they crossed the line remains an open question. Whether, for example, Trump’s actions in Georgia and other places to recount or scrape up votes to change the election were illegal has yet to be decided. While Republicans in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin met in December 2020 and passed “alternate” slates of electors claiming that Trump won their state. These were merely sent to Congress (and the National Archives). There is no evidence of a coordinated plan by government officials or agents to, via naked force or intimidation, push the adoption of these “alternative” slates on January 6th. Many claim that Trump’s pressuring of Pence to not certify elector’s slates — or to perhaps accept alternate slates — perhaps trips closest to criminality. The record is clear that Trump pressured Pence, but whether such pressure rose to criminality is not as clear. The constitutional independence of the Vice President (he is not technically subordinate to president, nor is he in the chain of military command). This would be important if, as Hill alleged, President Trump “ordered” then Vice President Pence to block the formal election certification process because the President has no such authority. Nor did Pence have the Constitutional authority to block certification. Refusal to honorably concede for the good of the country, as Al Gore did in 2000, would have required a patriotic gear Trump consistently lacked. But refusal to concede is not Constitutionally mandated or illegal. Although arguably harmful to the republic in other ways, Trump’s persistent attempts to discredit “mainstream media” were not illegal. Nor was the exercise of his presidential authority to appoint questionably qualified or partisan judges (an act par for the course in any administration). Nor was it illegal for Trump to hope that a legally appointed judiciary and Supreme Court might side with him in election disputes. Thankfully, as Hill points out, with regard to election fraud, the judiciary consistently ruled otherwise. I agree with Hill’s contention Trump’s actions amounted to “stress testing the U.S. democratic system” and I agree with Hill that the president’s actions and falsehoods “shattered America’s democratic norms, exacerbated its political divisions and put people’s lives at risk.” Regardless, a self-coup is not a traditional coup — it does not contain all the essential elements of a coup — but rather a subtype of a coup where those who are part of the government perpetrating illegal acts do so to retain power. If the critical element of illegality is ever proved , I would probably agree with Hill that Trump perpetrated an attempted self-coup with the intent to stay in power. [IV] If not a coup or self-coup, did Trump participate in a fraud or otherwise criminally obstruct the election process? If the DOJ were so disposed by the evidence, prosecutors might find an easier time charging a Klein Conspiracy fraud under US Code Title 18 Sec. 371. The key question would then become whether Trump’s efforts to pressure Vice President Pence rise to obstruction of an official proceeding. That’s tough because Pence openly rejected such pressure. In fact, the very fact Trump clung to — and still clings to his false belief that the election was stolen may be mitigating in that it makes it harder to prove intent to obstruct rather than Trump simply exercising the broad powers granted a President. The House Committee knows this, and so what they are trying to present is a case where Trump was willfully blind to the truth he lost. That’s also very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. [V] If not a coup, then what was January 6th? The terms “riot” and “violent protest” are woefully insufficient terms to describe January 6th. At a minimum it was an insurrection. I would not want to see it cast as a “rebellion,” “revolt,” or “uprising,” because I would argue could be construed as casting those involved as somehow heroic or even patriotic. It was neither. Did January 6th contain acts of sedition? Sedition is an “incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.” For the vast majority of participants in the events of January 6th, the violence of the insurrection was not preplanned, and their participation was, in fact, spontaneous. For those reasons most have been charged with lesser counts. Some insurrectionists, however, have been charged with more serious felony counts, including seditious conspiracy. While most of participants in the insurrection did little more than illegally trespass, some participants committed inexcusable assaults on law enforcement officers, some issued criminal threats, some either stole or destroyed government property. Some have already been convicted of felony obstruction of government. No shots were fired by the insurrectionists, but the evidence is persuasive that some participants in the insurrection advocated and carried out planned violence. The insurrection put people — including government officials and elected member of Congress– in fear of their lives or safety. There is also testimony that some extremists planned to murder government officials, but directly tying Trump or anyone in government directly to the violence on January 6th insurrection has, however, proved a steep legal hill that the evidence thus far is unable to climb. In the events leading up to January 6th and on the day itself, I think it is fair to argue that Trump — not for the first time — used irresponsible and self-serving rhetoric that functionally and morally makes him responsible for the insurrection. At this point, however, no “smoking gun” or indisputably clear evidence exists that ties Trump or other members of the government directly to planned violence. I would also argue that no fair lay contextual reading of Trump’s speech on January 6th rises to criminal incitement, but whether Trump illegally incited insurrection requires some contentious legal analysis best left to others better qualitied in interpreting the relevant statutes and applicable case law, [VI] What the January 6th insurrection was not The January 6th insurrection –as horrendous as it was — is also subject to partisan hyperbole. Moreover, the presentation of unrebutted and cross-examined evidence about the events of January 6th by the House Committee still leaves us with an insurrection, not a coup. The insurrection wasn’t the “worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War,” that dubious distinction belongs to the Axis forces of WWII. The insurrection wasn’t as deadly or destructive as the terrorist attacks of 9/11, dozens of riots (some facilitated/instigated/promoted by foreign agents and extremists that are functionally domestic terrorist groups), a slew of mass shootings, etc. The insurrection did not — as chairman of the Jan. 6 committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, farcically claimed — come “dangerously close to succeeding” in compromising “American democracy.” Rep. Adam Kinzinger’s claim that the insurrection threatened “self-governance” is equally ludicrous. The insurrectionists did not claim themselves to be a new government, they did not issue orders or make decrees as a new government. They did not try to entice the support of the military or law enforcement (quite the opposite). They did not try to hold the building. They were not ousted, they left near curfew. A few insurrectionists may have planned to disrupt the acceptance and counting of electors’ ballots, but the interruption lasted just a few hours. Vice President Pence had, for example, already rejected efforts to have him reject electors’ ballots, etc. Electoral votes had already been counted. Nothing done, literally under the influence of insurrectionists, would have survived subsequent scrutiny. As despicable as the January 6th insurrection was, even if the insurrection wildly exceeded the goals of some of its most extremist participants (e.g., had they held the Capitol, taken hostages, executed government officials, etc.) nothing would have stopped President-elect Biden from taking office at noon on January 20, 2021. To claim otherwise is a backhanded slap in the face at our military, law enforcement officers, and other governmental institutions. [VII] Even if the evidence is strong, should Trump be charged? Even if Trump can be charged, the DOJ would need to then exercise discretion regarding whether he should be charged. The DOJ can’t decide on political grounds, at least not in theory, nor if they want to preserve DOJ integrity. In addressing issues of prosecutorial discretion, the DOJ would need to consider whether the subsequent politicized spectacle might not lead to a never-ending carrousel of charges against former officials with every swing of the political winds that bring new administrations to power. When Trump won in 2016, calls for doing away with the electoral college or for faithless electors to change the outcome of the election were not prosecuted as seditious or characterized as an attempted coup. Nether were the lies of Russiagate — promulgated by many on the January 6th Committee — or calls to have Trump removed from power via the 25th Amendment seen as an attempted coup. Even Trump’s most dedicated political opponents would concede that a failed prosecution would leave Trump freshly empowered and emboldened. There is also the impact of both successful and failed prosecutions on America’s reputation of the world, and that is my primary concern in arguing that we should be parsimonious in using the term. [VIII] Why we should be parsimonious using the term coup. Partisan rhetoric –some errant, some deliberately dramatic — recklessly flies about these days, why should use of the term “Coup” be any different? Just as some Republicans still defend an indefensible insurrection, some Democrats carelessly casting about rhetoric in the same manner and with the same arrogant Dunning Kruger ignorance that pushed Russiagate falsehoods. They apparently don’t care about the deleterious effect their partisan rhetoric has on America’s reputation or standing in the world. Their interests come first. America be damned. Ironically, that puts them (and the media pundits who parrot similar views ) in the same rhetorical bed already containing our former lout-in-chief. The term coup (with or without adjectives) is politically loaded and used to delegitimize an opponent. In fact, Coup is so pejorative that prior military leaders in Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay carefully called their rise to power as revolutions or the act of political “movements” instead of coups Across much of the world a coup is a revolution instigated by the military or other security forces. Al Ortiz, vice president of standards and practices at CBS News initially warned news staff against dramatic labels like terrorist attack or attempted coup. The Associated Press also initially advised against describing January 6th as a “coup” or “attempted coup” because as used around the world, where the term coup carry military overtones absent from the events on January 6th. America’s enemies are listening. As with the bogus Russiagate allegations, sloppy partisan rhetoric is used by Russian and Chinese officials to denigrate America. Just as false claims of election fraud dimmish respect for America and cast doubt on the legitimacy of America’s government, false and premature use of the term attempted coup — or of derivative adjective coups — seriously injures America’s standing in the world and confidence in its government. Accordingly, we should be sure that all the necessary elements are in place before we call January 6th an attempted coup, or part of an attempted coup. References Bartelson, J (1997) Making Exceptions: Some Remarks on the Concept of Coup d’état and Its History. Political Theory 25: 323–346. Bello (2016) When a “coup” Is Not a Coup. The Economist, 9 April. Available at: https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2016/04/09/when-a-coup-is-not-a-coup David, SR (1987) Third World Coups d’état and International Security. Baltimore, MD; London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Diamond, L The Use of Coup d’état and Golpe de estado in Books . (2015b) In Search of Democracy. London: Routledge. Keating, JE (2012) Coups Ain’t What They Used to Be. Foreign Policy. Available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/06/27/coups-aint-what-they-used-to-be/ Kotze, JS (2017) Africa Faces a New Threat to Democracy: The “Constitutional Coup.” The Conversation. Available at: http://theconversation.com/africa-faces-a-new-threat-to-democracy-the-constitutional-coup-72011 Marinov, N, Goemans, H (2014) Coups and Democracy. British Journal of Political Science 44: 799–825. Marshall, MG, Marshall, DR (2018) Coup d’état Events, 1946–2017. Center for Systemic Peace, May 2. Available at: http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/CSPCoupsCodebook2017.pdf Thyne, CL, Powell, JM (2016) Coup d’état or Coup d’Autocracy? How Coups Impact Democratization, 1950–2008. Foreign Policy Analysis 12: 192–213. Varol, O (2017) The Democratic Coup d’état. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Iran’s nuclear capabilities: “I say it here, it comes out there”
“I say it here, it comes out there”— Reporter Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks),Broadcast News (1987) I wish. It took six weeks for the Biden administration to admit what I warned on March 9th regarding the Iran breakout window (i.e., that there was high confidence that Iran was just weeks away from being able to develop […]
“I say it here, it comes out there”— Reporter Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks),Broadcast News (1987) <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="wp-image-389 alignleft" src="http://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/04/Screen-Shot-2022-04-27-at-08.22.30-1-300x216.png" alt="" width="489" height="352" srcset="https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/04/Screen-Shot-2022-04-27-at-08.22.30-1-300x216.png 300w, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/files/2022/04/Screen-Shot-2022-04-27-at-08.22.30-1.png 473w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 489px) 100vw, 489px" /> I wish. It took six weeks for the Biden administration to admit what I warned on March 9th regarding the Iran breakout window (i.e., that there was high confidence that Iran was just weeks away from being able to develop a primitive nuclear weapon. That capacity is well inside the old Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) year safety buffer, and essentially makes any attempt to revive it moot. Why did it take so long? Perhaps to keep the failing JCPOA negotiations on life support? Perhaps to please those who have had their head-in-the-sand (or inserted in other places) about Iran’s nuclear programs and/or intentions for years? The Iran nuclear story was a 15 second sound clip from the White House yesterday. Today it’s a one minute read on Reuters. Meanwhile hours are spent on what? Partisans melting down or cheering because Elon again outsmarted the non-elite elites to buy Twitter? We collectively deserve to live in caves.. https://www.reuters.com/world/white-house-worried-iran-could-develop-nuclear-weapon-weeks-2022-04-26/?fbclid=IwAR2igWTyb6BN1RRSvBnZinrV2tv1wYTubAR-7DOQsmJHtPDoDK_fHPnCZtM https://blogs.harvard.edu/kleelerner/irans-nuclear-breakout-window-narrows/?fbclid=IwAR1bd3PqrU4GKdqZR1gVRdrR_1ONsODt0h87eWRcAbwwyrxJF7YwJbOEEAQ
Putin’s take it or break it strategy in Ukraine and his perilous nuclear options
March 26, 2022 Ten things to know about the war in Ukraine, including Putin’s potential use of a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine Time is now an ally of Ukraine. With Western logistical support, time is now on Ukraine’s side. Until recently time was viewed as something that worked against Ukraine. Given Russia’s superior numbers, the […]
March 26, 2022 Ten things to know about the war in Ukraine, including Putin’s potential use of a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine Time is now an ally of Ukraine. With Western logistical support, time is now on Ukraine’s side. Until recently time was viewed as something that worked against Ukraine. Given Russia’s superior numbers, the defeat and occupation of Ukraine was widely viewed (myself included) as just a matter of time. The stout Ukrainian resistance combined with Russian Army and Air Force arrogance and incompetence have now, however, turned time into a Ukrainian asset. Absent substantial help from China, or Putin’s use of tactical nuclear weapons (for political purposes his most viable WMD option) the war has devolved into one of attrition that gives a constantly resupplied Ukraine a fighting chance. 2. Putin’s WMD reasoning. A war of attrition increases the potential that Putin will resort to the use of a tactical nuclear weapon. How likely is it that Putin might pursue a nuclear option? If Putin is irrational then rational analysis will not yield medium or high confidence assessments of his potential decisions, but one way to approach this problem is to assess negative outcomes a rational Putin might weigh in deciding whether to use a nuclear device. 3. Perilous options. Should Putin attempt the use of a tactical nuclear weapon, he not only faces the prospect that (1) subordinates may not follow orders, but also (2) that a nuclear weapon fizzles. If either of those things happen, it is the end of the Putin regime. 4. A military plundered by corruption. How much confidence does Putin have in his command and control? Putin’s recent shake ups of his military and intelligence show he is worried about discontent and loyalty in the ranks. Given the underwhelming performance of the Russian Army and Air Force, the emerging “country plundered by oligarchs” narrative that allows Russian army officers to save face may be the biggest threat to Putin staying in office. 5. How potent is the Russian nuclear threat? There is also great uncertainty regarding the state of Russian nuclear weapons. Given the state of Russian military infrastructure and performance, it is questionable whether the Russian have adequately maintained and replenished enriched uranium or plutonium stocks. Nuclear weapons also depend on other components that degrade with time. 6. Putin’s gambit to force Zelenskyy’s government to flee so that he could install a puppet government has failed. It has become apparent that given the stout Ukrainian resistance, Putin is highly unlikely to think he can militarily occupy Ukraine. Accordingly, some form of Ukraine will remain free. The lessons of recent history are stark and, given his deployment of forces, it is increasingly clear Putin will keep the separatist provinces, Crimea, and perhaps other southern port territories. It is likely these gains will be a component of any ceasefire and/or political settlement. 7. What Putin can’t have; he will break. Putin is now destroying infrastructure he would need to govern Ukraine. It is increasingly apparent his strategy is to leave it broken and impoverished so that perhaps over time, a desperate Ukrainian people will more likely accept a puppet, or at least Moscow-friendly government. 8. Putin will seize and/or destroy critical research and energy infrastructure. More specifically Putin will attempt to seize or disable Ukrainian’s nuclear and electrical infrastructure. If he can’t seize it, he will destroy it. Under the manufactured guise of protecting Russia from alleged Ukrainian ambitions to WMD, Putin will destroy Ukraine’s research and energy infrastructure (e.g., the shelling of a neutron generator at the Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology, and seizure of nuclear plants). 9. Putin’s attempts to disable Ukrainian communications and energy infrastructure with cyberattacks has thus far failed. If Putin resorts to a nuclear option, the politically safest use would not be directed at a Ukrainian city where civilian casualties would irrevocably render Putin a pariah on the international scene. It is more likely that use would be directed against military, communications, and or energy infrastructure or perhaps a “demonstration” that would also create an EMP intended to destroy or substantially cripple Ukraine’s communications and energy infrastructure. 10. Rebuilding Ukraine. While the war is still hot and its outcome uncertain, Western government and business leaders must construct a plan to rebuild Ukraine, including its energy infrastructure. Whatever Ukraine emerges from this conflict will need substantial Western aid to rebuild and simultaneously resist Moscow’s attempts to win politically what it could not win militarily.