HOT5 Daily 2/11/2010

1. "New at Reason: David Harsanyi on Saying No to Democracy" Unobstructed majority rule is not a good thing. 

Representative Sample: we're actually lucky that the minority political party has the ability to obstruct, nag, and filibuster the majority's agenda. Otherwise, those in absolute power would run wild.

2. "Democrat Stimulus Plan Goes Back to the 70’s" Carteresque.

Representative Sample: They want to dole out more unemployment and Medicaid funds for the states. Because you know, the unemployed are known for creating jobs. Oh, sorry, I was supposed to be serious.

3. "Christopher Hitchens Interviewed by Unitarian Minister Marilyn Sewell" If it's Hitchens it has to be interesting.

Representative Sample: I don’t have whatever it takes to say things like “the grace of God.” All that’s white noise to me, not because I’m an intellectual. For many people, it’s gibberish. Likewise, the idea that the Koran was dictated by an archaic illiterate is a fantasy. As so far the most highly evolved of the primates, we do seem in the majority to have a tendency to worship, and to look for patterns that lead to supernatural conclusions. Whereas, I think that there is no supernatural dimension whatever..

4. "Maritime Security: Navy UAV Strike Force?" The drone future of naval airpower?

Representative Sample: Unlike other unmanned aerial vehicles, the X-47B - which looks like a miniature B-2 Stealth bomber - is intended as a strike aircraft that can operate from aircraft carrier flight decks.

5. "DARPA calls for an unmanned A-10 -- literally, perhaps" Speaking of drones.

Representative Sample: the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is now seeking proposals for the unmanned component of a next generation close air support system.

To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.

Religion and Racism

A new study finds a significant correlation between religion and racism.  

A meta-analysis of 55 independent studies carried out in the United States with more than 20,000 mostly Christian participants has found that members of religious congregations tend to harbor prejudiced views of other races. ...In general, the more devout the community, the greater the racism

Although the study mainly involved Christians, Wendy Wood, the lead author of the study, speculates that religion in general, rather than anything specific to Christianity, is the primary factor.

“Religious groups distinguish between believers and non-believers and moral people and immoral ones,” ... “All religions offer a moral group identity, and so across world religions — including Buddhism, Hinduism, Muslim, Judaism and Christianity — the religious ingroup is valued over outgroups.”

So basically her theory holds that religion promotes group thinking. Members of some religions tend to see themselves as part of a group that knows the truth, while everyone not of the religion is at the very least ignorant, or at worst damned. If you view the world from this sort of us & them perspective, it seems reasonable that you might be prone to group thinking in other matters, such as race.

Wood's conclusions may apply to certain religions such as Christianity and Islam, which sharply divide people into groups, but I'm not sure it holds for religion in general. What about religions that recognize multiple paths to enlightenment or salvation? I'm always wary of drawing sweeping conclusions from studies. But there is one finding that isn't at all surprising.

Her analysis found significantly less racism among people without strong religious beliefs.

Why Russia & China Favor a Nuclear Iran

There's an interesting article in the New Republic called, "Bombs Away: The real reason why Russia and China aren’t interested in stopping Iran’s nuclear program." The author, Matthew Kroenig, rejects the common explanation that Russian and Chinese economic ties with Iran are the primary reason for their assistance with its nuclear aspirations, and for their reluctance to do anything about it. Instead he looks toward strategic reasons. He argues that both countries see a nuclear Iran as a constraint on U.S. power in the Middle East -- a constraint that will not affect Russian & China because they lack force projection capabilities in the region.

An Iranian bomb, then, won’t disadvantage China or Russia. In fact, it might even help them. Neither country has hidden its desire to hem in America’s unilateral ability to project power, and a nuclear-armed Iran would certainly mean a more constrained U.S. military in the Middle East. Indeed, at times during the 1980s and 1990s, Beijing and Moscow aided Tehran with important aspects of its nuclear program.

It's nice to see an argument on this issue that gets away from economic determinism and looks toward power politics and grand strategy. I think the author is probably correct in his view of Russian & Chinese motives. Where I disagree with him is on his analysis of the U.S. side of the equation. Here he offers a reverse of Chinese & Russian motivations. The U.S. opposes proliferation in Iran because it constrains U.S. power projection in the region.

Of course, there are the concerns of accidental nuclear detonation, nuclear terrorism, or even nuclear war. But these are all extremely low probability events. The primary threat of nuclear proliferation is that it constrains the freedom of powerful states to use or threaten to use force abroad. ... In nearly every historical instance of proliferation, beginning with China in the 1960s, the United States opposed nuclear proliferation in large part because it wanted to preserve its military freedom of action. ... Although Washington might not have immediate plans to use force in the Middle East, it would like to keep the option open.

Although I agree that this reasoning is certainly part of the U.S. desire to block Iranian nuclear weapons, I think he ignores other obvious reasons of greater significance. First and foremost, Iran is a rogue state ruled by radical Islamic fanatics hostile to the U.S., and has been conducting a low level proxy war against U.S. forces in the region. It's not really necessary to look for deep strategic reasons to understand why the U.S. would want to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the mullahs. If Iran was ruled by a more responsible government that just happened to be aligned against the U.S., the author's argument would be more convincing. 

Second, Kroenig ignores the threat to Israel in his calculations. This is a key reason the U.S. opposes a nuclear weapon in Iranian hands. Israel rightly sees such weapons as an existential threat, and the U.S. would rather not be sucked into a Middle East war if the Israelis decide they must act to preempt the threat.  And third, there is the fear that even if war doesn't break out right way, that an Iranian bomb will precipitate a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race, with other countries feeling that they need to obtain weapons, leading to a general destabilization of the region with unknown consequences. 

In my opinion, the nature of the Iranian regime, its hostility toward the U.S., the threat to Israel, the fear of being drawn into a war, and worries about the stability of the region as a whole are far more significant motivations for U.S. opposition to Iranian nuclear arms than our desire to maintain future force projection capabilities in the region.

Optimism on Afghanistan?

You don't hear all that much optimism about Afghanistan lately. Even commentators prone to optimism are usually careful to point out all the difficulties, and offer only some cautious hope for the future. That's why it was surprising to see a major military figure go way out on a limb and say that he thinks "the tide is turning in Afghanistan." That's the opinion of Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, commander of the Australian Defense Forces, which have been assisting the U.S. in Afghanistan and currently have 1550 troops in country. He made that comment on the record during a government hearing. Let's hope his opinion is justified.

HOT5 Daily 2/10/2010

1. "WH counterterrorism chief: Criticizing Obama only aids Al Qaeda" Debunking the latest propaganda from the administration.

Representative Sample: Brennan and his left wing brethren both in and out of the WH don’t understand the difference between making baseless, repugnant moral equivalencies between the US and its worst enemies during a time of war, which effectively sends dangerous signals to the enemy during a time of war that they have unwitting allies in the United States government, versus legitimately expressed concerns that the President of the United States and his national security team might not be doing enough to keep Americans safe, both home and abroad.

2. "The Outer Limits of American Power" A good analysis.

Representative Sample: most of the creeping limits on American power are not limits on its intrinsic power or its realizable power: most of America’s geopolitical rivals would take America’s intrinsic and realizable power over their own if they could change places. I believe most of the limits on American power are limits on its elective power.

3. "Research on Atheists and Morality" A new study is out.

Representative Sample:This is a reminder to me that my position as an atheist means that I'm suspect in the eyes of many people, right off the bat. It's easy to shrug it off and say that people who believe atheists can't be good without god are ignorant, but those ignorant people affect most of us in one way or another.

4. "Liberal Crime Theory Fail" A usual, real world conflicts with left-wing theories.

Representative Sample:Conventional wisdom holds that, in an economic downturn, crime rates should spike. However, the reality is that, with over 7 million jobs lost in the last two years, the crime rate in the U.S. as fallen to its lowest level since the 1960s.

5. "A solar power game-changer?" Interesting new technology.

Representative Sample:A startup company hopes to bring down the cost of generating power with concentrated sunlight by using microscale solar cells that can utilize twice as much light as other panels, without the need for expensive optics or cooling systems.

To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.

The Wilds of Manhattan

Looks like a coyote in the wilderness doesn't it? Actually, it's a coyote in Central Park, NYC, one of three spotted in the city Sunday morning.

Excessive Gun Sentences

When we aren't busy filling our jails with non-violent drug offenders, we are sending other people to jail for the "crime" of possessing otherwise legal weapons at the wrong place and time. Plaxico Burress was a prime example. He got two years in jail for having a gun accident in public -- an accident in which he himself was the only injured person. But because the incident occurred in New York, instead of a state friendlier to the right to bear arms, he's sitting in jail right now.

The latest high profile case of a celebrity heading to jail over possessing a gun in New York is that of rapper Lil' Wayne. (More on the case here).  He's facing an expected year in jail. A year in jail for what? He apparently had a handgun on his tour bus that was discovered by police while they were searching for -- what else -- drugs. He didn't do anything with the gun. It wasn't stolen, used in a crime, pointed at police, or used in any other way that should justify throwing someone in jail. He simply owned a gun, and didn't have a license to have it in New York. How is that worth a year in jail? Such a procedural offense should be penalized by a moderate fine. 

I'm sure some people look at Plaxico Burress, an arrogant, obnoxious athlete who was stupid enough to shoot himself in the leg, or Lil' Wayne, with all the baggage that comes with the rap scene, and think: it serves them right. Maybe jail will teach them a lesson and knock them down a notch. But the problem is that states like New York, with their ridiculously excessive penalties for gun violations, can turn their wrath against ordinary gun owners. If rich celebrities like rappers and NFL players get thrown in jail for a year or two, what happens to an average person from out of state who drives through New York with his legally purchased weapons, gets stopped, and is found to be in possession of weapons unlicensed and therefore illegal in New York?