Diberdayakan oleh Blogger.

Popular Posts Today

Taking Note: Why Darrell Issa Turned Off the Mic

Written By Unknown on Jumat, 07 Maret 2014 | 13.26

House Republicans were in the minority for many decades, and those who remember that long period know what it was like to be regularly steamrollered by Democratic leaders. For the most part, they've agreed to a basic understanding in the House that members of the minority have a right to speak up in disagreement. They can be ignored, and they usually are, but if they're muzzled, it makes the majority look like a bunch of insecure authoritarians. And it could come back to haunt them if the majority shifts again.

That's why Darrell Issa's actions on Wednesday were so shocking to House decorum. Mr. Issa, a California Republican who is chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, refused to let the panel's ranking Democrat, Elijah Cummings of Maryland, ask any questions at a hearing about the Internal Revenue Service's investigation of non-profit groups. Mr. Issa had been castigating a former I.R.S. official, Lois Lerner, for taking the Fifth Amendment, and when Mr. Cummings tried to take his normal turn to ask a question, Mr. Issa adjourned the meeting and cut off Mr. Cumming's microphone.

This kind of behavior is typical of Mr. Issa, who runs his committee like a permanently angry Marine drill sergeant. Democrats held news conferences and complained on television and introduced a resolution of disapproval, which of course will go nowhere. But as Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader, pointed out, this was bigger than mere rudeness.

"It's about not hearing what you don't want to hear," she said.

There was a good reason Mr. Issa cut off his colleague. For months he has been on a single-minded crusade to prove the Obama administration ordered the I.R.S. to target conservative and Republican groups that spent unlimited secret money on political activity in 2012. He has accused the I.R.S. of targeting Americans for their political beliefs, a very serious charge for which he has produced not the slightest piece of evidence, clearly hoping that if he says it often enough, and loud enough, the message will sink in.

But Mr. Cummings has very effectively prevented that message from becoming accepted wisdom. He and the committee's Democratic staff have shown that the I.R.S. didn't just scrutinize Tea Party groups, but also groups with names that included "progressive" and "occupy." That's because the agency wasn't on a political witch hunt, but was instead trying to figure out whether thousands of "social welfare" groups were abusing their tax exemptions by engaging in politics, of whatever stripe.

That undermines Mr. Issa's narrative of aggrievement. It shows that Mr. Issa's endless hearings are nothing more than hyperbolic stagecraft. And it's exactly the kind of thing that House minorities are supposed to point out when it happens. For Mr. Issa, the fear of again being exposed as a fraud was greater than his fear of being accused of trampling on minority rights. When politicians reach for the microphone switch, you know they've lost the argument.


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Opinionator | Private Lives: Snow Mania

Written By Unknown on Kamis, 06 Maret 2014 | 13.26

Private Lives: Personal essays on the news of the world and the news of our lives.

What did Spring Festival mean to a child like me, growing up in rural China in the early 1970s, in the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution? Chocolate? Not at a time when even table sugar was a luxury good. We hadn't even heard of chocolate. Candy? Impossible. How could a poor family like ours, which was never even issued the official ration coupons, purchase it? Rice, then? No, not even that.

In those years, folks like us, living near the banks of the lower Yangtze River — a so-called home to rice and fish — barely scratched out a living, feeding ourselves on sweet potatoes, beans and tulip bulbs all year round. A bowl of rice was a luxury meal. Rice, white crystalline rice, was never to be had, except in our dreams.

One Spring Festival, which marks the Chinese New Year, left an indelible impression on my mind, and taught me a lot about the world. It was 1972, if I recall correctly, and I was 6 years old.

It was three days before the festival, and the weather was unusually cold. Cracks formed in our frozen water jugs, and the spoons in the kitchen felt as if they were made of ice. By midafternoon, ominous clouds began to form, and the wind, blowing in heavy gusts, kept all children indoors. Just then, two little girls from nearby Anhui Province knocked feebly at our door.

Mom let the girls in. They were about 7 or 8 years old and spoke a kind of dialect peculiar to Anhui. It was hard to follow, but at long last Dad made out what they were saying. Their parents were so poverty-stricken that they left their daughters to wander off, begging for food. Mom spread some dried bean stalks on our mud floor, over which she added a small mattress and a quilt. She prepared some warm soup with minced tulip slices and carrots for supper. I felt a little disheartened, for two more mouths meant less food in our stomachs that night, but sympathy for the girls prevailed. They ate with us, in silence.

The next morning, two days before the festival, some faint light leaked out of a crack in the sky. Later, snow began to fall. Something deep in the recess of my mind was triggered. What caused it, I don't know. I only know that an unspeakable impulse coursed within me, and all of a sudden I began to hallucinate the white flakes of snow as grains of white rice!

In no time, I brought into play my talent of commanding my peers, by ordering the two little girls to help me carry out buckets, basins and every container we could get hold of. I forgot they were strangers. We aligned these containers in one straight, neat line, waiting for the grains of snow to fall into them. I began to jump around, and my excitement infected A-huang, my dog, who shot out of the house like an arrow off a bow, and joined me, wagging his tail. Seeing this, the two little girls joined as well. They mimicked us, jumping around for a while, but before long their little legs grew tired. They must have been exhausted, and unbearably hungry. They continued to watch half-attentively.

The more densely the snow fell, the more intensely I jumped. Below the gray, sullen sky, I raced from one end to another of the alley before our door, all the while crouching as if I were weaving through bushes of rice stalks. I imagined myself on a bright rice paddy, a merry rice paradise. Then I opened all my pockets and my mouth, and stood there, ready to receive the grains.

This was an extreme yet natural reaction for children in those days, a demonstration of extreme longing, of the painful rounds of expectation, frustrated expectation, renewed expectation, disappointment and, ultimately, despair. I was like the children who, on midautumn nights, opened their mouths toward the full moon and howled, "mooncakes, mooncakes!"

When the snow turned into bigger, whiter flakes, I suddenly realized that it was time to harvest the crop. I ordered the two girls to help collect the vessels, and brought them into the house, for Mom to cook our New Year's Eve dinner. But when I finished, and looked down into the buckets, all I could find was pools of water. I was dumbfounded. "Where is the white rice?" I asked Mom, drenched and exhausted. "It has been eaten by heaven," she replied wryly.

By now the warmth from my body had melted the grains of snow on my clothes. The mud floor below my feet was dimmed by the water drops. I sat down on a little wooden stool, gasping. My dog, with his wet fur, cuddled slavishly at my feet, at times sniffing my shoes, at times my trouser bottoms, as if he, like me, were searching for something to put in his stomach. My eyes grew tired, as I stared out through the crack of the doors into the snow-filled world. The two little girls looked at me for a while, perplexed. I felt water running down from my head into my mouth, with a salty taste. Was it melted snow, or tears? I don't know.

When Spring Festival came, it meant nothing at all to me. Once again, we had tulips and sweet potatoes. Probably I stayed indoors reading storybooks with pictures of sallow-faced American children going hungry in the streets, their disheveled and thickly mustached fathers carrying bowls begging from house to house. Seeing those children, I felt more at ease, for we were relatively happier and merrier than those poorer kids from the capitalist world.

One day, after many years, I chanced to look up the definition of the English word "mania" — "an irrational but irresistible motive for a belief or action." There is no exact word for that feeling in Chinese, but I understood deeply what it meant. As a 6-year-old boy, overcome with extreme hunger, I had known it. Today, I still wonder: Was it "snow mania" or "rice mania," and what caused it?


Haiming Xu is a professor of applied linguistics at Shanghai International Studies University.


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Opinionator | Draft: My Character to Kill

Written By Unknown on Selasa, 04 Maret 2014 | 13.26

Draft is a series about the art and craft of writing.

John Wells and I have been together a very long time.

If you haven't heard of Wells, he's a C.I.A. operative who plays the starring role in a series of espionage thrillers that I started writing a decade ago. Random House published the first, "The Faithful Spy," in 2006. I planned to kill Wells off at its end, a la John le Carre's Alec Leamas. But my editor told me I couldn't end with a fade to black, that I'd have to have a funeral. I found I couldn't write the scene.

Since then, Wells has proven too tough to die, or maybe too mean. I've lost track of how many men he's killed, but it's well past two dozen. Last month, Putnam published his eighth adventure, "The Counterfeit Agent." The ninth will follow in 2015. By then, I'll have devoted almost one million words — and a major chunk of my life — to him.

Wells predates my wife, Jackie, and our daughter, Lucy. He has survived three moves and outlasted his original agent, editor and publishing house. He ushered me out of my job as a reporter at The Times to become a full-time novelist. Without him, I would never have met Jackie, who happened to be in a bar at the Hotel Commonwealth in Boston on the night when I was staying there on tour for "The Faithful Spy."

All of which is another way of saying that John Wells has markedly enriched my life — an impressive feat for a man who doesn't exist. Sometimes I fear our relationship is as one-sided as "The Giving Tree." I take from him ruthlessly. Over the years, I've destroyed his relationships with his son, his fiancée and now his new girlfriend. I've forced him to beat up innocent civilians, people he's never even met before, because they're in his way. I've made him accept that his superiors are using him for their political ends, and that he can't stop them. I've shot him, tortured him, broken his bones. I've converted him to Islam, then stretched his faith in Allah to the vanishing point. Through it all, he perseveres, though sometimes I know he's looking at me, Job-like: Why must you hurt me so? To which I can say only: It's this or nothing. Besides, I get you through the worst of it.

Readers ask me if I'm like him. Sadly for me, the answer is largely no. Wells and I are both tall, both cynical about power, both ride motorcycles. But he's much tougher than I am. From my very limited experience in war zones, I know I couldn't survive what he's been through.

The years have worn him, though. I see it. They've worn me, too. For all that Wells gives, he also takes. Our history limits my freedom as a writer. I decided early on that for my novels to be as authentic as possible within the limits of genre fiction, they had to be internally consistent. What happens in one novel affects the next. Wells's memory is as real to him as yours is to you, and the grooves of his life deepen each year.

This path is tricky for any novelist, but more so for thriller writers than others, since thriller readers expect big plots. A detective can solve murders for his entire career, but how many times can a C.I.A. operative battle terrorists, warlords and arms dealers before losing any credibility? Worse, I purpose-built Wells for his first mission infiltrating Al Qaeda in "The Faithful Spy." Now I constantly search for realistic ways to bring him into new adventures.

I hope I've kept Wells from turning into a caricature. Still, I know that writing a series excludes me from one of the great pleasures of the fiction writer, the opportunity to create an entirely fresh world with each new novel. Even my first page isn't truly blank. But in return I get the chance to discover more about Wells and the people around him with each of his journeys.

I also get a built-in audience, along with the pleasure of hearing from readers who gobble up years of work in a matter of weeks — though they may catch continuity errors that I've missed along the way. (Most embarrassingly, Wells's dog Tonka switches genders, going from female to male. Whenever sharp-eyed readers point out that mistake, I explain that Tonka quietly had sex-reassignment surgery, which health privacy laws keep me from discussing further.)

What I don't get anymore is much critical attention. Series novelists are considered less review-worthy than their one-and-done peers. The difference represents more than just the gap between literary and commercial fiction. Even critics who treat genre authors respectfully are loath to review long-running series. Obviously, I'm biased, but I think they're making a mistake. The series format gives authors the opportunity to develop characters and relationships while providing enough action to satisfy meat-and-potatoes readers. The Hollywood analogy is obvious. "Breaking Bad," "The Sopranos" and other great television series of the last 15 years would never have worked as movies. They needed room to breathe.

Too soon, though, all those shows ended. Hit television shows are crazily expensive to make after four or five seasons. But even if the finances can be solved, another problem looms. Actors age, and the best ones demand new challenges. Bryan Cranston didn't want to be Walter White forever.

As a novelist, I don't have that problem. John Wells will stick around as long as I say. Whether he ages is up to me, and it's a very tricky issue. On the one hand, authenticity demands aging. Wells was in Afghanistan undercover with Al Qaeda before the Sept. 11 attacks. In the early novels of the series, his failure to stop them is the crucial fact in his life. I can't forget that piece of his history. Yet … Wells was no younger than 30 before Sept. 11. He's now in his early 40s, still young enough to take the kind of physical punishment I deal him. But I am very aware that in the not-too-distant future I'll stretch the limits of readers' disbelief.

Faced with a similar problem, Tom Clancy steadily promoted Jack Ryan from naval professor to president of the United States. But Wells is a field man and always will be. So I'm faced with two disagreeable alternatives. Either I ask readers to accept that my hero is beating up guys half his age. Or I unmoor him from the facts of his life and make him as ageless as James Bond, forever in his prime. Celluloid heroes never really die.

Or, I suppose, I could summon my courage and do what I didn't have the guts to do way back when, in "The Faithful Spy": accept that Wells has outlived his time, that readers are tired of the conflict between Islam and the West, that I need to challenge myself creatively with a fresh canvas and new stories.

But I'm not sure I can say goodbye to a man whom I know so intimately, who has defined my creative life for so long — and who will pay the mortgage for at least one more contract. Putting Wells in the ground would wake me to my own mortality as much as his. After all our years together, at least I know what he would choose. He's not afraid to die with his boots on.

Me, I'm not so sure. In the meantime, I comfort myself that the decision can wait. "The Counterfeit Agent" is over — and on that hoariest and most effective of narrative tricks, the cliffhanger. Time for us both to saddle up.

Alex Berenson, a former reporter for The Times, is a novelist and screenwriter.


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Room for Debate: Is a Settlement Boycott Best for Israel?

Written By Unknown on Senin, 03 Maret 2014 | 13.25

  • Daniel_gordis2-thumbstandard

    Daniel Gordis

    Daniel Gordis, is the Koret distinguished fellow and chair of the core curriculum at Shalem College in Jerusalem. He is the author of "Menachem Begin: The Battle for Israel's Soul."

  • Larafriedmanrfd-thumbstandard

    Lara Friedman

    Lara Friedman, a former U.S. foreign service officer, is the director of policy and government relations for Americans for Peace Now.


Remove the Obstacle to Real Peace

Lara Friedman 6:00 PM

Larafriedmanrfd-thumbstandard

Many Israelis hope that settlements will establish irreversible Israeli control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and create what they hope will be an insurmountable obstacle to the emergence of any future Palestinian state.

For decades, the world has protested, toothlessly, against settlements and the occupation. Boycotting settlements puts teeth into that protest – teeth bared, appropriately, not at Israel but at pro-settlement policies. As demonstrated by the Israeli reaction to European Union policies targeting settlements, and by the SodaStream fracas, these teeth can bite.

Israeli supporters of settlements and opponents of a Jewish state (including some in the global B.D.S. movement) despise the idea of boycotting settlements. Their zero-sum aspirations – either for a Greater Israel or Palestine-from-the-river-to-the-sea – are grounded in the insistence that Israel and the occupied territories are indivisible.

A settlement boycott, in contrast, insists not only on the illegitimacy of settlements, but also on the legitimacy of Israel, as defined, until a future agreement, by the 1949 armistice line – the "Green Line."

Insist not only on the illegitimacy of settlements, but also on the legitimacy of Israel.


Settlements have already cost Israelis dearly, in terms of their nation's reputation, the health of its democracy, and its budget priorities. The security costs, too, have been high, with Israel's lines of defense gerrymandered to accommodate settlements and with soldiers and resources continually diverted from protecting Israel against threats, to servicing the settlers. Most important, settlements threaten the two-state solution, without which Israel's future as a democracy and a Jewish state are in peril.

A policy of boycotting settlements – adopted by nations and people who care about Israel – can push Israeli leaders to finally choose: Do they stand with settlements or do they stand with an Israel that truly seeks peace with its neighbors? Such a policy is clearly in the best interests of Israel, and may prove critical to keeping open the path for peace.


Palestinian Intransigence Is the Obstacle

Daniel Gordis 6:00 PM

Daniel_gordis2-thumbstandard

Polls indicate that two-thirds of Israelis would cede almost all of the West Bank to make peace with the Palestinians. The reason that no agreement has ever been reached is not because of the settlers – who oppose such concessions but who would be outvoted in a plebiscite – but because the Palestinians are not interested in a deal.

Boycotting the settlements is immoral, for it would punish Israelis for Palestinians' failure to accept the Jewish state.

In recent decades, the Israeli position on the Palestinians has shifted sharply. The left-leaning Prime Minister Golda Meir said, in the 1970's, "There is no Palestinian people." But matters have changed. For the past four years, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has supported the principle of a Palestinian state. What has not changed, however, is the Palestinians. The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, recently reiterated his stance that recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is "out of the question." No less important, he has never, ever outlined his positions on critical issues such as the right of return for refugees, a right which – if actualized – could end Israel's Jewishness overnight.

Boycotting the settlements is immoral, for it would punish Israelis for Palestinian intransigence. It is also unfair to Palestinians, for boycotts that focus on businesses based in the West Bank (SodaStream is a case in point) result in Palestinians losing their jobs.

But worst, boycotts undermine the peace process. Israelis are likely to continue to press for peace when they feel supported by the international community. Absent that support, they will be more reticent to take on the security risks that territorial concessions entail. Peace will then prove even more elusive not only because of the Palestinians, but due to international boycotters who only pretend to want to help.


Dissonance Is Within Israel, Not With Arabs

Lara Friedman 6:00 PM

Larafriedmanrfd-thumbstandard

In 1993, when peace efforts started, the West Bank and East Jerusalem were home to around 265,000 settlers. At the end of 2012, this number stood at around 540,000. The trend continues today: since the start of current peace efforts last August, the Israeli government has opened the settlement floodgates, promoting thousands of new units, including in areas that cannot possibly remain under Israeli control in a future peace agreement.

Most Israelis would cede land for peace. But settlers and their government supporters try to make sure that never happens.

While Netanyahu is nonetheless ostensibly committed to a Palestinian state, pro-settlement members of his government openly disagree, including top Israeli minister Naftali Bennett, who publicly gloats that settlements have taken the two-state option off the table. Another minister and two Likud members of the Knesset are pressing for Israel to annex the West Bank. Out of 20 Likud Knesset members, 17 oppose a Palestinian state. And politically powerful settler leaders proudly tout their success in blocking a Palestinian state.

Both Israeli and Palestinian leaders have behaved in ways that cast doubt on their desire for peace, staking out hardline positions on various issues supposedly up for negotiation. These include Netanyahu recently vowing not to remove a single settlement. Whether these leaders can eventually reach an agreement at the negotiating table is unclear. What is clear, however, is that settlement construction is an egregious example of an Israeli policy – with concrete impact on the ground – that is inconsistent with a commitment to peace and a two-state solution. And it is a policy choice for which Israel bears sole responsibility.

Boycotting settlements isn't about rewarding the Palestinians for not making peace. It is about reminding Israelis – most of whom indeed support peace and are ready to cede land to achieve it – that settlement expansion and support for peace are mutually exclusive. It is about reminding them, too, of the high price of handing their nation's future to ideologues who value land and settlements over peace, security, democracy, and Israel's standing in the world.


Israel Can Overcome Its Division to Win Peace

Daniel Gordis 6:00 PM

Daniel_gordis2-thumbstandard

Lara's arguments omit critical elements that would point to the senselessness of boycotts.

Yes, the number of settlers has grown. But many live in communities (like Gilo) that are essentially Jerusalem urban sprawl or thriving cities (like Maale Adumim with more than 40,000 residents) which even the Palestinians know will not be dismantled. And most Israelis already want smaller outposts dismantled.

Global action should be focused not on the Jewish state but on getting Arab leaders to be more open.

It is true that while Netanyahu has endorsed a Palestinian state, members of his governing coalition are ardent opponents. But consider his broader political strategies. He knows that if talks to advance that solution progress, those right-wing colleagues may leave the government. That is why he is not supporting a bill to draft the ultra Orthodox into the army, even though he favors it, so he can keep the ultra Orthodox (who have no position on a Palestinian state) a part of his coalition.

Only right-wing Israeli prime ministers have ever ceded land, and those to their right have never succeeded in blocking them. They couldn't when Begin returned the Sinai to Egypt, or when Sharon pulled out of Gaza, and they couldn't now.

So why would we need boycotts to remind Israelis how problematic the current situation is? Polls show Israelis want a deal. The prime minister expended significant political capital when he announced his support for a Palestinian state and then agreed – even with his right-wing coalition deeply opposed – to join the Kerry negotiations. Yet the Palestinians still refuse to budge, because people like those who support a boycott let them know that time is on their side, so they might as well dig in their heels.

When the Palestinians commit to ending the conflict once and for all and recognize us as the Jewish state we are, they will have their state. Israelis like me will vote for far-reaching concessions, wishing our neighbors nothing less than unbounded success and genuine peace.


Resist Extremists on Both Sides

Lara Friedman 6:00 PM

Larafriedmanrfd-thumbstandard

There is nothing senseless about boycotting settlements. It is a carefully considered policy, grounded in support for Israel and the two-state solution. It is needed because many Israelis, their leaders and their defenders have come to believe that wanting peace – or claiming to – or shifting focus to what Palestinians have or have not done, absolves Israel of responsibility to ensure that, by its own actions, peace does not become unattainable.

Settlement boycott undermines those who say the occupied territory let Israel thrive or that the Jewish state must end for a Palestinian one to live.

Certainly, some settlements would likely become part of Israel in an agreement, but facts on the ground tell the whole story: In 1993, "settlement blocs," areas Israel would want to keep in a peace agreement, comprised a tiny part of the West Bank. Today, they comprise so much area that a viable, contiguous Palestinian state is nearly impossible. And today, settlement construction, and approvals for more, continues across the West Bank, including in areas that Israel could not possibly hope to keep under a negotiated agreement.

Yes, Netanyahu has committed himself to peace and the two-state solution while navigating complicated political waters, but his polices have been consistently pro-settlement, regardless of domestic politics. In his first term as prime minister (late 1990s), he defied the world to establish the settlement of Har Homa; his second term saw a settlement surge so large it erased the nine-month partial settlement "moratorium" imposed early in this period; and that surge has increased in his current term.

This is the context for today's settlement boycott. This boycott is about patriotic Israelis and their friends overseas saying, enough. No more having the cake and washing it down, cost-free, with water carbonated in a machine made in a settlement, or wine from settlement vineyards.

Both Israelis and Palestinians who support the two-state solution stand to benefit from a settlement boycott. Time is on the side of extremists, on both sides, who prefer a winner-take-all outcome to a negotiated, two-state solution that is the best guarantee of Israel's future as a democracy and a Jewish state. Only by embracing the idea of a settlement boycott can people who care about Israel push back against the false binary advanced by B.D.S. activists and Greater Israel ideologues alike: supporting the occupation or regarding Israel itself as the enemy.


Back the Only Modern Demcracy in the Region

Daniel Gordis 6:00 PM

Daniel_gordis2-thumbstandard

"Supporting the occupation or regarding Israel itself as the enemy" is, indeed, a false binary. But that in no way suggests that boycotts are necessary or just. Precisely the opposite is the case. There is an infinitely better alternative: It is for the West to do, once again, what it used to do when it was animated by principle and conviction – to support those countries that embody its values, and to pressure those that do not to embrace the very best of political liberalism.

The West must be animated by principle to support those who embody its values, and pressure those who do not to embrace political liberalism.

Israel is a genuine democracy, but the Palestinian Authority is not. Israel protects the freedoms of gays and lesbians, but the P.A. persecutes people on the basis of sexual preference. Israel has a vital and free press, but the P.A. represses free expression at every turn. Israel has consistently stated its commitment to the realization of the political aspirations of the Palestinian people, but no Palestinian leader has been willing to state that Israel is the legitimate fulfillment of the national aspirations of the Jewish people.

Which society, then, should the United States and Europe be cajoling? Had the West pressured the Palestinians to create a genuine liberal democracy decades ago, Palestinians might have voted for a brighter future and this conflict might well have been resolved. But the West failed. Boycotts will hurt Israel, but far worse, they will embolden Palestinian recalcitrance.

Israelis already overwhelmingly favor making a deal if the Palestinians meet them midway. A poll last week indicated that approximately 75 percent would vote for a deal that gave up most of the West Bank, and even split Jerusalem, in return for a genuine peace. Such a population does not need to be boycotted; in fact, boycotting would backfire. If and when Israel eventually elects a hard-right leader, wholly uninterested in a deal, it will be in large measure because Israelis became convinced that there was no way to get a fair hearing in the court of international opinion, even when they were willing to make the deal. The West will then have failed once again, and the boycotts will have wrought precisely the opposite of what their proponents say they hope to accomplish.


Join Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.


13.25 | 0 komentar | Read More

Opinionator | The Stone: The Philosophy of ‘Her’

The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.

You know, I actually used to be so worried about not having a body, but now I truly love it … I'm not tethered to time and space in the way that I would be if I was stuck inside a body that's inevitably going to die. — Samantha, in "Her"

Set in the not-too-distant future, Spike Jonze's film "Her" explores the romantic relationship between Samantha, a computer program, and Theodore Twombly, a human being. Though Samantha is not human, she feels the pangs of heartbreak, intermittently longs for a body and is bewildered by her own evolution. She has a rich inner life, complete with experiences and sensations.

"Her" raises two questions that have long preoccupied philosophers. Are nonbiological creatures like Samantha capable of consciousness — at least in theory, if not yet in practice? And if so, does that mean that we humans might one day be able to upload our own minds to computers, perhaps to join Samantha in being untethered from "a body that's inevitably going to die"?

Might we humans be able to upload our minds to computers, perhaps to join our digital lovers in the virtual universe?

This is not mere speculation. The Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University has released a report on the technological requirements for uploading a mind to a machine. A Defense Department agency has funded a program, Synapse, that is trying to develop a computer that resembles a brain in form and function. The futurist Ray Kurzweil, now a director of engineering at Google, has even discussed the potential advantages of forming friendships, "Her"-style, with personalized artificial intelligence systems. He and others contend that we are fast approaching the "technological singularity," a point at which artificial intelligence, or A.I., surpasses human intelligence, with unpredictable consequences for civilization and human nature.

Is all of this really possible? Not everyone thinks so. Some people argue that the capacity to be conscious is unique to biological organisms, so that even superintelligent A.I. programs would be devoid of conscious experience. If this view is correct, then a relationship between a human being and a program like Samantha, however intelligent she might be, would be hopelessly one-sided. Moreover, few humans would want to join Samantha, for to upload your brain to a computer would be to forfeit your consciousness.

This view, however, has been steadily losing ground. Its opponents point out that our best empirical theory of the brain holds that it is an information-processing system and that all mental functions are computations. If this is right, then creatures like Samantha can be conscious, for they have the same kind of minds as ours: computational ones. Just as a phone call and a smoke signal can convey the same information, thought can have both silicon- and carbon-based substrates. Indeed, scientists have produced silicon-based artificial neurons that can exchange information with real neurons. The neural code increasingly seems to be a computational one.

You might worry that we could never be certain that programs like Samantha were conscious. This concern is akin to the longstanding philosophical conundrum known as the "problem of other minds." The problem is that although you can know that you yourself are conscious, you cannot know for sure that other people are. You might, after all, be witnessing behavior with no accompanying conscious component.

In the face of the problem of other minds, all you can do is note that other people have brains that are structurally similar to your own and conclude that since you yourself are conscious, others are likely to be conscious as well. When confronted with a high-level A.I. program like Samantha, your predicament wouldn't be all that different, especially if that program had been engineered to work like the human brain. While we couldn't be certain that an A.I. program genuinely felt anything, we can't be certain that other humans do, either. But it would seem probable in both cases.

If the Samanthas of the future will have inner lives like ours, however, I suspect that we will not be able to upload ourselves to computers to join them in the digital universe. To see why, imagine that Theodore wants to upload himself. Imagine, furthermore, that uploading involves (a) scanning a human brain in such exacting detail that it destroys the original and (b) creating a software model that thinks and behaves in precisely the same way as the original did. If Theodore were to undergo this procedure, would he succeed in transferring himself into the digital realm? Or would he, as I suspect, succeed only in killing himself, leaving behind a computational copy of his mind — one that, adding insult to injury, would date his girlfriend?

Ordinary physical objects follow a continuous path through space over time. For Theodore to transfer his mind into a computer program, however, his mind would not follow a continuous trajectory. His brain would be destroyed when the scan was made, and the information about his precise brain configuration would be sent to a computer, which could be miles away.

Furthermore, if Theodore were to truly upload his mind (as opposed to merely copy its contents), then he could be downloaded to multiple other computers. Suppose that there are five such downloads: Which one is the real Theodore? It is hard to provide a nonarbitrary answer. Could all of the downloads be Theodore? This seems bizarre: As a rule, physical objects and living things do not occupy multiple locations at once. It is far more likely that none of the downloads are Theodore, and that he did not upload in the first place.

Related
More From The Stone

Read previous contributions to this series.

Worse yet, imagine that the scanning procedure doesn't destroy Theodore's brain, so the original Theodore survives. If he survives the scan, why conclude that his consciousness has transferred to the computer? It should still reside in his brain. But if you believe that his mind doesn't transfer if his brain isn't destroyed, then why believe that his mind does transfer if his brain is destroyed?

It is here that we press up against the boundaries of the digital universe. It seems there is a categorical divide between humans and programs: Humans cannot upload themselves to the digital universe; they can upload only copies of themselves — copies that may themselves be conscious beings.

Does this mean that uploading projects should be scrapped? I don't think so, for uploading technology can benefit our species. A global catastrophe may make the world inhospitable to biological life forms, and uploading may be the only way to preserve the human way of life and thinking, if not actual humans themselves. And uploading could facilitate the development of brain therapies and enhancements that can benefit humans and nonhuman animals. Furthermore, uploading may give rise to a form of superintelligent A.I. A.I. that is descended from us may have greater chance of being benevolent toward us.

Finally, some humans will understandably want digital backups of themselves. What if you found out that you were going to die soon? A desire to contribute a backup copy of yourself might outweigh your desire to spend a few more days on the planet. Or you might wish to leave a copy of yourself to communicate with your children or complete projects that you care about. Indeed, the Samanthas of the future might be uploaded copies of deceased humans we have loved deeply. Or perhaps our best friends will be copies of ourselves, but tweaked in ways we find insightful.


Susan Schneider, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut, is the author of "The Language of Thought" and "Science Fiction and Philosophy."


13.25 | 0 komentar | Read More

Opinionator | The Great Divide: College, the Great Unleveler

Written By Unknown on Minggu, 02 Maret 2014 | 13.26

The Great Divide is a series about inequality.

When the G.I. Bill of Rights of 1944 made colleges accessible to veterans regardless of socioeconomic background, Robert Maynard Hutchins, the president of the University of Chicago, worried that it would transform elite institutions into "educational hobo jungles." But the G.I. Bill was only the first of several federal student aid laws that, along with increasing state investment in public universities and colleges, transformed American higher education over the course of three decades from a bastion of privilege into a path toward the American dream.

Something else began to happen around 1980. College graduation rates kept soaring for the affluent, but for those in the bottom half, a four-year degree is scarcely more attainable today than it was in the 1970s. And because some colleges actually hinder social mobility, what increasingly matters is not just whether you go to college but where.

The demise of opportunity through higher education is, fundamentally, a political failure. Our landmark higher education policies have ceased to function effectively, and lawmakers — consumed by partisan polarization and plutocracy — have neglected to maintain and update them.

More Americans than ever enroll in college, but the graduates who emerge a few years later indicate that instead of reducing inequality, our system of higher education reinforces it. Three out of four adults who grow up in the top quarter of the income spectrum earn baccalaureate degrees by age 24, but it's only one out of three in the next quarter down. In the bottom half of the economic distribution, it's less than one out of five for those in the third bracket and fewer than one out of 10 in the poorest.

That's before we even begin differentiating by type of college. Higher education is becoming a caste system, separate and unequal for students with different family incomes. Where students attend college affects their chances of graduating and how indebted they will become in the process.

Private nonprofits, schools like Stanford or Vassar, list the highest "sticker prices," but the average student pays less than half of full fare. Some nonprofits provide generous need-based aid to low- and middle-income students, supplementing their federal aid. Others devote their resources instead to merit-based aid, courting students with high SAT scores, typically from higher-income backgrounds. These colleges rise in the rankings, but they also provide a disadvantage to poorer students who would benefit from more need-based aid, who struggle financially to stay enrolled and who take out more student loans to do so.

Nearly three-quarters of American college students attend public universities and colleges, historically the nation's primary channels to educational opportunity. These institutions still offer the best bargain around, yet even there, tuition increases have bred inequality. For those from the richest fifth, the annual cost of attending a public four-year college has inched up from 6 percent of family income in 1971 to 9 percent in 2011. For everyone else, the change is formidable. For those in the poorest fifth, costs at State U have skyrocketed from 42 percent of family income to 114 percent.

The worst problems, though, occur at for-profit schools like those run by the Apollo Group (which owns the University of Phoenix), the Education Management Corporation or Corinthian Colleges. These schools cater to low-income students and veterans, but too often they turn hopes for a better life into the despair of financial ruin.

Nearly all of their students take out loans to attend, and the amounts are staggering. Among holders of bachelor's degrees, 94 percent borrow. They take on median debt of $33,000 per student, compared with just $18,000 at the nonprofits and $22,000 at the publics. The for-profit graduates have trouble finding jobs that pay enough to afford their debts, and 23 percent of borrowers default within three years, compared with just 7 percent from nonprofits and 8 percent from publics.

Just when having a highly educated citizenry is more important than ever, how could we be failing so miserably at achieving it? It's not as simple as politicians' terminating laws or gutting funding. Federal student aid has actually increased considerably since 2007. But government has abdicated its leadership role.

First, federal student aid has become less effective in promoting opportunity. In the 1970s, the maximum Pell grants for low-income students covered nearly 80 percent of costs at the average four-year public university, but by 2013-14 they covered just 31 percent. Presidents beginning with Bill Clinton introduced costly new tax policies to help with tuition, but these have failed to improve access for the less well off.

Second, state governments, burdened by the growing cost of Medicaid, K-12 education and prisons, let higher education funding dwindle. Spending per full-time public student fell by an average of 26 percent in real terms between 1990-91 and 2009-10. Besides raising tuition, public colleges have had to squeeze resources at the schools themselves. For poorer students, graduating becomes all the harder as class sizes grow, online courses proliferate and support services are cut.

Third, Congress, by loosening regulations, permitted for-profit colleges to thrive on the government's dime. These schools, which enroll nearly a tenth of college students, use nearly a quarter of federal student aid dollars allocated through Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and they account for nearly half of all student loan defaults. A 1998 rule allows them to gain up to 90 percent of their revenues from Title IV alone — a figure that does not include their substantial use of military education money. Even during the 2008 financial downturn, the top publicly traded for-profits enjoyed growth. Their upper management and shareholders benefit at the expense of American taxpayers and students.

Ordinary young Americans who hoped college could be their route to a better future are the victims of a perfect storm of political winds. It began with existing public policies that required routine maintenance being left to wither. As Nancy Kassebaum, a former Republican senator from Kansas, told me, "Public programs, just like any other programs, need to be managed." She remembers when bipartisanship functioned well enough to do so on higher education issues.

Now Congress is more polarized than at any point in modern history, and it's not just decisions on nominations and the debt ceiling that suffer. I examined votes on amendments to higher education bills and found that between the 1970s and 1995-2008 the partisan split doubled in the House and quadrupled in the Senate. Such division on minor adjustments to policies indicates why Congress has failed to address larger issues.

That's not the whole story, either. Plutocratic governance intensifies the dysfunction, as powerful industries still have the strength to bring politicians together across the aisle in a parody of true bipartisanship.

The effect of polarized plutocracy is epitomized by Congress's support for the for-profit colleges. Already in the late 1940s, one senator was criticizing them for "milking the system," providing inferior training to veterans as a means to siphon off G.I. Bill funds. At that time and as recently as the early 1990s, lawmakers from both parties came together to investigate and regulate them. Fiscal conservatives in the Reagan administration, the Republican senators Bob Dole and Phil Gramm, and some Democrats of all stripes sought to rein in the industry's use of federal funds.

But by the late 1990s, Republican leaders championed the for-profits as the "private sector," never mind that 15 of the large publicly traded for-profits receive on average 86 percent of their revenues from federal student aid. Plutocracy helped bring House Democrats onboard, as the industry wooed them through strategic lobbying and campaign contributions. The result? In the House of Representatives, where Democrats and Republicans agree on almost nothing, they have united to protect $32 billion taxpayer dollars for the for-profit college industry.

Is this who we are as a nation? Is this what we aspire to? The federal government must step up and lead. Tougher regulations of the for-profits, long overdue, are the quickest way to help the poorest Americans who seek college degrees. States, too, should be held accountable; a perverse incentive permits them to gain more in federal student aid if they commit less of their own resources to helping poorer students. Nonprofit schools must also be responsible partners with government in furthering opportunity. Lawmakers should curtail the money we spend on tuition tax policies and for-profits, and invest more in Pell grants and community colleges.

Most of us were raised to believe that going to college was the surest path to a better life, but for many today that belief can be perilous. Unless we can claw back polarization and plutocracy enough to restore opportunity in higher education, the United States will become a society in which rank is fixed and our ideal of upward mobility but a memory.

Suzanne Mettler, a professor of government at Cornell University, is the author of "Degrees of Inequality: How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream."

A version of this article appears in print on 03/02/2014, on page SR5 of the National edition with the headline: College, the Great Unleveler.

13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Opinionator | Disunion: The Toys of War

Written By Unknown on Jumat, 28 Februari 2014 | 13.25

Disunion follows the Civil War as it unfolded.

Just in time for Christmas 1866, a 30-year-old game creator named Milton Bradley ran an advertisement in Colman's Rural World, a St. Louis-based publication for farmers. Bradley, a lithographer living in Springfield, Mass., was already well known for inventing "The Checkered Game of Life" in 1860. His 1866 ad promoted his games and amusements as "moral, entertaining, wonderful, and instructive." Among these wonders was the Myriopticon, a toy panorama containing 22 scenes from the history of the "Rebellion" so recently concluded. The toy evidently caught on, at least for a time. The next year, another Bradley puff described the Myriopticon as "immensely popular with boys," especially those ages 7 to 12.

Given the subject – the bloody conflict that ended three-quarters of a million lives – the Myriopticon might seem an unusual choice for Christmas cheer. But Milton Bradley's picture story wrapped the grisly conflict in bright theatrical trappings fit for even the most refined middle-class parlor. In that colorful box were the tools and the script for a splendid game. It made the war dramatic, entertaining, and – above all – fun.

Made of cardboard, the elaborately decorated box – roughly a foot square – mimicked a proscenium stage, with heavy, draped curtains and patriotic bunting as well as a medieval king and queen, a harpist and a tambourine player on the sidelines. On stage, the hand-colored pictures glided past on a long scroll affixed to wooden dowels on either end that could be wound up with a crank or handle.

The complete kit included a broadside announcing the "Grand Artistic and Historical Exhibition," of the "Great Rebellion," a sheet of pretend tickets, and a script for the lucky little showman to follow as the pictures rolled by.

The instructions recommended that the "exhibition" take place in a darkened room, with parlor curtains drawn around the box and a candle light behind it to mimic the ambience of a real theater. The broadside played up the performance, too, "respectfully" requesting the audience to remain seated till the first scene rolled by.

The opening scene in the miniature epic represents Maj. Robert Anderson and his men entering Fort Sumter on Dec. 26, 1860, preparing to defend it against Confederate assault. The pictures move from combat to comic camp scenes, signal towers and mortars, and rebel prisoners under guard. (Bradley supposedly copied the lot from Harper's Weekly, though no one has yet done a systematic analysis.)

Among the crude but lively renditions, Winslow Homer's "Sharpshooter" (which ran in Harper's as "The Army of the Potomac" on Nov. 15, 1862) stands out, the original black and white enhanced by hand coloring in red and blue. Next is the Battle of Fredericksburg, which in turn shifts to a quieter scene (verifiably from a Harper's issue of Jan. 31, 1863) of contrabands just arriving at a Union camp.

The script is as lively as the drawings, mixing a sprightly tone, fast pace and broad humor appropriate for a target audience of prepubescent boys. A depiction of Union foragers attempting to capture some rambunctious hogs is labeled a "very pig-chew-resque scene," and the script styles Homer's dead-serious sharpshooter as the putative relative of a celebrated poet, because he is evidently a "very long fellow." In other sections, the "you are there" address lends immediacy, as when viewers are warned to "proceed very carefully" in approaching a party of soldiers around a campfire.

The Myriopticon was a juvenile variant on other educational amusements made for the middle-class Northern parlor. Adults and children alike peered into stereoscopes for stunningly illusionistic three-dimensional views of Civil War camps, weapons and even dead bodies strewn on battlefields. They also could play and sing war songs around the piano. Soon after the end of hostilities, they could (if affluent) page through Alexander Gardner's hefty two-volume "Photographic Sketchbook of the War," which, like the Myriopticon, presented a tightly scripted history scattered with surprising elisions, notably the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. (Gardener's "Photographic Sketchbook," like Bradley's Myriopticon, dates from 1866.) The last scene in the "Photographic Sketchbook" shows the dedication of the monument at Bull Run; the last in the Myriopticon is the burning and evacuation of Richmond on the night of April 2, 1865.

Of course, no one would ever accuse Gardner or Bradley of engineering a cover-up by failing to include the assassination or glossing over the achievements of black soldiers in the Union Army. But such omissions clue us in to their shared agenda. Both Gardner and Bradley structured and shaped not just the story but also the memory of the war, all scaled down to manageable size, packaged and marketed for home entertainment and instruction. Book and toy alike stand witness to the ways in which the far-off conflict infiltrated and changed daily life, even after the war had ended. A miniature theater of war designed to play and replay the war over and over again, the Myriopticon enshrined and preserved its remembrance. As the instructions put it: "It is much better to have the lecture committed to memory than to read it, as then the facts are impressed upon the memory, and any other remarks can be mixed in, or the description varied to any extent, as long as the facts and dates are retained."

Related
Disunion Highlights

Fort Sumter

Explore multimedia from the series and navigate through past posts, as well as photos and articles from the Times archive.

But they were very particular facts. The Myriopticon told a thrilling saga of bravery, heroic sacrifice, Yankee ingenuity and inevitable triumph, with a few chuckles along the way. It recounted the war as an almost exclusively masculine field of action. And it was very modern in the way it mediated, commercialized and mass-produced the history and memory of the war for fun and profit.

Perhaps the Myriopticon's most modern quality is its proto-cinematic flow. Close-ups give way to distant views in seamless montage. There are lots of guns and explosions, and, just before the grand finale, the uplifting moment when "colored troops" enter Charleston, S.C., where it all began four years earlier. The final apocalyptic scene is a wide-angle view that shows the silhouettes of defeated troops fleeing Richmond as the city burns behind them. Put it in motion, and this scene could be the burning of Atlanta in the 1939 film "Gone With the Wind."

The Myriopticon still fascinates us today because it is almost a movie. In 1866, Bradley also advertised his model of the Zoetrope, a hollow drum which, when rapidly spun, gives the illusion of motion to pictures on the inner surface. It would be decades before storytelling technology finally caught up to create the motion picture as we know it. But the engagingly interactive Myriopticon deserves a place in the genealogy of the modern war movie, which, like its distant ancestor, brings the war home with gripping narrative, vivid imagery, and rousing action.

Follow Disunion at twitter.com/NYTcivilwar or join us on Facebook.


Sarah Burns is a professor emeritus of art history at Indiana University. Daniel Greene is an adjunct professor of history at Northwestern University. They are co-contributors to "Home Front: Daily Life in the Civil War North," a book that accompanies an exhibition in collaboration with the Terra Foundation for American Art, on view at the Newberry Library through March 24, 2014.


13.25 | 0 komentar | Read More

Taking Note: Gay Marriage: Soon Available in Texas

Written By Unknown on Kamis, 27 Februari 2014 | 13.25

Marriage-equality ventured into Texas on Wednesday as U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia issued a preliminary injunction against the state's amendment banning same-sex unions.

Judge Garcia's  opinion sounds a lot like recent rulings out of Virginia and Kentucky and Ohio and Utah, which characterized bans on same-sex marriage as discriminatory and counter to the Fourteenth Amendment.

"The important federalism concerns at issue here are nevertheless insufficient to save a state-law prohibition that denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the law, Judge Robert J. Shelby wrote in December when he struck down Utah's same-sex marriage ban.

Likewise, Judge Garcia wrote: "These Texas laws deny Plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex. The Court finds this denial violates Plaintiffs' equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

(Judge Garcia suspended his ruling until a higher court can hear the case.)

These decisions flow naturally and logically from last spring's Windsor decision, in which the Supreme Court struck down the core provision of the Defense of Marriage Act. They are no longer surprising (which isn't to say they are no longer important or meaningful).

Of course it's not only judges who are coming around quickly to marriage equality. It was only nine years ago, in 2005, that Texas voters approved the ban with an overwhelming 76 percent majority. Less than a decade later it's conceivable that roughly the same population would reject it. A 2013 poll commissioned by Equality Texas found that 52 percent of Texas voters supported recognizing same-sex marriages from other states. A slim plurality of 47.9 percent supported marriage equality in their own state.

Granted, 47.9 percent isn't what you'd call a mandate, but the pace of progress is remarkable, and can't be attributed entirely to demographic shifts (meaning that younger, more tolerant Texans are crowding out the older traditionalists). Despite what social science tells us about confirmation bias and what conventional wisdom tells us about old dogs and new tricks, people are realizing that there is no good reason to deny gay couples the right to marry, and changing their minds.


13.25 | 0 komentar | Read More

Opinionator | Private Lives: Remembering My Mother’s Obsession

Written By Unknown on Minggu, 02 Februari 2014 | 13.26

Private Lives: Personal essays on the news of the world and the news of our lives.

Of all the troubling events from my childhood, one of the most enduring remains the afternoon I visited a prisoner serving a life sentence for murder. It was 1978 and I was 9 years old, escorted to Western Penitentiary in Pittsburgh by my mother, who, compelled by a lifelong objective of raising her son's awareness of injustice in the world, no doubt considered this to be a well-suited occasion.

The injustice, in this particular instance, was the framing of a 21-year-old black man named Stanton Story for the killing of a white Pittsburgh police officer. At the time of our visit, three years had passed since Mr. Story's trial, in which, despite having apparently been in North Carolina on the day of the shooting, he was found guilty by an all-white jury and sentenced to die in the electric chair. Almost three years later, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Mr. Story a new trial (on the grounds that prejudicial evidence had been introduced at the first one) and, having recently declared the death penalty unconstitutional, set aside his death sentence. It was during the run-up to this second trial that the Socialist Workers Party, of which my mother was a dedicated member, began advocating on Mr. Story's behalf.

My mother's substantial commitment, bordering on mania, had made Mr. Story the predominant subject of our household for months. I was acutely aware of the effort she had been expending, at all hours, on meetings, rallies, protests. "Do you dream of freedom?" she had written in one of her many letters to Mr. Story. Then, for fear that the guards would suspect this question to be a coded invitation to attempt escape, she had frantically whited it out.

What I recall about that afternoon visit, several hours long, is mostly a feeling of dismay. Mr. Story was so pleasant, so courteous, diffident even, that the prospect of his spending the rest of his life in prison was not something I could fathom. I was also bored. The conversation between my mother and Mr. Story, which I was expected to sit through silently, revolved mainly around the particulars of a forthcoming carwash that would raise funds for his legal team. The visit ended abruptly with his being led away, but before the door closed behind him, he turned to wave a melancholy goodbye to my mother, who, standing beside me, gripping my hand, was cursing the guards under her breath and sobbing uncontrollably.

At the new trial, Mr. Story was again found guilty by an all-white jury, and since the death penalty had been reinstated, sentenced a second time to the electric chair — a sentence that on appeal would once more be reduced to life in prison. My mother, mercifully, spared me the details, informing me only that he had "lost." What are we going to do now, I remember asking, because surely, given Mr. Story's innocence, and given my mother's unflagging determination, there was always something more to be done. But no, my mother said, this was it, there was nothing else we could do. So after that, we never mentioned his name again.

But I never forgot him. Over the years, that final image of Mr. Story, looking back at us, would pop into my head at the most inopportune moments. Here I am playing basketball, I would think, and Stanton Story is still in prison. Here I am sitting on my new couch from Crate and Barrel, and Stanton Story is still in prison. Thus my mother's goal to raise my awareness of injustice in the world had been achieved. Achieved so effectively, in fact, that 30 years after that visit it occurred to me that I could contact Mr. Story, perhaps hear his account of the injustice done to him and, as with other wrongful convictions, help free him. If this sounds like a childish thought, that's because it is.

After a series of unsuccessful phone calls and Internet searches, I finally learned that Mr. Story was now incarcerated at a supermax prison 50 miles south of Pittsburgh. In addition, I found a Twitter account, ostensibly set up for Mr. Story, listing a few unsettling tweets, including "HELP HELP HELP HELP PLEASE HELP."

"Dear Mr. Story," I wrote, "I'm not sure if you'll remember me, but years ago I came to visit you one afternoon with my mother …"

One week later came a reply. No, he did not remember me. He remembered my mother, though, "a very good and dear friend," whom he thought of often. He still had a photograph in his cell of the two of them, taken at one of her many visits. His grammar was occasionally off, but all things considered he wrote with elegance and optimism. "I guess you can say that I'm constantly trying to make the best out of a bad situation" was a refrain he would repeat in nearly every letter to me. He was still hoping for a new trial. He thought the prospects were good. We made plans for me to visit. He was excited to get started, to tell me his story. "I don't want to get too far ahead of myself," he wrote.

In the meantime, I began to research his case. One of the first websites that I came across, though, was a memorial for slain police officers, which had dedicated a page to Patrick Wallace, the officer who had allegedly been killed by Mr. Story. Up to this point, I had never given much thought to Mr. Wallace. In fact, I had never given any thought to him. It occurred to me as I read that not only did I know very little about Mr. Wallace, but I also knew very little about any of the details of the case.

I soon discovered some troubling things. I learned, for instance, that at his second trial, Mr. Story admitted he had lied about his alibi of being in North Carolina. He had been in Pittsburgh, at the scene of the shooting, but he insisted that it was his companion, a man named Richard Davis, who had fired the fatal shot. Moreover, I found that he had a long history with crime, beginning as a teenager. When he was 21, he was convicted on multiple counts of armed robbery and sent to Western Penitentiary. In prison, his behavior was so exemplary that he was granted a three-day furlough, but during those three days he robbed two banks and fled to North Carolina. A month later he returned to Pittsburgh, where he may or may not have shot and killed Patrick Wallace.

All of this I was just beginning to process as I made my way from New York City to Waynesburg, Penn., to visit Mr. Story.

I had made the mistake of skipping breakfast, partly out of poor planning, but mostly out of anxiety, so that by the time I arrived I was famished. He was waiting for me when I walked in, sitting patiently at a table in the visitor's room. He had gray in his beard. He was 57 years old now.

We broke the ice by having a good laugh at the expense of the Socialist Workers Party, whose members, Mr. Story said, had disapproved when he told them that when he got out of prison he would buy a house. "We don't believe in private property," they had counseled. He spoke highly of my mother, however, and seemed to bear no ill will that she had fallen out of touch. For the next six hours we talked about his childhood, his life in prison, the improprieties in his two trials, the details of the crime.

I was plagued by a sinking feeling that even if he were innocent — which he might very well be — there would be no way to prove it. His conviction appeared to hinge largely on the testimony of Mr. Wallace's partner, whose identifications of the two men at the scene were somewhat marred by ambiguities. No bullets had been found, which meant no gun could be connected to the crime. There seemed to be no hard evidence to prove either innocence or guilt. Still, he had been sentenced twice to the electric chair.

Unable to feed myself, I fed Mr. Story. Fish sandwiches and green tea from the vending machine. I was surprised at how high his spirits remained. He described how years ago he had been shackled and transferred across the country by bus. "I looked out the window the entire time," he said. "It was the best week of my life."

When our visit was over, we promised to keep in touch. We parted with hopes and expectations. I was aware that he was smiling at me when he went back to his cell.

But the hopes and expectations were soon replaced by the monumental task that lay before me, as it had once lain before my mother. I visited with members of his family, who offered little in the way of assistance. I contacted his old lawyers, who never returned my calls. I spoke with legal experts who agreed that Mr. Story had some legitimate arguments in his favor but said that countless men and women suffered from inadequate counsel and an unfair trial.

Meanwhile, Mr. Story and I wrote letters back and forth, going over the same thin material. I thought of letting my mother know that I had reconnected with Mr. Story, but as she was nearing 80 years old, I did not want her to have to contemplate those grave and ponderous issues of hopelessness and the passage of time.

A year passed. Our letters became shorter. We began to write mostly about the Steelers. The space between sending and receiving letters grew longer. How long can a correspondence like this go on? Not long. Eventually I took so many months to respond that he never wrote back. Or perhaps it was the other way around. Either way, it came as a relief.

Recently, while helping to organize some of my mother's things, I found a large envelope that was labeled "Stanton Story Letters." The envelope was thick, and I had the urge to open it and read what she had written to him — but I refrained. My mother had not been able to figure out how to keep up a correspondence with a man imprisoned for life. Thirty years later, neither could I.


Saïd Sayrafiezadeh is the author of the short-story collection "Brief Encounters With the Enemy" and the memoir "When Skateboards Will Be Free."

A version of this article appears in print on 02/02/2014, on page SR7 of the National edition with the headline: Remembering My Mother's Obsession .

13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Room for Debate: Foreigners Behaving Badly

Written By Unknown on Jumat, 31 Januari 2014 | 13.26

  • Ruben Navarrette Jr.

    Revoke Bieber's Visa

    Ruben Navarrette Jr., syndicated columnist

    It's obscene and not in keeping with the best traditions of this country to have one standard for the rich and famous, and another for everyone else.

  • Nisha Agarwal

    The Costs of Deportation Are Too High Already

    Nisha Agarwal, Immigrant Justice Corps

    Punishing green card holders for minor offenses will overwhelm our legal system, tear apart families, and cost our local and state governments time and money.

  • Mark Krikorian

    Lax Policies Create a Sense of Entitlement

    Mark Krikorian, Center for Immigration Studies

    Obama could show that he's committed to holding outsiders to our standards by sending Justin Bieber back home. But he won't.

  • Peter Spiro

    An Extraodinary Case That Highlights the Ordinary

    Peter Spiro, Temple University

    The Bieber episode highlights the low threshold for deportation that has haunted our immigration regime for almost 20 years.

  • Joseph H. Carens

    Let Settled Immigrants Stay

    Joseph H. Carens, author, "The Ethics of Immigration"

    Over time immigrants' lives become bound up with the place where they live, and it is wrong to take that away from them, even when they behave badly.


  • 13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More
    techieblogger.com Techie Blogger Techie Blogger