link

The color photo was invented in 1903 by the Lumiere brothers, and the French army was the only one taking color photos during the course of the war.

A really fascinating set of pictures.

link

"For people who play (Internet) games all night and don't have any friends, don't have any hobbies, to come into the army is a very big shock," said Commander-Captain Jyrki Kivela at the military conscription unit.

Are you saying playing on the internet isn't a hobby?

Erm, I mean, you scandinavian wimps, toughen up! The strength of your armed forces is essential to… to… national solidarity. Yeah, that's it.

link

There's an interesting discussion about compulsory military service over at the EphBlog. It is in response to this Record op-ed by Daniel Gura, which argues for a draft on grounds of socioeconomic egalitarianism. I'm with EphBlog writer Dave Kane in his assessment of the article ("slipshod"). I thought Aidan Finley brought up an interesting point in the comments:

The bottom line here is simple: the upper socioeconomic classes don't, and shouldn't serve in war. Part of the incredible stupidity of the Great War was preferentially recruiting and killing the best and the brightest. America's never done that—cf. Vietnam—hell, in the Civil War, you could pay for someone else to fight for you. I think society has a compelling interest in only sending less advantaged brackets to the front. As our dear Gura himself admits, he's got dreams. "I hope to be working somewhere that will allow me to learn the skills to later in life be apart of the decisions that are made in our government." Yep, that's not a dream your average grunt has. Drafting Williams kids is a waste of resources, and a waste of time.

While some will interpret this as sarcasm, I took Aidan's post seriously. Although it sounds crass, think about it. It's certainly appealing to envision Ken Lay risking his own ass for the future of the worldwide energy supply, but since he's old, lazy, and demonstrably poor at following rules, he wouldn't be of much value as a soldier.

With a volunteer army, each individual who considers joining must weigh its risks against its benefits. You only need join if the risks are worth it for you. If you're wealthy or expect a wonderful fulfilling life, the small risk of death outweighs the potential gains (salary, benefits, education, tuition, etc.). But if you're poor and uneducated, maybe the army is a desirable alternative to delivering pizzas.

The notion that we should have a draft in order to improve the socioeconomic diversity of the military doesn't appeal to me. This is because I don't believe the makeup of the military, socioeconomically skewed though it is, is any more unjust than the socioeconomic makeup of fishermen or truck drivers (other professions with low pay and high death risk). National defense seems pretty fundamental, but wouldn't our way of life also be threatened without reliable trucking services and affordable lobster?

I really should be going to bed, but I'll do a quick recap of this fun Thursday evening before I forget entirely.

The usual Thursday blog meeting was colocated today with a talk by Shorenstein Center Fellow Rebecca MacKinnon, who runs NKZone. Rebecca is a fascinating person who has been CNN bureau chief in China and Japan, and is currently devoting significant effort to covering North Korea. On NKZone, she takes on a very tough subject—there is virtually no journalist access into DPRK—by engaging any available sources on the net and digesting reports from China and South Korea. Her talk touched on a lot of interesting points, such as the role of weblogs in journalism, the atmosphere of secrecy and fear in DPRK, and the ways weblogs can engage a community.

But what really makes Rebecca interesting is that she's very unusual for a journalist: she has resigned from CNN to take a detour into exploring what she sees as a new kind of news medium. (I was delighted to hear that although her year at Shorenstein is nearly up, Rebecca will be staying at Harvard for another year thanks to the Berkman Center.) I no longer find it acceptable to consume news that doesn't include links that discuss, vet, and provide supplemental material for each story. As a generation of world citizens grows up used to these possibilities, the CNN demographic will continue to age and shrink.

Of course, this does not imply that blogs written by amateurs will overtake professional reporting. I strongly believe both postions will learn from each other in the next few years, and we will have a better world for it.

The talk included pizza, drinks, and cookies. I stupidly went to a spicy Asian all-you-can-eat buffet for lunch so I wasn't able to sufficiently take advantage of this opportunity. Though actually, Harvard's pizza wasn't very good.

After the talk we stayed in the room and had our "Berkman" meeting. This one was quite different than usual: a much smaller group and in a different space. Sun, Jessica, Rebecca, Dave, Rick, Tom Griffin, and I were in attendance. We talked a bit about the future of our meetings in the anno-Daveini era. Then Dave and Rebecca schemed a bit about how to kill Google. They both see it as too powerful.

In my opinion, they are overreacting to a couple of small fringe services Google has only dabbled in. I hope Google does well not only because they provide vast good in the universe but also because they could be a valuable counterbalance to Microsoft. Microsoft also provides vast good but has a history of and inclination toward causing severe damage by killing whole market segments in willful, cold calculation. I'd waaaaay rather Tim O'Reilly, dirty rotten bastard though he may be, get rich off Google's success than give Microsoft more cash so they can strangle another innovator while DOJ Antitrust Division sleeps.

The other topic of discussion was the Iraq war. Oddly, I was the only person speaking who might conceivably have been pro-war. Dave thought we should high-tail it out of there ASAP. Rebecca didn't disclose as much opinion but seemed clearly anti-war. Rick initially supported the war but only due to the danger of WMD. I don't think I clearly articulated this at the meeting, but I am actually a supporter of the Iraq invasion and occupation regardless of WMDs. Iraq is an opportunity to shape part of our military into a long-term security force that can enter a dangerously disconnected place like Saddam's Iraq and leave behind safety and economic links to the rest of the world. The middle east will need this kind of intervention time and time again if the US and emerging superpowers (China, India, Russia) are to expand their energy imports without a corresponding increase in terrorism imports. We had better get started, and notwithstanding my favorite sarcastic Bush campaign slogan—Don't switch horses in mid-apocalypse—we'd better stay in Iraq until it's well on the way to becoming a sunny vacation destination.

I should add that, although I am pro-war in this case, I am anti-Bush. A better president would have gathered the support of his countrymen and allies, rather than giving us all a fat old middle finger.

After the Berkman meeting ended, Sun, Jessica, and I went to get some ice cream and hang out outside. I gave them a tour of my frassle to-do list (no kidding, they actually asked), which resulted in at least 10 new feature requests. I could talk all about that now, but it's really, really time for me to sleep. Goodnight, friends.

link

Here are a couple of really amazing blog posts. The blog they come from, Iraq the Model, is written by three brothers, dentists and a doctor by occupation, living in Baghdad.

This single page of their writing is a million times more unique and informative than anything CNN or the New York Times would ever put out.

Why? Because it's a primary source. It's someone not unlike me in age, ambitions, and ways of thinking. It's someone who, because he's lived it, doesn't reduce the situation to an absurdity like "Americans are pillaging the country to extend their empire" or "Iraq would be best served if Americans just left" or "Iraqis are a treacherous violent people who will never function in a democracy".

If you're purely pro-war or anti-war, please realize that you have taken a reductionist position: Iraq under Sadaam was a horrible place to live, the potential of its people was stifled, and it was near-perfect primordial soup for terrorists. At the same time, the American invasion is a huge disruption with many casualties and costs, and its ultimate success depends much more precariously on our long-term success helping the Iraqis convert their nation into a functioning, open society. Iraqis have a tremendous role in this process, and it's extremely encouraging to see some of them stand up and call Al-Jazeera on its violence-mongering.

link

Harper's excerpts from a USAF research report about nonlethal weapons. This is crazy stuff that stirs horrifying fantasies of large-scale mind control. On the other hand, many of the weapons are quite imaginative:

Pheromones: The chemical substances released by animals to influence physiology or behavior of other members of the same species. One use of pheromones, at the most elemental level, could be to mark target individuals and then release bees to attack them.

Imagine the collateral benefits of weapons such as these. Lots of insane terrorist movements glorify death as martyrdom, but how would you like to suffer from the "bees revenge"? It won't kill you, but a few hundred bee stings sure will keep you very unhappy for a week. Or what if pheromones could be placed onto dangerous materials, so you could find the bomb shops by following swarms of bees? You could even plant fake materials in this way, which would give a whole new meaning to a "sting" operation.