Suchergebnisse

The post Love, Consent and Technology in Asia appeared first on Völkerrechtsblog.

Hausmitteilung


Wir haben eine Fanpage auf Facebook und freuen uns über einen Klick auf "Like".
Bei iTunes sind wir hier zu finden - wir freuen uns über Abos & gute Bewertungen. Vielen Dank für die vielen positiven Stimmen, die uns ein Feature von Apple als "Neu & empfehlenswert eingebracht haben.
Wir suchen nach wie vor einen Jingle (Titelmusik) - gerne bombastisch-ironisch, sowas in dieser Richtung.
"Glimpse" - die App, mit der Ulf seinen Weg entlang der Panke mit Philip geteilt hat - gibt es bei iTunes für iOS und im Google Play Store für Android (no affiliation).


Love Parade

Unglück bei der Loveparade 2010 (Wikipedia)
Staatsanwaltschaft will Loveparade-Strafprozess mit Beschwerde retten (SZ)
Die Loveparade-Ermittlungen - sechs Jahre Totalversagen (Kommentar von Bernd Dörreis, SZ)


Panama Papers

Panama Papers (The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists)
Panama Papers - Die Geheimnisse des schmutzigen Geldes (SZ)
The Panama Papers: Here's What We Know (NYTimes)
How Delaware Thrives as a Corporate Tax Haven (NYTimes)
Medienradio MR068 - Offshore-Leaks




Feedback-Schleife

Affäre um Erdogan-Verse: Staatsanwaltschaft ermittelt gegen Jan Böhmenmann (Spiegel Online)
Justiz ermittelt gegen Jan Böhmenmann (Law Blog / Udo Vetter)
§ 103 StGB - Beleidigung von Organen und Vertretern ausländischer Staaten
Küchenradio KR204 - Bruno Schirra

Prominent reporters and powerful officials know each other, share attitudes, and trust each other.

"The freer we are as individuals, the freer we are as a people."

Facebook and Instagram's parent company, Meta, has set itself on a collision course with the Albanese government after announcing it will stop paying Australian publishers for news, and plans to shut down its news tab in Australia and the United States.Meta informed publishers on Friday that it would not enter new deals when the current contracts expire this year.The news tab – a dedicated tab for news in the bookmarks section of Facebook – will also shut down in April, after a similar shut down in the UK, Germany and France last year.The answer from Australian politics is that they will do such things etc. As we've pointed out before there's a certain tension in the arguments used here. One claim is that Facebook (and Google and so on) steal the news content from the producers of it, thereby taking the crusts out of the mouths of journalists. Well, OK, possibly. Another claim is that Facebook and Google (and so on) must carry news because that's a significant source of traffic to the news sites themselves, from which they make ad revenue with which to provide crusts for journalists. Well, OK, possibly.But there's clearly that tension with trying to insist upon both at the same time. That Facebook steals the news content and therefore must pay for it but also that it's entirely vital that Facebook must run the news as it's essential to the incomes of the news sites.We might even call that cakeism.But that is what this insistence is. That Facebook must run the news, that Facebook must pay for running the news, because the follow on income to the news sites of Facebook running the news is vital.We do tend to think that there would be more logical clarity here in politics if the news sites were not such a significant influence upon who gets elected to those political positions where such decisions are taken. But perhaps that's just us being cynics.

Jean d'Aspremont (University of Manchester - School of Law; Sciences Po Law School) has posted The Love for International Organizations ((2023) 20 Int Organ Law Rev 111 (forthcoming)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Albeit the object of compelling criticisms...

Progressives are willing to support policies like the caseload reduction credit, which rewards states for helping families leave or stay off welfare—if the result is reduced future work requirements. Since work is the only sure path out of poverty, that ultimately shortchanges those most in need of help.
The post How Liberals Learned to Love Welfare Caseload Reduction appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

 Commander In undergrad I got really into theory, all of it, reading Baudrillard, Deleuze, Debord, Foucault, etc., most definitely etc, all the time. My theory fascination was a byproduct of reading zines and little semiotextes, the more polemical, the more outlandish its claims, the more I loved it. One little book I particularly loved was First and Last Emperors: The Absolute State and the Body of the Despot by Kenneth Dean and Brian Massumi. It is an odd little book, a reading of the Reagan/Bush years framed as much by the legalist philosopher Shang Yang's The Book of Lord Shang as it is by the expected references to Deleuze and Guattari. (Brian Massumi of course translated A Thousand Plateaus). That odd idiosyncratic nature is precisely what I loved about it. I dreamt of writing something similar, not on Reagan and legalism but something which brought together a variety of disparate references to think through a specific problem. I guess my book which talks about Spinoza and Marx along with Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, might be an attempt to realize that wish. It does not talk about dogs though, which brings us to this post. I read with horror and interest the story of Biden's dog Commander and the number of times that he has bitten secret service agents. Part of this has to do with my own history. People who follow me on social media probably have seen my dog Bento. What people who only know him online do not know is that Bento is what some refer to as a reactive dog, or in other terms, he is fear aggressive, mostly towards humans. This pretty much fits Plato's definition of dogs in the Republic, he loves the people he knows, not just love, he adores them, but if he does not know you he is at least suspicious of you, if not openly hostile. He loves meeting new dogs, but is not really interested in meeting new people. He is generally distrustful of people. This is something I imagined he learned on the mean streets of Memphis (where he came from before I adopted him in Maine). In turn I had to learn how to deal with it and manage it. I have gone through three different behaviorists, eventually taking him to work with the behaviorists at Tufts, who I cannot recommend more highly. (Yeah, I spent a lot of money). What they taught me is that this is a condition than can be managed but never entirely changed. We do manage, mostly this just means that anyone coming to the house has to go through a lengthy introduction process; he wears a muzzle to the vet, and we mostly keep our distance from people out in the world. If you ask "Can I pet your dog" (and by all means you should always ask) the answer is always "No, sorry, but thanks for asking." On some immediate level reading about Commander was reading one of my worst nightmares. To be clear, Bento has never bit anyone. Like I said, we manage his reactions. Bento at his daycare where he has many dog and human friends My nightmare was always what would happen if Bento bit someone. I could only imagine a string of events which ended with Bento going to an "undisclosed location," but in his case the undisclosed location in question would be a euphemism for the final undisclosed location we are all heading towards and not the farm that imagine Commander has retired to. I guess that is what separates me from the President. The sovereign is he who decides the exception, and in this case that includes a dog that can bite people repeatedly without legal ramifications. However, it got me think of the politics of dogs again, something that I wrote about briefly with Trump.  The fabricated image of Trump putting a medal of honor on a dog stands in sharp contrast with Biden's dog taking a chunk out of secret service agents arm. One is a fabricated image of command and authority, and the other is one of a force out of control.This brings me back to Dean and Massumi's little book. In that book they draw a sharp distinction between Reagan who functions as a kind of figure of transcendence, a despot in Deleuze and Guattari's term, who manages to appropriate all of the various functions of the nation and and the state to embody them. Reagan became America. This stands in sharp contrast to Bush. As Dean and Massumi write:"Old Glory's magic dust didn't stick to Bush's lapels. Try as he might to pledge himself to it, if fell from his shoulders like dandruff. Whenever he drew attention to himself, it was in a way that highlighted his inability to rise above, or even remain seated--to maintain his presence at all. For example, Bush could never garner for himself the kind of political capital Reagan did with second-hand war stories, even though he had a true one to tell. Bush actually was a fighter pilot in World War II. The story he tells is about being shot down. It ends with him floating aimlessly in a little yellow raft thinking wistfully about his family as he waits for rescue. In his hour of danger, a raft away from death, the thought of family did not unify the Bush substance(lessness) with that of the nation, as if had for Reagan reminiscing about his birth; rather, it led him to reflect on "my faith, the separation of church and state." Church/state...mind/body, spirituality/materiality, self/other. This split, which Reagan tried to hard to overcome, was a given for Bush, his "faith." It was his ultimate element, his destiny, it was to Bush what the sea was to his doomed fighter plane."Whereas Reagan could appropriate the various machines of the state to the point where everything American seemed to emanate from him, Bush constantly lived the division between his person and his power. This is seen most immediately in the first Gulf War, in which the power of the state's war machine was split between Bush and his generals, most notably Schwarzkopf. It is tempting to read Biden as embodying a similar division, one that Commander exemplifies. It is not the division between the president and his power, but between word and actions. The story linked to above is riddled with statements from the Biden's about their concern. As the piece states, "A White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter said the president and first lady were "heartbroken" over what had happened, had apologized to those who were bitten and had even brought flowers to some of them." This division between the deep concern and the sheer number of attacks, brings to mind another, more pressing division: the division between Biden's repeated statement of deep concern for the situation in Gaza coupled with his continued support, actual military and financial support, for Netanyahu and Israel. I do not know how the Secret Service agents felt about getting flowers, but it is increasingly clear that the words of concern and heartbreak many very little to the people in Gaza, and the people in the US who want a ceasefire. Dean and Massumi theorized Reagan and Bush as transcendence and immanence, unity and division. Looking at Trump and Biden through dogs gives us another division. One between an ersatz toughness that is somehow convincing, and gestures of concern that are less so. A president who gleefully identifies with the Machiavellian beast of the state and one who does not even now how to appear to be of the people, out of touch with what it means to live with a dog, and, more importantly, with how the very voters he would count on feel about an ongoing genocide. The simulacrum of power or a division between sentiment and action, these are the choices that voters are facing. Updated 5/5/24Commander returned to the news today. Kristi Noem, the Governor of South Dakota, who made it in the news recently for shooting her dog, Cricket, not only defended her decision to shoot her dog, but suggested that the same thing should happen to Commander. Noem's remarks reveal not only the media politics of the current moment, which have as their basic rule, "Never apologize, always double down," but also her vision of political power. The initial anecdote was meant to illustrate her willingness to do the difficult and messy things needed to "get things done." As someone who worked and volunteered in an animal shelter I just want to say there are myriad other ways to get rid of a dog besides getting a gun, there are shelters, breed rescues, etc., there is also dedicating more time to train a dog. I volunteered at a shelter in Maine and failed working dogs, hunting dogs that do not hunt, often make wonderful pets. Those other options are beside the point, what matters, and what is being espoused is violence as the epitome of power, and offending others as the measure of righteousness. That people are offended and outraged is the point. As with Trump and Biden, the dog is once again being used to articulate a particular vision or ideal of political power. In the case it is one in which violence is synonymous is decisiveness, the outrage of others is synonymous with righteousness. Years ago confessing to killing a dog would have been seen as the end of a political career; the revelation that Mitt Romney made the family dog ride on a career outside the car probably played some role in ending his presidential bid. That Noem is doubling down could be seen as evidence of her cluelessness and cruelty, but it also could be seen how deep we are in a micro-politics of fascism. 

Once yearning to break free from Khartoum, now I long to return, driven by a newfound love for the city, even amidst its recent ruin by armies, crisis-merchants and looters.

Love and social class work together. Intimate bonds can both alleviate or reinforce inequality along class, gender and ethnic lines. In his research, Malik Fercovic-Cerda (LSE) reveals the bonds of romantic partners from different social backgrounds in Chile. Chile, like most of Latin America, has historically been recognised as a nation with low social mobility … Continued

In August, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek signed off on a 50-year extension to the permit for the Gregory Crinum coal mine, 60 kilometres northeast of Emerald in Central Queensland. This decision provoked outrage from climate ...

After seven years of severed diplomatic relations, the China-brokered renormalization deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia, signed on March 10, marked a major breakthrough in the Middle East's shift toward de-escalation between regional rivals. Nearly six months later, the Iranian-Saudi détente remains on track. Last month, Iran's chief diplomat, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, met with Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman, or MbS, in Jeddah and invited him to Tehran. Then on September 5, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Iran, Abdullah Alanazi, who was previously the Kingdom's ambassador to Oman, arrived in Tehran. That same day, Iran's ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Alireza Enayati, who previously served as the Islamic Republic's Kuwait envoy, arrived in Riyadh. Such developments speak to both sides' interest in further improving bilateral ties. As Ambassador Alanazi put it, Saudi officials recognize the "importance of strengthening ties, increasing engagement…and taking the [relationship] to broader horizons."Tehran and Riyadh did not sign the diplomatic agreement in Beijing after almost two years of Iraqi- and Omani-facilitated mediation out of mutual love. Instead, the deal resulted from their respective interests in détente at a particular time. Ultimately, hostilities between the two regional powers over the past decade were not serving either side. Rather than continuing down the path of steadily mounting tension, Tehran and Riyadh both saw a "cold peace" as their best option, albeit for different reasons.Motivations for détenteCentral to the Ebrahim Raisi administration's foreign policy is the "Neighbors First" doctrine. As relations between Iran and the West continue deteriorating, Tehran wants not only to cultivate closer ties with China and Russia, but also have better relationships with Islamic countries in its own neighborhood, including with the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Central Asian states and Pakistan. Iran hopes this will reap economic benefits while better positioning the Islamic Republic to circumvent U.S. sanctions and pressure.Riyadh understood that attracting sufficient foreign investment to make MbS's Vision 2030 succeed requires greater stability at home and throughout the region. This made de-escalating tensions with Iran necessary, especially given Tehran's influence over Yemen's Houthi insurgents, whose drone and missile attacks against Saudi infrastructure had caused considerable damage until the April 2022 truce's implementation."The decision to restore relations was made by both sides with cold calculation," Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the Washington-based Stimson Center, told RS. "Iran wants to prove it is not isolated regionally while Saudi Arabia wants an insurance policy against external attacks while it tries to realize its ambitious economic goals."Yet Tehran and Riyadh continue harboring suspicions of each other. From Iran's vantagepoint, Riyadh's partnership with Washington remains a major threat to Gulf security, while Saudi Arabia still sees Iran's regional conduct as destabilizing.Indeed, nearly six months in, the Iranian-Saudi diplomatic agreement has only gone so far. "It hasn't evolved into a real rapprochement, but that was always far-fetched as long as Iran is at daggers-drawn with Riyadh's key strategic ally: the United States," said the International Crisis Group's Ali Vaez in an interview with RS. "The long shadow of the nuclear standoff between Iran and the U.S. will prevent the reestablishment of economic ties between Tehran and Riyadh and could eventually flare up regional tensions that could once again spill over into the bilateral relationship."The recent deployment of 3,000 American sailors and Marines to waters near Iran has only resulted in more threats from Tehran to the U.S. This development could have major implications for Iranian-Saudi relations."Like all diplomatic deals, the Beijing-brokered Saudi-Iranian diplomatic effort, is—at best—a work in progress," Joseph A. Kechichian, a senior fellow at the King Faisal Centre in Riyadh, told RS. "While many hastened to conclude that the two countries, under close Chinese supervision, would rapidly embark on fresh initiatives, reality stepped in because Riyadh was and still is wary of Tehran's pledges to end its interferences in internal Arab affairs. (Almost) six months in, neither side seems ready to be blinded by lofty declarations, which often belie serious differences."Enter IsraelSaudi Arabia has thus far refused to follow in Abu Dhabi's footsteps and join the Abraham Accords. Riyadh stresses that normalization with Tel Aviv would require significant Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, and with Israel's far-right government that is currently in power, such concessions are unlikely to be offered. Nonetheless, trying to bring Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords is a top foreign policy priority for Team Biden. It is worth asking how this stands to impact the Iranian-Saudi détente.Depending on the degree to which there is convergence between Riyadh and Tel Aviv, there could be negative consequences for Iranian-Saudi relations. Ultimately, Tehran does not see diplomatic relations between GCC states and Israel as a threat per se. It is far more concerned with how the Abraham Accords could lead to a growing Israeli military footprint near Iranian territory."Iran will feel obliged to condemn Riyadh if it normalizes with Israel and will be on the alert for any military or intelligence component to such a deal. That it will not tolerate," explained Slavin."Iran is afraid of greater military and security convergence of the Persian Gulf Arabs with Israel in formats such as the joint air defense system," Javad Heiran-Nia, the director of the Persian Gulf Studies Group at the Center for Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies in Iran, told RS."Iran knows that by forming such a system, a 'balance deficit' will be detrimental to it. For this reason, Iran has announced the unveiling of hypersonic missiles capable of passing through any missile defense system. Iran sends the message to the Persian Gulf states that expanding their relations and forming a strong convergence in the region with Israel will not ensure their security," added Heiran-Nia.Signs of improved tiesLooking ahead, certain indicators can help assess the evolving state of Iranian-Saudi relations.As Iran and Saudi Arabia have previously enjoyed periods of détente, such as during the 1990s and early 2000s, Vaez told RS that "this one is unlikely to withstand the test of time unless it is institutionalized in the form of frequent high-level political engagement, standing bilateral committees that would proactively work to deepen ties between the two nations on multiple levels, and an inclusive regional security dialogue that starts thinking about a mutually tolerable and sustainable modus vivendi for all the key stakeholders."The main indicator of how Iranian-Saudi relations develop will not be the absence of conflict or disagreement, explained Aziz Alghashian, a fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington. "Rather, it is how both Iran and Saudi react to these sensitive issues [such as the Dorra/Arash Gas Field dispute and unresolved tensions over Yemen], what kind of language will they use, and what kind of sentiments will they have in negotiating these sensitivities."Roughly six months after the diplomatic deal was announced in China, Slavin has somewhat low expectations for improved bilateral ties. "I would expect an improved atmosphere for Iranian pilgrims going on the hajj and a modest uptick in sports and other exchanges, plus limited trade in non-sanctioned goods." But she assesses that Iranian-Saudi reconciliation will be "very superficial."Nonetheless, as much as any optimism about a full rapprochement must be tempered, the current state of Iranian-Saudi relations is far more stable than the 2011-22 period. That is positive for the whole Middle East. The Gulf and the wider region stand to benefit, at least to some degree, from Tehran and Riyadh finding a way to "share the neighborhood," as former President Barack Obama once put it."A cold peace is…better than the alternative," said Slavin.

For the past several years now, a phalanx of defense officials and retired senior officers have been lamenting the dearth of people willing to serve in the U.S. military. The problem is particularly acute for the Army, the largest of the U.S. forces, which fell short of its target by 25,000 recruits over the past two years. The situation is so grave that experts claim it imperils the all-volunteer force, an institution that has provided manpower for the American military for half a century. Why does the Army, an organization that prides itself on achievement, fail at this fundamental task? Excuses tend to focus on market dynamics such as shrinking recruiting pools, lack of knowledge among American youth about service opportunities, and impacts from COVID 19. These factors are undoubtedly relevant, but are they the actual cause of the Army's failure? Current officials seem to think so. After failing in 2022, the Army increased its efforts to convince young people to serve. This, combined with a campaign to overcome "misperceptions" about life in the military, was a primary focus of the branch's $104 million advertising budget in 2023. Additionally, the Army estimated it invested over $119 million in the future soldier preparatory course. This new program enabled young Americans, initially disqualified because of low aptitude scores or high body-fat results, the opportunity to improve their marks. The Army claimed over 8,800 recruits completed the course and moved on to basic combat training. In the end, however, none of these initiatives enabled the force to achieve its quotas. If market dynamics are not the underlying cause of the crisis, what is? I believe that the Army fails to meet its recruiting goals not because of a challenging market environment, but rather because a sizable portion of the American public has lost trust in it and no longer sees it as an institution worthy of personal investment. Professor of sociology Piotr Sztompka defines trust as "a bet about the future contingent actions of others." He presents the concept of trust in two components: beliefs and commitment. Essentially, a person trusts when they believe something about the future and they act in accordance with this belief. This is directly relevant to recruiting: in a high trust environment, people are more likely to enlist because they have a reasonable expectation of future benefit. Unfortunately, anyone considering service today can look to myriad examples of the Army failing to meet their end of the bargain. Whether it is a lack of adequate and safe housing for soldiers and their families, the persistence of sexual assault, an inability to address suicide rates or to accurately account for property and funds — or even to develop a comprehensive physical fitness test — the Army, and the Department of Defense more broadly, consistently fail to achieve results. But these shortcomings, while disastrous, pale in comparison to the Army's ultimate failure: the failure to win wars. In his book, "Why America Loses Wars," Donald Stoker reminds us that winning in war means, "the achievement of the political purpose for which the war is being fought." Judging by this standard, the Army has clearly failed at its raison d'être, to fight and win the nation's wars, over the past two decades. This failure has come at catastrophic cost: the loss of over 900,000 lives, the death of over 7000 U.S. service members, and the depletion of eight trillion dollars. Additionally, on the international scene, the U.S. has bled influence, and levels of violence are on the rise. Considering the wreckage listed above, it is little wonder that the American people have markedly lost confidence in the institution and its leaders in recent years and could explain the unwillingness to volunteer for service. Essentially, signing up for the military is starting to look like a really bad bet. Adding insult to injury, a recent survey of military members indicates their enthusiasm to recommend military service has also declined significantly. While quality of life issues are highlighted as a concern, one cannot ignore the impact of failed wars on this trend. The 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal, leaving the Taliban in control of the country after 20 years, has left veterans feeling betrayed and humiliated, and naturally, unlikely to encourage others to follow their path in life. Instead of flailing about trying to overcome challenging market dynamics, therefore, the Army should immediately commit to fixing itself. It can start by admitting its significant failures and its baffling inability to be honest with the American public about them. There are plenty of retired officers who have had public epiphanies about these systematic failures, but this kind of candor and responsibility needs to propagate among currently serving senior officials across the defense enterprise and the political establishment.Once honesty is re-established as a core value, and the Army has come to grips with the fact that it failed, it can then begin to explore the reason why. Simply put, the Army fails because it is set up to fail. It was asked to accomplish objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq that it could not possibly hope to achieve. Professors Leo Blanken and Jason Lapore point out what every senior defense official should clearly understand by now: that despite its impressive capabilities, the U.S. military is of limited utility in the type of non-existential conflicts we have fought in the past two decades. This is because the U.S. military is built for and excels at "battlefield dominance," yet it was saddled with conducting counterinsurgency, reconstruction and building democratic institutions, tasks it was not trained for or prepared to accomplish.These revelations are not new, senior defense officials should have understood these dynamics all along, and speaking frankly, they did. From General Shinseki's ignored warnings about the number of troops at the beginning of the Iraq invasion, to ongoing assessments throughout both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, it seems that it was clear throughout the defense establishment (at least behind closed doors) that the U.S. military could not and would not achieve the nation's political objectives. Yet despite this, top defense officials assured the American public that the U.S. military was "making progress" towards its goals, right up to the point that it was manifestly evident that they were not. And yet, at precisely the moment the American public is looking for accountability, many of the same senior officials who failed to achieve results for the nation, are instead rewarded with lucrative positions in the defense industry and with foreign countries. Seeing that the military refuses to hold itself accountable, it is unsurprising that by withholding their most precious resources, their sons and daughters, the American public is. The service's leadership handbook states that "trust is the foundation of the Army's relationship with the American people, who rely on the Army to ethically, effectively and efficiently serve the Nation."To earn back the trust of the American people and solve the recruiting crisis, the Army is going to have to do what everyone else has to do when relationships are broken: accept responsibility and begin to show, by deeds not words, a commitment to change. Senior Army officials could immediately improve by critically examining the "unquestioned assumptions that form the basis of…American grand strategy," reevaluating military officer professional development models, and understanding how misaligned military incentive structures work against achieving policy goals. Regardless of the approach, it should be laser-focused on delivering the ethical, effective and efficient service to the nation mentioned above.If the Army lets this opportunity pass them by, however, claims that the military and the broader defense establishment are in a position to decisively win the nation's wars lack credibility, as the American public will understandably remain uneasy about making a personal investment in the Army.

It probably won't surprise you to learn that the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is not composed of a bunch of peaceniks who decry the crimes of the military-industrial complex at every opportunity. But a pro-industry op-ed it ran Thursday — entitled simply, "In Defense of the Defense Industry" — might as well have been written by the public affairs department of Raytheon. If anything, the Journal should be embarrassed for running it.It's a strange piece. Two-thirds of it describes efforts to protest or at least establish distance from the big weapons firms by everyone from protesting students at Harvard to officials of the Heritage Foundation to executives of major investment firms. The author, Ira Stoll, the editor of FutureofCapitalism.com, protests too much, lumping student activists demonstrating against Raytheon with a conservative think tank that has stopped taking arms industry money to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest with firms like Black Rock that offer investment funds free of stocks in major weapons makers. This is not exactly a unified front bent on dismantling the military-industrial complex, although any action that curbs the power and influence of the Raytheons and Lockheed Martins of the world is a welcome step.When Stoll finally gets around to defending the weapons companies, he cherry picks cases where their systems have been used by U.S. allies like Israel and Ukraine. He conveniently forgets to mention how U.S.-supplied weapons have been used repeatedly to bomb and kill Palestinians, much less the role of U.S.-built bombs in attacking hospitals, water treatment plants, ports — even a school bus — in Yemen. The truth is that arms executives — many of whom rake in tens of millions in compensation each year — are not so much immoral as amoral. If there's business to be had, regardless of the character of the client, they're there to sell their wares, no questions asked. Perhaps the greatest irony of the article is that the head of an organization devoted to touting the blessings of capitalism is praising the least capitalist industry in America. The top five weapons contractors — Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman — split well over $100 billion per year in Pentagon contracts, many of which were awarded without significant competition or basic standards of accountability.In all, over half of the department's $800-plus billion budget goes to private companies. These vast sums are secured in part through the work of the more than 800 lobbyists employed by the weapons industry, many of whom came from top jobs at the Pentagon. The industry may have its problems with cost overruns and performance issues with systems like the F-35 combat aircraft and the Littoral Combat Ship, but its ability to exert its influence to secure taxpayer money is unmatched.The big weapons firms are better at making money than they are at producing affordable, effective systems. As a 60 Minutes investigation revealed earlier this year, price gouging is rampant in the arms sector. In one of the most stunning examples, a former Pentagon procurement official held up an oil pressure switch that cost NASA $328. The Pentagon paid $10,000 for the same item. And it's not just parts. As 60 Minutes noted, "[t]he Pentagon, he told us, overpays for almost everything – for radar and missiles … helicopters … planes … submarines… down to the nuts and bolts."Meanwhile, even as they posture as members in good standing of the "arsenal of democracy," companies like Lockheed Martin are spending tens of billions of dollars buying back their own stock, a practice that has been repeatedly criticized by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). These financial maneuvers have everything to do with enriching shareholders and top executives, and nothing to do with providing defense capabilities.Yes, America needs the ability to defend itself. But it would be able to do so far more effectively and for far less money if we reined in the power and influence of the military-industrial complex. It's time to put the public interest above special interests when it comes to Pentagon spending and strategy. Eventually, maybe even the Wall Street Journal will come around to recognize that reality. But don't hold your breath.

What does that tell us about the state of American Christianity?