Put another blog on the fire!

What’s new in Kathmandu

Nepal’s newly elected Constituent Assembly began meeting this week, bringing renewed hope for a democratic future to the Himalayan nation. The Constituent Assembly is charged with governing Nepal while it rewrites the country’s constitution–and hopefully, puts an end to more than a decade of intermittent civil war.

First up on the Assembly’s agenda: toppling Nepal’s 240-year-old monarchy and putting a republic in its place. Unfortunately, changing the government may prove easier than actually governing. Here’s a frame-by-frame replay of Nepal’s recent past to put its current events in perspective.

Instant Replay
Nepal’s Re-Return to Democracy

1990 - Leftist political parties join with the centrist Nepali Congress Party in the “Movement to Restore Democracy”–though democracy had previously existed in Nepal for just 18 months, from 1959 to 1960. Massive demonstrations and strikes compel King Birenda to give up absolute power and become a constitutional monarch.

1991 - Nepal holds parliamentary elections. The Nepali Congress Party carries the day, and Girija Prasad Koirala becomes prime minister.

1994 - Dissension within the Nepali Congress leads to the dissolution of parliament. New elections follow, but no party wins a majority of seats. A minority government led by the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist) takes over, making Nepal, for a time, a communist monarchy.

1996 - The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) launches a violent insurgency. Its goal is to topple the monarchy altogether and establish a “people’s republic.” Over the next 10 years, the insurgency will claim more than 13,000 lives and assume de facto control over much of rural Nepal.

1999 - The Nepali Congress again wins a majority of seats in parliament, but party infighting again prevents stable governing. Early in 2000, Girija Prasad Koirala again takes over as prime minister, forming the ninth new government in 10 years. None lasted, and many were corrupt.

2001 - The Maoists spearhead a general strike that shuts down much of the country. King Birenda and other members of the royal family are murdered in a palace massacre. Birenda’s younger brother Gyanendra assumes the throne.

2002 - With more Maoist attacks and another nationwide general strike, King Gyanendra dissolves parliament. A few months later, he fires his council of ministers and calls off parliamentary elections. Instead, he appoints a royalist prime minister of his own.

2004 - In August, the Maoists blockade Kathmandu, preventing supplies from reaching the city for a week. Commentators argue that the Maoist insurgency has led to military stalemate. Nepal’s army doesn’t have the muscle to defeat the Maoists, but the Maoists can’t win either.

2005 - In February, King Gyanendra assumes direct power and suspends civil liberties, citing the need to defeat the Maoists. In September, the Maoists declare a unilateral ceasefire. In November, opposition political parties make a deal with the Maoists designed to restore democracy.

2006 - After three weeks of general strike, King Gyanendra gives up absolute power and reinstates Nepal’s parliament, which promptly strips much of the king’s remaining power. The hard work of putting Nepal back together then falls on a coalition of seven political parties–instigators of the largely peaceful uprising–and on the Maoists.

2008 - Nepalis go to the polls to pick a Constituent Assembly. More than 50 parties field candidates in the election. Maoist party candidates win the most seats, but not enough for a Maoist majority. Nepal’s new rulers will have to succeed where their elected predecessors have failed–in building and maintaining coalitions.

–Steve Sampson

A deep sea singer returns

Whale watchers worldwide got a bit of good news this week, with the release of a new study that says humpback whales are making a comeback in the North Pacific.

According to the study, the number of whales in the North Pacific may have reached 20,000 for the period between 2004 and 2006. That’s up from a total of fewer than 1,500 whales 40 years ago, when humpback hunting was banned.

Experts still worry that some humpback subgroups are taking longer to bounce back, but one described the news as “definitely very encouraging in terms of the recovery of the species.” It’s certainly enough to make us want to dive in for a closer look at one of the ocean’s marvelous mammals.

Uproarious Rorquals

Humpbacks hail from the family of whales called “rorquals,” which includes the fin whale, the sei whale, and the blue whale, the world’s largest animal. Blue whales can grow to 100 feet (30 meters) and weigh up to 330,000 pounds (150 metric tons), bigger than any dinosaur we’ve yet discovered.

At 45 feet (14 meters) and 80,000 pounds (36 metric tons), humpbacks aren’t nearly as big as cousin Blue. But they can really sing. In fact, according to a 2006 study, humpback whales sing grammatically, combining sounds into phrases, and phrases into songs, according to complex rules called a “hierarchical syntax.” It’s similar to our ability to combine words into clauses and clauses into sentences.

Humpbacks can dance, too. They are among the most acrobatic of whales, sometimes leaping entirely out of the water. Such breaching is common among males during mating season, when humpbacks migrate from polar feeding grounds to tropical breeding grounds. It’s also during mating season that humpback males sing their syntactically sophisticated songs, presumably in pursuit of humpback gals.

Straining for Snacks

Like all rorquals, humpbacks are baleen whales. They feed by taking huge mouthfuls of seawater–literally tons of it–then forcing the water out between hundreds of plates of baleen (a.k.a. “whalebone”) that hang from the roofs of their mouths. The baleen plates work like a sieve, letting water out but keeping krill and other munchable marine life in.

To catch that seafood dinner, humpbacks sometimes use a special technique called “bubblenetting.” First, one or more humpbacks swim in a circle beneath a school of fish, blowing bubbles that float up to form a wall around their prey. Then the humpbacks swim up through their “bubblenet,” slurping the fish-filled water as they go.

It’s clever, and tremendously effective. A humpback whale can catch, and eat, as much as 3,000 pounds (1,360 kg) of food in a day. But that’s not too surprising–coming from a creature smart enough to sing in syntax.

–Steve Sampson

Don’t try yelling “fire” in here

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law against child pornography on Monday, concluding in a 7-2 ruling that “offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment”–which, as you may know, says that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”

For most Americans, this particular case wasn’t particularly controversial. But it does raise an interesting point. Even with the Constitution’s free speech protections, there are times when, legally, we have to keep our big mouths shut.

So when aren’t you free to shoot from the lip? There are basically four types of speech that the First Amendment doesn’t protect: obscenity, incitement to illegal action, defamation, and fighting words. There are also restrictions on things like advertising and harassment, but we’ll cover those another time.

Limit #1: Obscenity

The Constitution doesn’t give you the right to be obscene (not that we really think you’d want to be). Although the Supreme Court has struggled for years to define “obscenity,” it has consistently maintained that, whatever it is, it’s not legally protected. The key test was established in Miller v. California in 1973. The Court held that expressions are obscene if they meet all three of the following criteria:

1. “The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.”
2. “The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.”
3. “The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

The questions this test raises are pretty obvious. What’s an “average” person? What are “community standards,” and who sets them? Who decides what counts as “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value”? Nevertheless, you still have to follow these rules–for as Justice Potter Stewart famously said about pornography, “I know it when I see it.”

Limit #2: Incitement to Illegal Action
In 1919, the Court held that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” The justices weren’t aiming to guarantee the sanctity of your moviegoing experience. Rather, their point was that the First Amendment doesn’t protect speech that creates a “clear and present danger” of “substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

More recent cases have clarified this limitation, and left you with a fair amount of freedom. Basically, you’re allowed to argue for anything–even, say, the violent overthrow of the government. You just can’t incite imminent illegal activity. For example, at a rally outside IRS headquarters, saying “we should overthrow the government and dismantle the IRS!” would be protected speech. Saying “attack those agents coming out the door!” would not.

Limit #3: Defamation
You also aren’t free to go around damaging other people’s reputations by lying about them. That’s defamation, and it basically comes in two forms. Slander is spoken defamation. Libel is written (or otherwise recorded) defamation.

The Court has established fairly tough standards for public figures (like politicians and celebrities) who accuse you of defamation. They have to prove not only that what you said was untrue, but also that your lie showed “actual malice.” A private citizen, on the other hand, can win a claim simply if you’re careless about the facts. Of course, it’s easy to avoid defaming people. Just follow a version of mom’s old rule: “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything untrue.” If what you say is true, it’s not defamatory.

Limit #4: Fighting Words
Suppose someone cuts in front of you in line. If the colorful language you then direct toward that person is so abusive and insulting that fisticuffs are likely to follow, you can’t take refuge behind the First Amendment. Fighting words–”those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace”–aren’t protected.

Basically, that means you’re not free to spew insults and abuse into another person’s face. The police, or other authorities, can intervene and stop you without violating your First Amendment rights. On the plus side, it follows that other people aren’t free to spew insults and abuse into your face, either. But then, why would anyone do something like that to a nice person like you?

Panic on parade

THE Mujahideen Day parade in Kabul on April 27th was meant to show Afghanistan’s new, Western-trained, armed forces coming of age. President Hamid Karzai, the country’s political elite and a jumble of Western diplomats packed a podium to review the troops. Then, just as a 21-gun-salute began, three lightly armed Taliban fighters began to take pot-shots from a shabby hotel nearby. The dignitaries scrambled in panic for safety.

Casualties were not as serious as they might have been: the gunmen managed to kill three and wound 11 but missed their main target, Mr Karzai. Afghanistan’s intelligence chief said there was evidence that the attackers had ties with militant groups linked to al-Qaeda and based in Pakistan (see article). For the Taliban the attack is a propaganda victory, showing that Afghanistan’s capital is within their reach. This was the second big attack in Kabul this year. In January a four-man Taliban suicide-squad blasted its way into a luxury hotel, killing eight staff and guests.

This time, it could have been worse. Called in for a dressing-down by Afghan parliamentarians, the country’s intelligence chief, Amrullah Saleh, claimed that security forces had foiled two further attacks that day. Other attacks have reportedly been foiled in Kabul in recent months.

Optimists point out that Afghanistan’s government remains relatively stable and, despite the setbacks in Kabul, that there is no evidence of a jump in Taliban capability. Indeed, Western commanders say the younger Taliban leaders now emerging are more radical but less competent than their predecessors. It seems likely that in August, as scheduled, Afghan forces will take on responsibility for security around the capital. That would be a symbolic first step towards an eventual reduction in Western troop numbers. NATO’s commander thinks this might be feasible from 2011.

However, recent hints by some Western officials that the Taliban are crumbling look premature. Overall, Taliban violence is in fact rising. Military deaths in the first three months of the year were one-third higher than a year ago, though there were far fewer injuries (99 compared with 187 last year). More casualties among Western forces are caused by tactics such as roadside bombs and suicide-attacks. This time last year such assaults caused 44% of casualties; now it is more like 80%. That suggests the Taliban are eschewing firefights, when body armour often saves soldiers’ lives, in favour of lethal terrorist attacks.

A shift to “asymmetric” warfare would be understandable. The attack in Kabul fits in with that evolving strategy. Such “spectaculars” require little in the way of logistical support, but they mould public opinion. In conventional battles the Taliban forces were estimated to be losing 15 fighters, at least, for every NATO soldier killed.

Outside Kabul, too, Taliban leaders may have decided to swap set-piece battles for hit-and-run attacks. This would still allow them to keep the war going long enough to capitalise on disenchantment with the present regime. Grievances about corruption, bad government, worsening local feuds and foreign soldiers could all fuel anger at rule from Kabul. The Taliban’s best hope may be to outlast rather than outgun the West.