Lie to Me

No, that is not an exhortation for my readers to lie or try to deceive me.

That is the title of a fascinating series about how to detect whether someone is lying. We all would like to discover whether a person is being untruthful with us. It can be in our workplace, school, relationships, business - just about any arena of human social interaction. How can we read the all-important nonverbal communication to detect if we are having the wool pulled over our eyes? The TV programme Lie to Me explores that very subject.

I began watching a few episodes with a sceptical mindset. Would this be just another formulaic police-chasing-crooks story? My scepticism has given way to approval. Now I am hooked.

The basic premise of the series is the work of psychologist, Paul Ekman, who is a world leader on interpreting facial expressions (and non-verbal communication) and its role in detecting deception. From this interesting premise, a remarkable TV series is the result. Though the series presents an "open-and-shut" case every episode, Ekman is more tentative about drawing such firm conclusions from a person's facial expressions, or rather 'micro-expressions'. These are the involuntary facial movements, twitches and tics that we all perform when speaking, thus revealing our true emotions regardless of our verbal communication.

Tim Roth plays the principal character, Dr Cal Lightman, (loosely based on Ekman) the world's foremost expert on nonverbal communication and facial expression recognition. He portrays a psychologist that observes each person, usually suspects in a criminal investigation, for signs that their nonverbal communication - mainly facial expressions - indicate deep-seated emotions which contradict what the suspect has been saying. Roth's portrayal is the highlight of the programme, and his character is the pivot around which the whole series revolves. His character is urbane, witty, and clearly knows his subject inside-out.

Kenan Malik, author of Man, Beast Zombie: What Science Can and Cannot Tell us about Human Nature has a brief summary of Ekman's research, which involved investigating whether there are universals of human emotion; facial expressions that convey emotions which are recognised regardless of the culture in which the person was reared. Ekman collected evidence that this indeed was so, proving that basic human emotions of anger, happiness, fear, are recognised across widely disparate cultures.

Lightman's company is hired by law enforcement or federal agencies who have a need to observe suspects and find any particular cues as to whether they are lying, thus shedding light on the case under investigation. Lightman uses applied psychology to determine whether a person is intentionally deceiving investigators, or is telling the truth.

This is not a run-of-the-mill cops versus robbers series. It is attempting to reflect the impact of social psychology research on our everyday lives. We all want to know when we are being lied to; this deception detection behaviour extends into our personal lives, our jobs, workplace, business dealings, friendships, schools - just about every aspect of our working and social life. How can we pick up on the telltale signals that someone is lying to us? Are there unmistakable signs that a person with whom we are dealing is lying? The series is based on the research that suggests there are 'universals'; facial expressions that indicate basic emotions, irrespective of the culture or ethnicity in which a person was raised.

Each episode presents a very definitive case for deception detection - I suspect that it is not so cut-and-dried in the real world. After all, this is Hollywood, where law enforcement agencies apprehend the culprits in the parameters of a one-hour show. However, the merit of Lie to Me is the basis of the series; the research work of social psychology, body language, facial microexpressions, and the application of this knowledge to situations where detecting deception is crucial in determining guilt or innocence.

There are always two parallel cases in each episode; Lightman working with Dr Foster, and the two junior psychologists heading up their own investigation into another case. Lightman occasionally trips up his colleagues, detecting whether or not they are being truthful with him. This inter-office dyanmic makes Lightman seem obsessed with his topic; he is always on bullshit-detection mode. The constant interplay with the other psychologist/investigators in his company can get irritating at times, but it is a device used by the show to demonstrate Lightman's ongoing commitment to his work.

The most fascinating parts of the series are the techniques Lightman employs to expose the deception of the suspects he is interviewing. In one instance, the mother of a child that has been abducted did not display significant facial expressions even when discussing the disappearance of her child. Lightman explains that the lack of forehead movement, and corresponding lines around the eyes, indicated that the mother did not experience any sorrow or emotional anguish while discussing her kidnapped child. Could she be lying? She is a suspect in her daughter’s disappearance. But then, Lightman does something interesting; while the questioners are in the room, he causes a lamp globe to explode.

The occupants of the room, including the mother under interrogation, are startled by the explosion. Lightman notices even in such an instance, there is no movement of the forehead muscles or eye lines on the mother’s face. Lightman sees the reaction of all the other occupants of the room; they register the typical startled or frightened reaction. The mother was also startled by the light-burst, but Lightman observes that she still lacks the involuntary facial muscle movement when confronted with something surprising. Could there be another explanation? Indeed there is; the mother is receiving botox treatment, which impedes facial muscle movement. Hence the reason why her face appears motionless when discussing even emotionally traumatic subjects, like the abduction of her daughter.

It is an entertaining series, with slickly produced episodes featuring intricately fascinating plotlines. Go watch it from now on.

The Science Show on Radio National is back into the good books

Let me explain the title - I love the weekly Science Show on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's (ABC) Radio National. Their web page provides access to the transcripts and audio files of all their programmes. But my estimation of the Science Show dropped in recent months, because they devoted a whole programme to Matt Ridley, a popular science writer and commentator on social, political and environmental issues. Now Ridley went on to promote his latest book, the Rational Optimist. Now there is nothing wrong with that. However, Ridley is a climate-change denier, and providing such a non-scientific viewpoint unchallenged access on the Science Show was a shocking lapse in judgement, in my opinion. The Ridley interview was broadcast in September last year. Well, for a time, I was a bit peeved with the Science Show. But then.....

Earlier this month, the Science Show sprang back into the good books with flying colours. Why? Because it broadcast a talk by Naomi Oreskes, a professor of history and science studies, on the subject of a new book she co-authored, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Professor Oreskes gave a talk, based on her book, at the University of NSW. The main thrust of her talk was that doubt about the veracity of climate science was being systematically promoted by a powerful, well-connected and organised coalition of elite financial interests to undermine community acceptance of human-induced global warming.

Oreskes provided an excellent summary of the history climate science, examining how various scientists independently gathered increasing evidence that anthropomorphic global warming was occurring, and the available evidence gave cause for alarm. While scientists did achieve a consensus about global warming, they initially did not agree on exactly when the tipping points would occur. In fact, the few scientists that did make predictions based on the existing climate trends, like James Hansen, were criticised by their peers as having gone too far. Just as an emerging scientific consensus was taking hold, a well-orchestrated, politically motivated campaign was also beginning to form.

There are attacks on climate science from many quarters, as Oreskes elaborated. But the campaign to promote doubts about the reality of climate change emerged from a quarter that had had vast experience in criticising scientific findings; the tobacco industry, in alliance with scientists who had been working on US military technology during the Cold War. The multinational tobacco giants have had enormous experience in getting scientists to downplay, deny and undermine medical research that nicotine is addictive. If tobacco company executives stood up and denied any connection between their product and its carcinogenic effects, most of the public would not believe them. But if a scientist stands up and says the connection is doubtful, more people like you and me would be inclined to listen to the tobacco company's point of view and dismiss public concerns about the effects of cigarettes and second-hand smoke.

Where does the Cold War fit it? Well, Oreskes documents that a number of scientists that were working on nuclear weapons, in particular Reagan's misnamed Strategic Defence Initiative, were motivated by a political belief - the free market. The United States and its capitalist system, so the logic goes, is the most outstanding example of economic, political and individual liberty. This liberty is guaranteed by the free market, and the reduction of government regulation. You see, government regulation is synonymous with socialism, with a command economy. Now here are climate scientists stating that human-induced global warming is occurring, and it is because of our economic activities. So many environmentalists and global warming advocates propose some kind of economic regulation, which means government intervention in the 'free market'.

Well, this was just heresy according to the rightwing nuclear scientists and physicists who spent their careers developing sophisticated weapons to defend the 'free market'. Environmentalism, it is argued by the cold war warriors, is just the slippery slope to socialism. Oreskes details the intellectual roots of such a commitment to 'free markets' to Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, who wrote their main works at the height of cold war tensions. When environmentalists advocate that government step in and regulate health and environmental issues, that is the beginning of the descent into socialism and over-reaching government tyranny. Well, this philosophy found fertile ground in the area of climate-change denial, another way to attack the 'secret socialists' of the green-environmental movement.

Oreskes looks at how the conservative-oriented scientists, after having cooperated with the tobacco industry in the 1970s and 1980s, turned their attention to climate change denial in the 1990s. There has been a massive expansion of think-tanks and political institutes dedicated to the promotion of climate change denial. Oreskes pointed out that in Australia, we have the Institute for Public Affairs, which is extremely active in promoting climate change denial, reducing government regulation and advocating 'free markets'.

Fred Singer, a cold war physicist has a long and extensive track record of initially defending the tobacco industry, and then going on to provide scientific credibility to the anti-scientific campaign of climate change denial. For instance, Oreskes provides this illuminating item of Singer's history: "In the 1980s, Singer worked with the Reagan administration to cast doubt on the significance and severity of acid rain, arguing that controlling sulphur emissions was a billion dollar solution to a million dollar problem, so implying that environmentalists had exaggerated the significance of acid rain, and it wouldn't be significant enough to justify what it would cost to fix. So this is an argument we hear again today regarding global warming."

Climate science is where politics, society and scientific research all intersect. While it is impossible for everyone to undertake a systematic and exhaustive study of climate research, it is advisable to read books like Merchants of Doubt in order to be aware of the politically-motivated contrived 'debate' about this issue, and which powerful financial and political interests such a debate serves.

Go read (or listen to) Oreskes' talk here.

Tensions have subsided for now

There is a dangerous political leader on the Korean peninsula, who fantasizes that he can win a nuclear confrontation, recklessly endangering the lives of millions his own people. The conflict which he seems determined on provoking will have a cascade of devastating consequences, and draw in the regional powers in a horrendous conflict. All his actions have heightened tensions with his powerful neighbour, and he has rebuffed all moves towards a peaceful resolution of the latest standoff.

You think I am talking about Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader? No, the most dangerous man on the Korean peninsula is Lee Myung-bak, the South Korean president.

Have a read of this excellent article in Counterpunch by Peter Lee to find out why the South Korean president is a dangerous psychopath. Lee Myung-bak has the full backing of the Obama administration.

Following up on the Korean conflict

The excellent online magazine Counterpunch has two informative articles that follow up the latest increase in tensions on the Korean peninsula. It is very worthwhile to read both in order to respond to the drivel in the corporate-controlled media.

The first is by Gregory Elich and is entitled Menacing North Korea. Elich sets out how the South Korean government, with the connivance of the Obama administration, has deliberately escalated tensions with the North Koreans, a process that has initiated a cascading set of repercussions that could easily get out of control. Elich goes into the relevant political and historical background, highlighting the culpability of the Seoul regime in producing the latest crisis. For instance, Elich states that

"President Lee Myung-bak of the conservative Grand National Party took office in February 2008, vowing to reverse the Sunshine Policy of warming relations with North Korea. The government of Lee's predecessor, Roh Moo-hyun, had signed several agreements on economic cooperation with North Korea, including joint mining operations in the North. Lee killed every one these agreements, ensuring that they would never be implemented."

Elich interestingly points out that China has taken a reasonable position, offering to mediate in this latest crisis, measures that have been rebuffed by the United States. White House officials sneeringly dismissed China's moves towards dialogue as a useless series of "P. R. activities".

Go read the whole thing.

The second article is by regular Counterpunch contributor, Mike Whitney. Headlined The Korean War, Round Two, Whitney criticises the Obama administration's wilful escalation of tensions, warns of the disastrous consequences should the Pyongyang regime be backed into a corner. Whitney points out that holding joint US/South Korea military exercises right at the doorstep of North Korea is "no different than if China or Russia sent an armada to conduct operations 3 miles off Cape Cod." Go read the article here.

We need to be better informed of the actions of the big powers if we are to have any hope of resolving these conflicts peacefully.

Tensions increased on the Korean penisula

Tensions have heightened dramatically on the Korean peninsula, with the artillery exchange between the two Koreas on the disputed Northern Limit Line. North Korea shelled Yeonpyeong island, which is only ten miles from the North Korean coastline. While the US and South Korea immediately blamed Pyongyang for an unprovoked attack, let’s take a look at the background issues pertaining to this latest flareup.

The latest attack by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) or North Korea on the Yeonpyeong island was provoked by the South Koreans and the US. The US military along with their client regime in Seoul staged massive military exercises simulating an invasion of the North, and this on Yeonpyeong island which is only ten miles from the North Korean border. It is the political conduct of Washington and its ally in Seoul that ceaselessly threaten and incite violence against the DPRK.

The DPRK has been subjected to a sustained and intensive US blockade, denying its people basic medical equipment, food, and access to all the commodities that we take for granted here in Australia.

The South Korean regime has taken a direct confrontational stance against Pyongyang, and this stance has lead to an escalation of tensions. US has backed the Seoul regime all the way, including cooperating in joint military exercises aimed at North Korea. The latest exercise, code named 'Hoguk' involved 70 000 South Korean troops and simulated an invasion of Pyongyang.

In March this year, North Korea was accused of sinking a South Korean warship, the Cheonan, and while Seoul initially dismissed reports of North Korean responsibility, quickly changed its tune and accused Pyongyang of sinking the ship. This incident was used by Seoul to cut all diplomatic and economic ties with the North, and take on a confrontational stand. While the official South Korean-American investigation into the Cheonan held Pyongyang responsible, several US scientists conducted their own investigations and found no involvement by the North Korean regime.

The 1953 armistice which concluded the Korean war agreed on a land border, but did not extend into the maritime area. The US unilaterally drew a line in the sea, which placed Yeonpyeong on the south side, a demarcation that Pyongyang never agreed to. Yeonpyeong has been a bone of contention between North and South Korea twice before, back in 1999, and again in 2002.

North Korea's leaders are routinely derided in the corporate-controlled media as lunatics, hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons, deliberately starving their own people and pursuing an aggressively confrontational foreign policy. However, an examination of the historical record shows that the leaders of the DPRK have adopted a pragmatic approach, entering into negotiations with international bodies, only to face the constant provocations and sanctions by the United States and its South Korean ally. Between May 1992 and January 1993, the DPRK did allow six on-site inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). That did not stop the United States from charging that the DPRK was developing nuclear weapons, and advocating increasing the already tight economic sanctions in place against that country. The US and South Korean then staged joint military exercises involving 200 000 US and South Korean troops, with weapons that included nuclear arms.

In 1994, former US president Jimmy Carter travelled to Pyongyang and arranged a deal under which the DPRK agreed to abolish its nuclear generation program in return for oil supplies from Japan and the US. The tension on the Korean peninsula was reduced, and this diplomatic success was followed up by increasing contacts between the two Koreas. The North and South were moving towards some kind of rapprochement over the past year, at least before March this year. There were openings of diplomatic contact, business links and trade, and cultural exchanges between the two Koreas under the previous South Korean president. However, since the current South Korean president assumed office, Lee Myung-Bak has escalated tensions, broken off economic and diplomatic contacts, and has directly threatened North Korea with military attack. At least, Lee Myung-Bak's predecessor, Kim Dae-jung pursued a conciliatory approach, terming it "sunshine policy". This involved reducing tensions, entering into negotiations with Pyongyang, and even meeting with the leaders of the North Korean regime.

Nuclear weapons should be banned and the current nuclear powers encouraged to disarm their respective nuclear stockpiles. It is the politically selective way that the United States applies its opposition to nuclear weapons; why only target those regimes with which the US disagrees? Why does the US insist on maintaining and developing its own massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, while hypocritically demanding that other countries should comply with international law? It is the stench of this hypocrisy from the US that is intolerable. If the DPRK should be punished for pursuing nuclear technology, then why does the Obama administration insist on maintaining the largest, most well-stocked nuclear arsenal in the world?

The corporate-controlled media routinely asserts that the North Korean people are starving and that this situation is directly attributable to the economic mismanagement of the DPRK's leaders. Every country has its economic woes - the United States has been having deep economic troubles since 2008, and every European country is currently undertaking steps to avert the worst of the current economic crisis. In the United States, the Wall Street bankers and financial speculators who are responsible for creating this deep economic turmoil have so far avoided prosecution for their malpractices. In the DPRK, the country is under an economic blockade that tightly restricts the flow of goods and services. In the early 1990s the DPRK lost is main benefactor when the Soviet Union dissolved. So yes the country is going through its financial hardship, and that is no secret.

The current economic malaise in the DPRK is directly attributable to the crippling sanctions imposed on it by the US and its allies. Every time the US and South Korea hold joint military exercises, the DPRK gets nervous thus maintains a continual war-footing. This diverts crucial investment away from the provision of healthcare, education and housing into military expenditure. The US is calculating that the sanctions-afflicted economy will break under continuous pressure. Outspending the political opponents of the US is a dangerously reckless tactic, one that leads to increasing poverty in the US itself while escalating tensions in the Korean peninsula to the brink of all-out war. The shortages of the DPRK economy can then be blamed on the maladministration of its leaders, and not on the real culprits, the US military-industrial complex. The US administration callously denies the DPRK the basic necessities and financial aid needed to develop its economy, then turns around and hypocritically blames Pyongyang for economic mismanagement.

In April 2010, The World Health Organisation carried out a study of the DPRK's health care system, and found that while the system faces numerous challenges, the following points can be made:

There is no shortage of doctors and nurses; there is no "brain drain" of healthcare professionals as can be seen in the former Soviet republics, and there is an elaborate health infrastructure and a developed network of primary health care physicians. The author of the report states that Pyongyang has done “a good job in areas such as immunization coverage, effective implementation of maternal, newborn and child health interventions, in providing effective tuberculosis treatment and in successfully reducing malaria cases.”

You can read the story here:

WHO Chief Notes N. Korean Achievements in Public Health Care

And this was reported in the Voice of America news; not exactly a bastion of pro-DPRK propaganda.

Canberra has joined the chorus of warmongering rhetoric emanating from Washington and Seoul. Let us desist from outright aggression and provocation, and advocate a peaceful solution, such as the one suggested by Russia and China. That solution involves an immediate resumption of the six-party talks involving both Koreas, Russia, China, the US and Japan. A solution that includes regional as well as international players is the only way to bring about a just and lasting peace based on international law. The sanctions against the DPRK must be immediately abolished so that Pyongyang is not driven into a corner where its only option is the use of military force. The suffering of the Korean people on both sides of the armistice line can be alleviated by removing the crippling sanctions and working towards a mutually acceptable solution through dialogue.

This is what the new American-sponsored democratic Iraq looks like

Gareth Porter, a long-term investigative journalist and historian, has written yet another incisive article about the disturbing strategy of the US military to incite sectarian violence, thus keeping Iraqis divided among themselves and undermining Iraqi-Arab nationalism.

The US wants to create a subordinate Iraq, a country bereft of any political and educated leadership that can challenge its puppets in Baghdad. One of the ways the US does this is instigate horrifying sectarian hatred, like this example documented by Gareth Porter. The US military deliberately pitted Shias, Kurds and Sunnis against each other, to stoke the fires of sectarian hatred and poison relations between these communities. Like a noxious weed, the US and its proxies have spread their malignant hate to new fields.

General Petraeus was hailed (and still is regarded) as the man to bring stability to Iraq. We can see from this evidence that all he did was escalate the Iraq war to new levels of horrifying violence. He is a terrorist and war criminal who should be put on trial for his crimes against humanity.

As Porter documents, "the U.S. military command issued “FRAGO [fragmentary order] 242″, which provided that no investigation of detainee abuse by Iraqis was to be conducted unless directed by the headquarters of the command, according to references to the order in the Wikileaks documents.

The order came immediately after Gen. Petraeus took command of the new Multi-National Security Transition Command in Iraq (MNSTC-I). It was a clear signal that the U.S. command expected torture of prisoners to be a central feature of Iraqi military and police operations against Sunni insurgents."

So Petraeus is a mass murderer and torturer who will go down in history as a butcher, an execrable criminal-general whose name emits the same foul stench as his fellow war-criminals Franco, Pinochet and Rodolfo Graziani.

If anyone thought that the US can play the role of a peacekeeper in Iraq, or was motivated by a desire to bring peace to the Middle East, then this essay by Porter should give them pause for thought. And such crimes by the committed United States military and political authorities (along with their Iraqi auxiliaries) underscores the necessity for a strong antiwar movement in Australia.

The economic system we live with

The following two articles are from Links, a magazine from Australia dedicated to the revival of socialism, and seeks the active collaboration of socialist parties around the world. The Links e-magazine has many strengths, one of which is its continued coverage of political economy.

Yes, I can hear the groans from the readers already; oh no, not economics! Boring! But please, bear with me.

Links does have academic articles, but it is not aimed primarily at academics. It is aimed at promoting discussion and cooperation among socialist ground and individuals. Part of changing the capitalist society is understanding how the political economy works. Now it is fine to talk about interest rate rises, mortgages and superannuation. But these microeconomic issues are subordinate to the major issues of how the Australian, and global, economy works. Economics is often presented as this incredibly complex subject that only people with super-brains can fathom. While economics does contain its own complexities, I think that economists and economics writers need to do a better job at informing the public (you and me) about how corporate profit is draining money from socially-necessary projects, like health care and education.

To that end, I am linking to the following fantastic articles. One is called Turning the tide of oil in US and world politics. This essay examines the huge impact of the oil industry on our lives and how to provide an alternative to this insane, polluting profit-driven system.

The second is a longer piece called Currency wars and the privilege of empire. Recently in the corporate-controlled media, there have been emotional (sometimes xenophobic) attacks on China and the measures by that government to protect its economy. The impulsive denunciations of China from American politicians are motivated by the deep economic malaise in the United States itself. This article, a longish piece, analyses the historical origins of the rise of American capitalism and its current demise.