Politics roundup: Saudi Arabia still targeted for Khashoggi disappearance

Though the Saudis deny it, nearly everyone else believes that the nation was behind journalist Jamal Khahshoggi’s disappearance and almost certain death.

New developments in Khashoggi disappearance

After journalist Jamal Khashoggi disappeared last week, the international spotlight has turned towards Saudi Arabia. Khashoggi, a prominent journalist and critic of the Saudi absolute monarchy, was last seen alive entering the Saudi embassy in Istanbul, Turkey on October 2.

Details about what, exactly, happened to Khashoggi inside the embassy building remain unclear. However, Turkish officials claim that they have nigh-unassailable proof that Saudi agents killed Khashoggi and disposed of his remains. This includes evidence that a team of 15 of those agents flew into Turkey at around 3:00 am and then waited for the journalist inside the embassy. Turkey says that it has an audio recording of the event (Warning: some of the details are especially gruesome). Many now assume that Khashoggi is no longer alive.

More and more, circumstantial evidence connects Khashoggi’s death with Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. Given that the Saudi government is under the control of an absolute monarchy (comprised of the House of Saud) and that the Crown Prince is an especially powerful figure, it’s hard to imagine that such a move would be out of his control.

Who knew what, and when?

Members of the American intelligence community generally agree that Saudi officials must have known of a plot to murder Khashoggi. That’s somewhat awkward, however, given that the U.S. President has established friendly, even close ties with the Crown Prince and Saudi Arabia. The financial power of the Saudi royal family is nothing to sneeze at.

Yet, Khashoggi was a U.S. resident, one who lived in Virginia and frequently wrote for American publications like The Washington Post. He was often taken as a champion of free speech rights, at least when he openly criticized the Saudi regime. While the President may downplay Khashoggi’s ties to the United States, America’s involvement in the matter is large and unavoidable.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo traveled to Saudi Arabia early in the week, apparently in an attempt to gain a greater understanding of the matter and begin to smooth over the dramatic affair.

On Tuesday, he met privately with Crown Prince Mohammed. However, sources indicate that the meeting was highly scripted, tightly controlled, and revealed no great truths or produced any substantial action. The Prince, naturally, told Pompeo that he had nothing at all to do with Khashoggi’s disappearance.

“I don’t want to talk about any of the facts,” Pompeo told reporters. As for the Saudis, he said: “They didn’t want to either.”

Trade talks put pressure on China

After effectively restructuring the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico and Canada, the United States has set its sights on another international trade agreement: the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Previously, the United States pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, citing claims that the 12-nation agreement was unfair. Now, the U.S. is looking to cement other, non-partnership trade agreements with some of the countries already in the pact. These nations include the United Kingdom, Japan, and the European Union.

But why go to all the trouble of withdrawing from a major agreement and then making deals with some of the very same nations you had already seen across the table from you? It all has to do with China.

Since the beginning of the current White House administration, China has been established as a sort of international trade bogeyman. To be fair, there are solid arguments for restructured trade deals with China, especially as manufacturers claim that Chinese makers have stolen their intellectual property.

Yet, the attempt to back China into an economic corner with these agreements is a controversial one. Are the U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods truly effective? Is America still big enough, economically speaking, to force other nations’ hands? Or, is this the beginning of an era where the United States is left behind while China and other countries forge their own markets?

Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test result sparks debate

Early this week, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren released the results of a genetic test she had taken. This was no healthcare-related announcement, however. Rather, Warren was using the report to make a point about her genetics. Whether she did so rightly or with the full understanding of history remains up for considerable debate.

Early in her Congressional career, Warren had spoken of Native American ancestry, claiming partial Cherokee heritage. According to the Boston Herald, Harvard University had boasted that Warren, a faculty member in the 1990s, was “the first woman with a minority background to be tenured” there.

Warren, for her part, has said that her heritage was not brought up by her or Harvard during the interview process. However, she initially listed herself as a Native American in law professor directories, a practice that she eventually stopped. Today, the matter of who claimed what heritage, how, when, and why remains exceedingly murky.

The recent announcement, then, is the latest entry in a long saga. It has come to attention most recently thanks in part to the President’s repeated references to the matter. He has derisively referred to Senator Warren as “Pocahontas” and seems to come back to the matter regularly on Twitter.

It appears that Warren’s move was an attempt to show up the President with plain facts and genetics. Yet, it appears to have backfired. By releasing test results that show some distant American Indian ancestry, has Warren elevated an already tiresome conservation?

Has Warren undermined the very real issues that face people with more direct ties to American tribes? How much do genetics and “heritage” intersect, anyway? Warren’s move, it seems, has raised more questions than it could hope to answer. Maybe it would be better to concentrate on the record number of Native American women running for office this year, anyway.

And, finally, your palate cleanser

Artificial intelligence has been the subject of scientific philosophizing, genuine anxiety, and some darn good science fiction. Ever since the notion of intelligent machines has been floated, it seems more and more likely that we’ll be chatting with some very smart computers soon – or acting as their servants. Well, that’s the best case scenario, assuming we don’t go ahead and create Skynet. But how likely is all of this to happen in the real world?

Most scientists seem to think that artificial intelligence is more or less a given, though no one can quite agree on what it will look like or how, exactly, it will affect our world. At any rate, there’s a lot of lingo to learn for the AI newbie.

Intentional bias could be the latest worry, as an AI with purposefully skewed judgement could wreak a lot of havoc with our retrograde ape brains. Meanwhile, deepfake videos created by AI have some very obvious real-world concerns.

While there have been major advances in AI technology, we’ve yet to reach the “singularity”. That the point where artificial intelligence outpaces our own, leaving us in a world with hyper-intelligent machines. Don’t start looking at your Roomba suspiciously, yet, however. Some scientists wonder if the singularity is possible in the first place.

If nothing else, at least we have science fiction. Check out MIT’s list of most realistic science fiction. You may prefer some less factual, but still good works of literature about AI, listed here and here. Just be sure to treat your robotic vacuum and your smartphone with a little more respect next time.