Asawin Suebsaeng

Interactive Writing Fellow

Asawin Suebsaeng is the interactive writing fellow at the Washington, DC, bureau of Mother Jones. He has also written for The American Prospect, the Bangkok Post, and Shoecomics.com.

Full Bio | Get my RSS | Follow @swin24

A graduate of Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Penn., Asawin came back to DC with hopes of putting his flimsy Creative Writing major, student newspaper tenure, and interest in human rights and political chicanery to some use. He started cutting his teeth at F&M's student-run weekly, The College Reporter, serving as editor in chief. He has interned at The American Prospect, been a reporter for the Bangkok Post, and scribbled for ShoeComics.com. His favorite movie is either Apocalypse Now or Pirahna 3D, depending on the day or mood.

Budget Crunch Ruins the CIA Party Scene

—By Asawin Suebsaeng

| Fri Dec. 2, 2011 5:22 AM PST

If the economy remains sour, this might be the most the CIA's party budget can afford this year.

The combination of the stagnant economy and Washington's budget-slashing frenzy keeps claiming casualties. Along with the expected toll on small businesses and—believe it or not—chunks of Wall Street, treasured vices have faced hard times. Dippin' Dots, one of the world's favorite drunk-at-a-ballpark snacks, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in early November. Federal agencies have been ordered to seriously cut down on give-aways of government-issued swag (i.e. stress balls, mouse pads, baseball caps, pens, tote bags). And in mid-July, Minnesotans almost had to bid adieu to their beloved cigarettes and beer.

Things might be looking rather barren, but at least we still have those fun annual CIA holiday parties to look forward to...ah, hell, nevermind; scratch that:

U.S. spy agencies might have been eager to celebrate their success this holiday season, following the death of Osama bin Laden, new indications that sanctions and sabotage are working against Iran, and the passage of another year without a major terrorist attack on the United States.

But with budget cuts looming, party plans are being pared back for the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA. Both agencies have for years been known — at least among elites in the insular world of espionage — for throwing lavish year-end events.

Under then-director Leon E. Panetta last year, the CIA brought in shipments of California wine, and served fried oysters, grilled shrimp and quesadillas. His predecessor, Michael V. Hayden, made sure there were musicians playing Irish music while stations set up inside the agency’s cavernous headquarters hallway served drinks and hors d'oeuvres.

...

But the CIA and DNI both acknowledged this week that the events this time around will be smaller, cheaper and off-limits to the press..."Scaling back our holiday celebrations is just another small example of our commitment to making sure that we continue to make wise fiscal decisions across the board," [Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper said in a prepared statement.

Because of the sheer, widely acknowledged awesomeness of CIA-DNI holiday throwdowns, the agency might soon have an #OccupyLangley—comprised of disgruntled employees and elite journos—on its hands.

This latest budget crunch-related move seems to fit with the Obama administration's much-hyped "SAVE Award" initiative, which rewards federal employees who propose the best ideas "to make government more effective and efficient and ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely" on the micro level. But as the Washington Post's Greg Miller noted on Wednesday, officials say that the annual DNI mixer typically costs in the ballpark of $50,000—the same amount the government spends on a single Hellfire missile.

So if this is really just another drop in the deep, towering bucket, it begs the question: Why on earth would the government scale back on one of the things the CIA has actually gotten right?

Advertise on MotherJones.com

UK Crematorium to Generate, Sell Energy Made From Dead People

—By Asawin Suebsaeng

| Thu Dec. 1, 2011 8:08 AM PST

"Elmo now sustainable energy."

If there was ever a reason for everything in the United Kingdom to suddenly become haunted, this is it:

This week, Durham Crematorium announced plans to install turbines in two of its burners, which, using heat generated during cremation, could produce enough electricity to power "1,500 televisions," the Telegraph reports. The turbines—part of the crematorium's £2.3 million (US $3,611,920) furnace replacement project—would run on the steam that comes from cooling the intensely hot gasses used for cremation. Durham could then sell off the electricity to the UK's National Grid and receive compensation from energy companies under the "feed-in tariffs" program, while using a third burner to heat the offices and chapel. Crematoria across the country are expected to follow Durham's efficient lead.

Just to be clear, cremation is that thing you do when you want to burn dead people to crispy, funeral-ready ash. This means that all that harnessed energy—for the chapel, the offices, the interconnected power stations—would technically be made from corpses. You could think of this as Sweeney Todd, but for alternative-energy enthusiasts. It might even sound eerily reminiscent of a 2001 Japanese cult film where poltergeists destroy human civilization after entering our world via modern technology.

Dark stuff, huh?

Actually, once you get over the macabre elements, it's kind of a good idea that sponsors promise will be carried out with utmost transparency. Durham Crematorium, run by the county council, will host several "open days" in an attempt to drum up broad public support for the plan. (Similar projects have enjoyed community support in areas such as the city of Halmstad in Sweden.)

"If there is genuine spare capacity to generate electricity then we are certainly interested in investigating that [and] if it was thought to be acceptable in the eyes of the public we would almost certainly pursue that," Alan José, superintendent at Durham Crematorium, said in an interview with the Telegraph. "Apart from it being common sense for us to try to conserve energy, it also enables us to keep the fees down...We don't want to become known as a power station rather than a crematorium because we try to provide a reverend and decent place for people to have a cremation service."

Due to the UK's ever-rising electricity costs—plus the fact that over 70 percent of the country's dead end up getting cremated, anyway—it's probably safe to assume that this trend will continue picking up steam. But the success of this type of program ultimately depends on how uneasy people get when faced with the possibility that their electric foot massager might be powered by recently departed grandpa.

Florida Rep. Loses It Over Reporter's Chuckle

—By Asawin Suebsaeng

| Wed Nov. 30, 2011 10:13 AM PST

It's displays of rude advocacy like this that Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart finds so heinous.

On Tuesday, Miami Herald political reporter Marc Caputo asked Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) what he thought about President Obama's foreign policy accomplishments, such as the killing of Osama bin Laden and the NATO Libya mission. The Cuban-American congressman—who had just thrown Mitt Romney his glowing endorsement—responded with the following: "I applaud President Obama for doing two things: for keeping the policies of the Bush administration..."

And that's as far as he got before Caputo started chuckling. The Republican congressman wasn't terribly pleased with that, thus commencing a weird philosophical debate between the two over the nature of political "advocacy."

The laugh, Caputo writes, came out of his "surprise [that] Diaz-Balart wasn't giving any credit to Obama without strings attached." Caputo has since posted audio of the spat online. After reading the transcript of their lively disagreement, it's exceedingly difficult not to imagine it as a long-lost Abbott and Costello routine:

Diaz-Balart: "You laugh, are you a reporter or a debater?...It's funny because—and I'm not giving you a hard time here, but usually reporters are reporters, not advocates."

Caputo: "I am not."

Diaz-Balart: "Oh, yes, you are."

Caputo: "Give me an example of advocacy."

Diaz-Balart: "Right now! You're laughing about my position...You're an advocate! By the way, you have the right to be. I love advocacy."

Caputo: "I disagree with your characterization of advocacy."

Diaz-Balart: "You're in advocacy. You're an advocate."

Caputo: "I completely disagree."

Diaz-Balart: "And I completely respect your advocacy, I do. I respect your advocacy."

Caputo: "I respect your right to get it wrong that I'm advocating."

Diaz-Balart: "Okay, that's fine."

Caputo: "We'll agree to disagree."

Diaz-Balart: "And I respect you when I give a point of view that you disagree with, laughing about it."

Caputo: "I don't know why you think I disagree with it."

Diaz-Balart: "You laughed about it."

The allegation that Caputo was basically doing George Soros' dirty work is a tad much. He let out a mild giggle over a pretty ridiculous statement.

It is strange, though, that Caputo was so "surprised" by the congressman's answer. It's common nowadays for conservatives—whether they're presidential candidates or talking heads on Fox—to dismiss Obama's foreign policy successes as flukes or simply products of the previous administration. It'd be wishful thinking to expect any more from a GOP congressman, especially on the same day that he announced his endorsement of the president's likely rival in the 2012 election.

As for Diaz-Balart's claim that Obama preserved the Bush-era policies, it's much harder to laugh that one off: When it comes to the Obama White House's position on warrantless wiretaps, the stunning lack of transparency, the hefty price-tag of the administration's clampdown on state secrets, and the aggressiveness and expansion of international counterterrorism measures, there's solid basis for that bit of the Florida Republican's argument.

Is Laptop Wi-Fi Murdering Your Semen?

—By Asawin Suebsaeng

| Tue Nov. 29, 2011 2:27 PM PST

Ride on, buddy. Ride on.

According to a new study by Argentinian scientists, published in the bluntly named journal Fertility and Sterility, the electromagnetic radiation generated during wireless web-surfing might be completely bulldozing your mojo.

Here's an excerpt from the (actually pretty awkward) Reuters Health report:

The digital age has left men's nether parts in a squeeze, if you believe the latest science on semen, laptops and wireless connections. In a report...scientists describe how they got semen samples from 29 healthy men, placed a few drops under a laptop connected to the Internet via Wi-Fi and then hit download.

Four hours later, the semen was, eh, well-done.

A quarter of the sperm were no longer swimming around, for instance, compared to just 14 percent from semen samples stored at the same temperature away from the computer. And nine percent of the sperm showed DNA damage, three-fold more than the comparison samples..."Our data suggest that the use of a laptop computer wirelessly connected to the internet and positioned near the male reproductive organs may decrease human sperm quality," [Dr. Conrado Avendaño of Nascentis Medicina Reproductiva and his colleagues] write in their report. "At present we do not know whether this effect is induced by all laptop computers connected by Wi-Fi to the internet or what use conditions heighten this effect."

A separate test with a laptop that was on, but not wirelessly connected, found negligible EM radiation from the machine alone.

The study makes it clear early on that none of this—even when taken together with past scientific reports—is conclusive; these cases of MacBook-cooked spermatozoa shouldn't lead avid tech-users to prematurely freak out as if we were talking about cell phones and brain tumors. And although male infertility has been linked to things as diverse as hormone imbalance, some types of medicine, heavy smoking, and conditions that cause abnormally high temparature of the testicles, leading experts in the field are hesitant to embrace the "wireless Internet is frying your junk" narrative.

"This is not real-life biology, this is a completely artificial setting," Dr. Robert Oates, president of the Society for Male Reproduction and Urology, told Reuters. "It is scientifically interesting, but to me it doesn't have any human biological relevance...[A]ll of this angst is created for real-life actual persons that doesn't have to be."

Moreover, there has yet to be a comprehensive study that examines whether laptop use—wireless or Ethernet—has any effect whatsoever on fertility or pregnancy. So rest assured: there's still a good chance watching season four of Parks and Recreation on Hulu with your Dell resting on your lap won't make you sterile.

Some of Barney Frank's Best Lines (and Worst Moments)

—By Asawin Suebsaeng

| Mon Nov. 28, 2011 1:23 PM PST

Barney Frank, in younger days.

On Monday, Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.) made the surprise announcement that he will not seek reelection in 2012. A liberal stalwart who was first elected to Congress at the dawn of the Reagan era, Frank rose to become the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee from 2007-11 and was a key author of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the regulatory overhaul signed into law in July 2010.

Admired for his barbed wit and pugilistic approach to politics, Frank was attacked by conservatives for his pre-housing crisis relationship with Fannie and Freddie and his views on taxation and Wall Street regulation. (Frank's departure, however, will not leave the right without a regulatory bogeyman—once he retires, California congresswoman Maxine Waters will be the most-senior Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.)

Here's a collection of both Frank's greatest hits and some of his most cringe-worthy fumbles.

SOME HIGHS

1) Barney hates Newt (mid-'90s edition)

There are plenty of politicians who have heated ideological disagreements but can still smile and play golf together. Newt Gingrich and Barney Frank don't have that luxury. Long before the 2012 Republican presidential contender said it was a good idea to throw Frank in jail for "put[ting] this country in trouble," the two were already busy hating on everything the other stood for. Along with making it abundantly clear that he "despise[s] Gingrich because of the negative effect he has had on American politics," Frank had the following to say about the then-House Speaker during a 1995 interview with Mother Jones:

That's why [Gingrich] says so many wrong things: He doesn't know a lot about substance. He half-reads some future-oriented books and out of that comes a gabble that's not terribly coherent…[H]e's a mechanic of power.

More than 16 years later, the mutual animosity show little sign of cooling off—Frank even made sure to work a couple Gingrich-related zingers into the Monday afternoon press conference announcing his retirement.

2) Frank's "Make Room for the Serious Criminals" legislation

Frank occasionally found common ground with politicians like Ron Paul on some pet causes. Here's one of them: