Folding the Map

‘Public Option’ in Health Plan May Be Dropped

2009-08-17T10:11:00.000-04:00

‘Public Option’ in Health Plan May Be Dropped: "For President Obama, giving up on a public insurance plan could punch a hole in Republican arguments but could also alienate liberal Democrats."

He's doing this so Republicans will get on board. You know, the "moderate Republicans" who are willing to "work with" Democrats to get this bill passed. If anyone who does not support this bill could explain to me why the public option is bad, I'd really like to hear it.

Interesting article about healthcare

2009-07-31T22:19:00.002-04:00

Haven't blogged much in a while. Don't intend to restart. Only wanted to point to an article by Peter Singer on the issue of healthcare (nationalized versus private) in the New York Times a week or two ago. I have to agree with Professor Singer (like that matters): despite what is written in the news, the human cost of private healthcare is simply less immediately visible than that of nationalized healthcare. Take a read and see what you think.

[via NYT Magazine]

Economists' Response to Bailout

2008-09-23T22:56:00.002-04:00

I have been pretty quiet about the mortgage/bailout crisis that the American economy has been experiencing in the past week or so. The reason for that is that I cannot really say that I know what exactly should be done and, perhaps more importantly, I am not sure how the Fed and the Treasury should react (nor how they should be allowed to react) to the crisis. To that end, I finally found something that sums up my concerns about the bailout plan. It comes in the form of a letter written to Congress by leading academic economists and goes something like this:

As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:

1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries “systemic risk.” The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.

2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.

3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America’s dynamic and innovative private-capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

For these reasons, we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.

I think that really sums up most of my concerns about this bailout. It could be said in much more politically evocative terms (as I believe several Congress members have already done), but generally, this is a good summary of all the questions I have regarding the government bailout of the financial industry.

[via NYT Freakonomics]
[full letter and signatories available here]

Tim Wise's "White Privilege": How Palin is Even Running for VP

2008-09-20T11:05:00.006-04:00

I just read a really interesting piece on the effects of "white privilege" (on, in particular, the upcoming election). Unfortunately, the site posting the piece is membership only, so I am attaching it below. Enjoy.

THIS IS YOUR NATION ON WHITE PRIVILEGE
By Tim Wise
9/13/08

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being
disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who
say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign
policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and
certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

After spending a little more time tracking down the original source of this article, it seems that Tim Wise first wrote it for the Red Room. The article is accessible via the link below. Enjoy.

[via Red Room]

Google CEO Eric Schmidt's Eco Forum Talk

2008-09-15T08:37:00.003-04:00

Somebody just sent me a link to this YouTube video capturing Eric Schmidt's talk at the Eco Forum about how companies (and even private citizens) can help reduce the environmental degradation going on today. Schmidt does not lay the responsibility for humanity's survival on the earth in the hands of politicians; he places it squarely on the shoulders of private firms and individuals, who, he says, are much more easily able to effect environmental change than any American politician/administration. That changes the whole context of the global warming debate, as it puts the onus of action back on people and companies, rather than letting us wait for our slow-moving governments to do the things we should be doing.
Schmidt continues in the speech by talking about an idea that I think is exactly on the mark: ultimately, it will not be sweeping innovations or governmental mandates that will increase our chances of survival on the earth. Rather, it will be the continuing drive towards efficient production/consumption that will lead to a more sustainable tenure on earth for humanity. We have to learn how to produce and consume the things we need (and want) in ways that allow for the upcoming generations of humanity to be able to produce and consume those things as well. Schmidt explains how he hopes to make Google more efficient, talking about the solar and wind power projects already in place around Google campuses, and provides suggestions for how the US, as a whole, can shift towards reduced resource consumption and improved alternative energy production (here, he sometimes leans on government help).
Overall, it's a really good talk from somebody who is in a position to do something about the global warming problem and actually seems to be doing his bit. It also reassures me, despite the Chrome privacy snafus, etc., that Google still has its head in the right place...

[via YouTube]

The Mote In God's Eye (best alien encounter sci-fi I've read so far)

2008-09-14T23:01:00.001-04:00

Let me, first, introduce the book I just read. The Mote in God's Eye is a book co-written by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. It is another one of the books I put on reserve in the local library system that are slowly trickling into my local library on a half-weekly basis. Sadly, I can't read most of them because I have too much other reading to do, but I am really glad I read this one. This book really grabs onto the idea of the alienness of an alien encounter in a way that I don't think I've ever seen before.
Just a quick synopsis before I explain what I mean. Humans seem to be recovering from a civil war that has left many human worlds isolated throughout the galaxy; little by little, the government seems to be finding the worlds and reconsolidating them into the human system. Into this situation arrives an alien probe that has travelled, via normal space (rather than through the jumps that are the equivalent of hyperspace/warp-drive/etc. in this universe), to human territory. Obviously, humans have a desire to figure out what is going on and, in their exploration of the source of the probe, find the Motie civilization.
That is the synopsis. And that is not the coolest part. The coolest part is the civilization humans discover (WARNING: I might spoil the book for you a little in the upcoming paragraphs). The Motie civilization has discovered the jumps in the past but, due to certain circumstances that are explained in the book, have never successfully retrieved a returning jump ship (which is why they send out the normal space probe). Moreover, the Moties live in a feudal, anarcho-capitalist world dominated by a subspecies of Moties that own large regions of the world and do with it as they please. Finally, and this is the coolest bit, Moties are a species that have had their entire history sculpted by one inescapable fact: their inability to control their absurdly high rate of reproduction. This reproductive rate, as explicated by Niven and Pournelle has driven the entire history of Motie Prime and, in fact, the entire Motie system.
I won't say anymore, lest some readers actually want to read this book. I'll just say that reading this book has been one of the most enjoyable bits of sci-fi reading I have done in the past year or so (which is saying quite a bit). If you do read it, I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Another Palin Explanation

2008-09-14T22:34:00.003-04:00

I think that people are finally getting the idea: a McCain presidency is basically just a Palin presidency in disguise... and a Palin presidency is just the neo-conservative arm of the Republican party running the country for 4 (or 8) more years. Frank Rich (New York Times Op-Ed Columnist) just wrote a blistering piece about what a Palin vice presidency would mean for the United States and how absurd it is that we are actually considering her as a vice presidential candidate at all.
First, he dismantled her RNC nomination speech, pointing out that, not only did she quote her unidentified writer out of context, the unidentified writer was Westbrook Pegler, "a rabid Joe McCarthyite who loathed F.D.R. and Ike and tirelessly advanced the theory that American Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe (“geese,” he called them) were all likely Communists."
Some other choice quotes follow:

"But race is just one manifestation of the emotion that defined the Palin rollout. That dominant emotion is fear — an abject fear of change. Fear of a demographical revolution that will put whites in the American minority by 2042. Fear of the technological revolution and globalization that have gutted those small towns and factories Palin apotheosized... And, last but hardly least, fear of illegal immigrants who do the low-paying jobs that Americans don’t want to do and of legal immigrants who do the high-paying jobs that poorly educated Americans are not qualified to do. No less revealing than Palin’s convention invocation of Pegler was the pointed omission of any mention of immigration, once the hottest Republican issue, by either her or McCain. Saying the word would have cued an eruption of immigrant-bashing ugliness, Pegler-style, before a national television audience."

"But the ultimate hypocrisy is that these woebegone, frightened opponents of change, sworn enemies of race-based college-admission initiatives, are now demanding their own affirmative action program for white folks applying to the electoral college. They want the bar for admission to the White House to be placed so low that legitimate scrutiny and criticism of Palin’s qualifications, record and family values can all be placed off limits. Byron York of National Review, a rare conservative who acknowledges the double standard, captured it best: “If the Obamas had a 17-year-old daughter who was unmarried and pregnant by a tough-talking black kid, my guess is if they all appeared onstage at a Democratic convention and the delegates were cheering wildly, a number of conservatives might be discussing the issue of dysfunctional black families.”"

In the end, Rich also provides some solid advice for Obama: "If Obama is to convey just what’s at stake, he must slice through the campaign’s lipstick jungle and show Americans the real perils that lie around the bend." Really good op-ed, I think. And one that, again, reminds Americans that a Palin vice presidency (actually, a Palin presidency) is NOT the option we want...

[via NYT]

Palin Exposé

2008-09-14T11:04:00.002-04:00

After seeing that McCain went ahead of Obama very soon after the Palin addition, I have decided to actively use this post to help people understand that Palin is not a good running mate for anyone (even a Republican candidate). Of course, this is probably sort of like preaching to the choir (or so I sincerely hope), but I am going to do it anyway, just in case there is somebody who reads this who thought Palin is a worthy candidate for VP.
Starting off in that vein, it seems that the New York Times has made that objective of mine far easier. They ran a pretty long exposé of Palin's mayoral and gubernatorial campaigns and administrations in the Politics section of today's newspaper. It highlights all sorts of fun facts about her "leadership" style: ruthless vindictiveness, over-the-top cronyism, secrecy in place of the campaigned-on openness, and a general disinterest in running a government to serve all the people rather than just her own people. I've linked the article below, enjoy. And please, if you know people who think Palin is a good addition to the McCain ticket, use the article's points to convince them otherwise; just don't tell them it came from the New York Times as that will probably convince them that the "damn liberal media" is just out to get the best VP candidate ever... Ugh.

[via NYT]

McCain leading Obama?!?!

2008-09-12T11:09:00.003-04:00

I was reading election information yesterday at some of the more reliable sources of polling information available on the internet: Princeton Election Consortium and InTrade Prediction Markets. I found out that Obama has actually fallen behind McCain in state polls and in InTrade predictions! This after McCain selected Palin as his VP!!! In case this is all because of my transcript of her RNC speech, I would like to clarify that I was being satirical in every instance where I seemed to be praising her. Do NOT vote for McCain and her based on my transcript. If McCain-Palin really win this election, I ... Actually, I have no idea what I'll do as I never really thought I would have to consider that outcome. Thank you very much everyone who apparently thinks that the McCain ticket is somehow better thanks to Palin's new vice presidential nomination...

P2P Copyright Infringement Notice Spam

2008-09-09T08:34:00.002-04:00

A really interesting bit of news: spammers have apparently resorted to e-mailing P2P users fake copyright infringement notices, falsely identifying themselves as MediaDefender (part of the RIAA lawsuit apparatus). I don't know if I can put it any better than Ars did, "There's something deeply ironic about the fact that data thieves have targeted content thieves for botnet infiltration." Ironic indeed.

[via Ars Technica]

Google Chrome (and Browsers) Supposedly Make Microsoft Windows (and Operating Systems) Irrelevant

2008-09-08T09:38:00.002-04:00

The author of the article linked below makes the claim that operating systems (like Microsoft Windows, GNU/Linux, Mac OS X, etc.) are being made irrelevant thanks to internet browsers (like Microsoft Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc.)... I am sure many have already thought this but, in order to run Google Chrome, you need Windows (as it doesn't quite run on anything else yet). Therefore, while I'd love to think that computing has reached a point where the internet is the ubiquitous platform that makes everything available to everyone all the time, regardless of everything else, I don't think we've quite reached that singularity yet.

[via NYT]

Key Points from Gov. Palin's Nomination Speech

2008-09-04T08:00:00.004-04:00

Key points from Governor Palin's vice-presidential nomination speech in St. Paul, Minnesota last night:

-reporters don't like her and she doesn't care
-Obama talked about religion and guns differently when speaking to versus when speaking of middle America voters
-Obama only worked as a community organizer
-reform is hard but must be done
-she sold governor's jet and chef in Alaska
-she drives to governor's office (instead of taking the jet, presumably)
-she knows how the veto works
-she doesn't like tax on fuel
-she doesn't want federal funding for state projects
-she built a $40B natural gas pipeline to lead America to energy independence
-she knows that foreign powers don't have American interests at heart
-she is in favor of gasoline autarchy
-she wants to drill the North Slope of Alaska to go towards gasoline autarchy, presumable because it will stop our energy dependence on evil foreign powers
-McCain-Palin administration will do everything but drill for oil (lay pipelines, build nuclear plants, clean coal plans, and mover forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources)
-Obama has not written a "major law" or "reform"
-Obama thinks that "America's war" and "victory" are two phrases that just don't mix
-she doesn't like styrofoam Greek columns
-Obama is a hippy-dippy environmentalist
-Obama wants to reduce America's strength in a dangerous world
-Obama is too concerned about terrorists' rights (presumably, that means she just wants all people accused of terror to be put in jails with no due process)
-Obama is raising taxes when America is going into a recession
-how do extra Obama taxes help Americans suffering a recession? (implying that healthcare for uninsured and welfare for poor doesn't apply to those recession-struck Americans)
-Obama uses change to promote career, McCain uses career to promote change
-she doesn't like that Obama has buttons and self-designed presidential seals
-Obama doesn't have the idealism of McCain (presumably because the lack of experience in Washington has left Obama more jaded than McCain, who has been in Congress for around 3 decades)
-McCain isn't a party man (implying that he chose Palin because he has suddenly become hugely religious, strongly anti-choice, and hates the environment) [that last one may actually be true]
-Senator Reid hating John McCain is the best proof that McCain is a good candidate
-Harry Reid isn't as good at stuff as McCain
-Obama wants to make the presidency a journey of personal discovery
-McCain is a war veteran, Obama and Biden are not
-Obama's story of adversity is far less than that of McCain's torture in Hanoi
-McCain has already made his journey
-McCain is compassionate because he was tortured
-McCain is wise because he was tortured
-McCain is confident because he was tortured
-McCain was inexplicably exuberant when returning from interrogations conducted by the North Vietnamese torturers (who presumably didn't read him his rights, a view that Palin shares with McCain's torturers)
-America needs an inexplicably exuberant, tortured Vietnam War veteran as its president for the next 4 years
-Obama only talks, McCain has done things
-since character is "the measure" in this election and change the goal, McCain should be president

[via NYT]

"Mo' Money, Mo' Problems" is right

2008-09-02T07:14:00.003-04:00

In introductory economics classes, students are taught that people work the number of hours they do because they choose a point on their work/leisure curve that maximizes their satisfaction with life, in general. This would imply that, since more money comes at the cost of less leisure, money somehow compensates for it by reducing stress and increasing happiness in your life through increased availability of resources (ie, more money). However, according to a recent New York Times article:

Perhaps for the first time since we’ve kept track of such things, higher-income folks work more hours than lower-wage earners do. Since 1980, the number of men in the bottom fifth of the income ladder who work long hours (over 49 hours per week) has dropped by half, according to a study by the economists Peter Kuhn and Fernando Lozano. But among the top fifth of earners, long weeks have increased by 80 percent.
...
One result is that even with the same work hours and household duties, women with higher incomes report feeling more stressed than women with lower incomes, according to a recent study by the economists Daniel Hamermesh and Jungmin Lee. In other words, not only does more money not solve our problems at home, it may even make things worse.

That, from what I can tell, means that richer Americans are so far along on their money-leisure relationship curve that they get reduced satisfaction from each additional hour they spend at work (rather than at leisure)... If they are rational actors, they should immediately readjust their work-leisure choice to improve their overall satisfaction. Maybe they just haven't quite realized that their work is cutting into their overall satisfaction.

[via NYT]

Obama Science Policy

2008-09-01T08:14:00.003-04:00

I just read through a questionnaire that Senator Obama finally responded to (Senator McCain still hasn't done so) regarding science/technology/space/environment/education policies in his administration. Being a fairly liberal person, I am pretty happy with what Senator Obama put down; feel free to read it if you want. They also have synopses of other things he has said about the above issues.

[via SEA]

Science fiction "singularity" and Stross's Accelerando

2008-08-26T22:08:00.005-04:00

Earlier this week, I was trying to borrow a science-fiction novel written by Vernor Vinge in 2005 from the local library only to discover that all the copies were either missing or on hold. Knowing the current society's general appetite for science fiction novels, I found that slightly surprising (although, to be honest, I also found it surprising that the local library even had any of Vinge's books). However, it turns out that the New York Times recently published an article about "the singularity" featuring Vinge which must have caused this run on his books.
To get my science fiction fix, I resorted to another relatively new author, Charles Stross. The book I decided to read was Accelerando, another novel devoted to the idea of the singularity. What exactly is the singularity, however?
It turns out that Vinge (Prof. Vinge, apparently) actually coined the term to refer to a "theoretical future point of unprecedented technological progress" (thank you Wikipedia). Generally speaking, it is the point beyond which we can no longer easily see how humanity's future will evolve, even in the very near future. Usually, the point of singularity involves the creation of a machine (or a set of machines) that surpass the "processing power" of a human brain (I've noticed science fiction writers often describe mental ability as "processing power"; I have to admit it does sound a lot cooler). At that point, they posit, the machine would be likely to make a successor machine that, thanks to the current machine's superior abilities/processing power, would be even faster/better/etc and this process would explode exponentially from that point on to a situation where the unaugmented human brain would be to the super-brains what tapeworms' minds are to ours (poor tapeworms and poor us).
Having read a bit of science fiction before, I had heard of the singularity, but never approached it directly (I used to read older science fiction before, from the days when women were "dames" and seemingly could only be secretaries/actresses/singers/housewives; see Heinlein, Robert A.; not disrespecting Heinlein seeing as I love his writing, but pointing out an interesting feature of his works). The recent book dealt with it directly and quite well, at that. He didn't sugar coat his own version of the singularity; it came with most of the positives and negatives that I could imagine within his particular story's universe.
The book continued further, talking about Matrioshka brains and why super-intelligent civilizations have extremely strong disincentives against straying too far from their primary star (his reasoning: leaving for only a small period of time to, say, go exploring ends up costing the exploring party far too much in terms of economic opportunity cost in the fast-paced world of super-intelligent civilizations). All in all, the book was a really fascinating exploration of one possible future for humanity as it, apparently, approaches "the singularity".

Aside: I'd like to take the time to give props to Charles Stross for making Accelerando available for free online under the Creative Commons Licence. Actually, I should probably give more props to his publisher for allowing him to do so. Good work, all involved parties.

Google + Conservation

2008-08-25T19:49:00.002-04:00

People already use Google extensively in almost every aspect of their lives. So, apparently, a German non-profit decided to create a site that uses Google's search engine but diverts all search-based ad revenues to Nature Conservancy donations. Interesting, eh?
The "search engine" frontend for Forestle is located at, you guessed it, http://www.forestle.org

[via Ars Technica]

Olympics: forget the politics

2008-08-25T19:40:00.003-04:00

For all those who enjoyed the Olympics despite the myriad political/human rights/etc. problems that everyone and their grandma seemed to have taken up during the fortnight, this is really a great set of pictures that captured some of the best and worst athletic moments of the 2008 Olympics.

[via The Big Picture]

An Interesting Interview on Georgia-Russia Conflict

2008-08-24T19:16:00.002-04:00

The Morningside Post interviewed a Columbia University international politics professor focusing on democratic transitions in post-Soviet republics, Lincoln Mitchell. He had several keen insights that solidified my view that Georgia acted stupidly, but not "illegally":

One thing is going from Gori to Tskhinvali is not considered crossing an international border. Georgian troops did not cross an international border here. It is broadly recognized as part of Georgia. A part of Georgia that is not consolidated and over which Tbilisi doesn't exercise sovereignty-- but this is not the U.S. and Puerto Rico relationship and it's certainly not the U.S. and Cuba relationship. Maybe the U.S. and Missouri or Michigan relationship... So there is that side to it. But I would also say that with all the violence that we've seen over the last week or so on this issue, no Georgian soldier has fired a gun or dropped a bomb on Russian territory, or any foreign territory. That's a point that's worth keeping in mind here.

Prof. Mitchell makes a valid point that I think a lot of people keep forgetting (especially ex-Premier Gorbachev): while Georgia perhaps acted foolishly in trying to establish a stronger hold over its territory (South Ossetia), Russia was clearly the only country whose troops went into another country's territory without that country's permission. The interview is a bit long but is clearly coming from someone who has spend quite some time dealing with that region of the world.

[via The Morningside Post]

Parallel Local Government in Afghanistan

2008-08-24T17:05:00.003-04:00

There was an interesting article in the Guardian today about the Taliban reasserting themselves throughout several parts of Afghanistan as a more efficient alternative to the seemingly useless formal governing bodies. The article focuses on the delays and corruption within the judicial system at the local level as well as the ineffectual security forces provided by President Karzai's government, both of which the Taliban have supplanted in many regions (court judges by religious scholars and security forces with fundamentalist youth).
We have seen this before. When Israel went into Lebanon, the Red Cross was unable to provide many people with any form of aid whereas Hezbollah was already there, helping hundreds of thousands of people cope with the travails of living in a war zone. In the case of Hezbollah, coming to the aid of the people strengthened its position in the minds of the Lebanese; where the traditional lines of support failed (the Lebanese government, the Red Cross, general forms of foreign aid), the Hezbollah provided.
In much the same way, Taliban will likely win over the Afghani populace. While the Guardian writes negatively of the misogynistic policies/practices of the Taliban, even the article does not provide much evidence that Afghanistan's population has any of the same compunctions; they see an alternative administration that is far more efficient in providing much-needed services such as adjudication and protection.
In terms of efficiency, clearly the Taliban wins over the Karzai administration. It also seems that they possess a significant edge over Karzai's government when it comes to corruption (from all sources, it seems the Karzai government is extremely corrupt). So, it comes down to whether Afghans recognize the Taliban as a fundamentalist military government or simply as a reasonably efficient government. If it is the latter, the last 6 years of NATO time, money, and life will have been for naught.

New Ideas for Gun Control

2008-08-22T17:36:00.002-04:00

Another Freakonomics entry that I found really interesting. They asked some interesting folks for interesting ideas to reduce gun-related crimes/deaths in the US. Out of the three, I found this one most interesting:

We should give out rewards — I mean big, serious rewards — for tips that help police confiscate illegal guns. ...

A bunch of logistical issues would need to be worked out, including how large the rewards would be (I think $1,000 or more wouldn’t be crazy) and how police should respond to tips and confiscate guns while respecting civil liberties.

I like that they thought of the logistical issues involved.
Some of the comments were interesting too, ranging from recollections of Chris Rock's suggestion of making bullets expensive to (semi-valid) critiques of the suggestions. Really interesting reading.

[via NYT Freakonomics]

Russia-US relations post-Georgia

2008-08-22T07:45:00.002-04:00

An interesting article about how relations between Russia and the US (and NATO) could change for the worse due to the Georgian conflict. Generally, because the US is far more thinly stretched throughout the world and is not the regional hegemon in eastern Europe, the "bad" consequences fall on its side. However, it seems that the negatives don't all swing the US way:

Moscow may also be checked by the desire of its economic elite to remain on the path to integration with the rest of the world. The main Russian stock index fell sharply in recent days, costing investors $10 billion — many with close ties to the circle of Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin.

It seems that the same group of rich folks who have made post-Soviet Russia so powerful may be the ones who check Putin's power-grabbing... Really interesting article; certainly worth a read.

[via NYT]

Appropriateness of the Normal Distribution

2008-08-21T22:00:00.002-04:00

Freakonomics blog on the New York Times has an interesting piece on Olympic sprinters (and Olympians in general). It makes an interesting point:

Usain Bolt’s wonderful run in the Olympic 200-meter sprint reminds us that the normal distribution — the familiar bell curve beloved by economists and statisticians — can be wildly inappropriate when analyzing extremely selected samples.

Really worth a read.

[via NYT Freakonomics]

India and the Nuclear Suppliers Group

2008-08-21T09:06:00.003-04:00

The New York Times Op-Ed section was on a roll yesterday. First, the two Georgia-related pieces and now this. A little background. A couple of years ago, President Bush of the US and Prime Minister Singh of India created a deal wherein India would get access to the international nuclear market (governed by the Nuclear Suppliers Group) without having signed either the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, which are a prerequisite to being able to deal in uranium on the world markets. The authors, rightly, suggest that President Bush's appeal to the Nuclear Suppliers Group to let India join without becoming a signatory of the two treaties should be ignored by the members of the group.
As I wrote earlier, the deal that India made with the US is an amazing one for India; so much so that I thought that the vote of no-confidence was rather pathetically politically-based. While it was a good deal for India, I do not believe it to be the best idea for the rest of the world; India has repeatedly flaunted international rules on nuclear proliferation, never having signed either of the two treaties. While the US has also not signed the treaty, most of the other 46 nations have. This might be a hard thing for India to deal with, considering its nuclear race with its neighbor, Pakistan, but the world community should see the forest for the trees: to let India trade on the international uranium market without committing to non-proliferation would be a dangerous precedent to set.

Georgia-Russia Conflict: Gorbachev and Friedman's Perspectives

2008-08-21T08:37:00.003-04:00

I had been looking around for a Russian perspective on the Georgian conflict and, finally, I got one. Ex-Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev wrote an op-ed that was translated and published in the New York Times yesterday. While it seems rather partisan, I was glad to get this perspective. Perhaps the most interesting bit for me was how aggressive Gorbachev seemed; I had always thought of him as a peaceful guy, a view that was solidified quite a bit by his Nobel Peace Prize. But, apparently, he feels, "The West would be wise to help achieve such an agreement now. If, instead, it chooses to blame Russia and re-arm Georgia, as American officials are suggesting, a new crisis will be inevitable. In that case, expect the worst." Those sound like fightin' words. Hehe. Interesting piece nevertheless.

[via NYT]

On the other hand, I agreed completely with Thomas Friedman's take on the conflict:

If the conflict in Georgia were an Olympic event, the gold medal for brutish stupidity would go to the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin. The silver medal for bone-headed recklessness would go to Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and the bronze medal for rank short-sightedness would go to the Clinton and Bush foreign policy teams.

Friedman very clearly lays out several key facts: Russia violated the territorial sovereignty of another nation; Saakashvili was more than a little reckless when he decided to challenge the relative autonomy of South Ossetia; and the US has been unwise in the way it has wielded NATO as an anti-Russian weapon in Europe since the end of the Cold War. I really like this piece and feel anyone who wants a little more clarity on what is happening in Georgia should read it.

[via NYT]

A response to comments on "Jammu and Kashmir conflict heating up again"

2008-08-21T07:29:00.006-04:00

Id It Is linked to the Jammu and Kashmir entry on his/her blog recently and got several interesting comments. In particular, one commenter had some rather interesting takes on what I had written:

I just read that post and thought that the following was a rather naive and one sided statement from an outsider's perspective:

"There has to be external pressure for separatism in Kashmir; no Kashmiri, Muslim or Hindu, would ever think that seceding from India is in his/her best interests."

Of course there is external pressure but the second part of this statement is quite debatable if not largely incorrect.

In my opinion India should simply have a fair referendum in Kashmir and Kashmiris should be allowed to choose what they want for themselves. But a referendum will not take place any time soon because they will likely vote in favor of separation and the creation of an independent state.

See Pervez Hoodbhoy's documentary 'Crossing the lines - The battle for Kashmir's freedom' for an excellent overview of the whole issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr2PiD4c5rE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klsOKxgicKQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ory6Tv1ZvWk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fNR_qDw76E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYyeLVb08dQ

8/20/08 6:40 AM

Continuing, he added:

ok perhaps naive was the wrong choice of word and I apologize for that but to me the statement did sound like it was coming from an outside perspective.

How can one make a sweeping generalization that 'no Kashmiri, Muslim or Hindu, would ever think that seceding from India is in his/her best interests'?

There's obviously a lot of support for the separatist movement and Kashmiris have obviously been mistreated by India for this support to exist. If no wrongs were committed by India, no amount of outside influence could ever lead to such a widespread separatist movement.

Why can't Kashmir exist as a separate nation? I am sure they will be able to build a bigger airport and sustain themselves without being attached to India :)

I think it's about time that they were given a chance to do so. India and Pakistan should stop acting as their colonizers and let them create their own destiny.

8/21/08 5:30 AM

I would like to respond to the commenter. I was initially going to respond on Id It Is's blog, but my response became rather longer than a comment should be, so I respond here (and will link to it on Id It Is's entry's comment page:

I think cubano makes an interesting point in his comments on your post (thanks, by the way for the responses; I would have preferred them on my blog so that it looked like people read it!). Namely, he feels that, based on empirical evidence, Kashmiris are very much interested in separating from India and either forming their own "more perfect union" or joining their neighbor to the west, Pakistan.

However, I would contend that any empirically-based view of the situation is far from rational. As cubano concedes, there is a lot of external pressure on the valley (primarily due to Pakistan's ISI continued provocations and, consequently, the Indian army's responses to those provocations). That pressure has been present for quite a while (ISI provocation pressure since 1989; Indian army response pressure shortly thereafter). Therefore, for nearly two decades, this external pressure has rendered invisible what I feel is Kashmir's best interest. I really can't imagine that it is "naivete" to think that all people, regardless of their geographic, racial, or religious background, want to prosper and be free. With India, Kashmiris get a readily available, fairly rich, consumption-oriented population, relatively easy access to international funds, an institutionally secular government, and an economy that is growing by leaps and bounds. On their own, Kashmiris will have to set up their own economy (not all that easy, from evidence of the past 60 years from around the world), provide their own government (which will have to face the same external pressures that the Indian Army has been attempting, rather poorly, to repel, as cubano pointed out in his comments), and generally replicate a lot of the Indian government's failures and successes. With Pakistan, Kashmiris get an economy that is not doing as well, a government that is in the throes of revolution and has a history of military dictatorship (which, by definition, limits the personal freedoms of Pakistani citizens), and a nation identified as a non-secular state, which limits its supply of foreign tourism and investment.

Cubano feels that it is naivete to ignore empirical evidence. I would generally agree with that statement. However, if we are trying to ignore the effects of external actors (as he and I both seem to agree that we should), we must discount the effects that external actors have had on the valley in the past 20 years; that is why I chose to ignore the "on the ground" fact that a large segment of Kashmir wants to separate from India. If the state's (many) leaders are acting in the rational self-interest of their constituency (which I concede they currently certainly are not), I believe cubano and I would see them acting quite differently and, likely, in the way that I describe.

I hope that the commenter responds to my response to his response to my blog (hehe). I would really like to see if I have clarified my position.

[via I Me My]

Georgia-Russia Conflict: End of Democratic Peace Theory?

2008-08-16T11:25:00.002-04:00

In thinking about the hopefully-over conflict between Georgia and Russia, I realized that both countries are, theoretically, liberal democracies. The Democratic Peace Theory stipulates that democratic nations do not go to war with each other. Does this mean that the theory has been disproved? Also, does the Falkland Islands conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina (a much smaller conflict, of course) also stand as a contradiction to the theory? Any insights would be much appreciated.

McCain's Real Alternative Energy Policy

2008-08-14T15:45:00.004-04:00

I know everyone who's been watching the Olympics in the US has seen the McCain ads about how he's really strongly in favor of alternative energy and energy independence. Here is the truth:

"It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems. ...

"Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.

I guess all those wind-turbine commercials on TV are supposed to replace the votes he should have been casting in favor of renewable energy investment tax credits.

[via NYT]

Background on Georgia (South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria)

2008-08-14T10:10:00.003-04:00

As frequent readers (hah!) of this blog know, I have been trying to get a better grasp of the situation in Georgia. I finally found a rather clear explication of the situation from the Guardian (link below). Unfortunately, I am no longer sure where I stand on the conflict. On the one hand, there seems to be genuine reason for allowing South Ossetia and Abkhazia (not so much Transnistria) to develop into sovereign states; they have languages, cultures, and traditions that are distinct from those of Georgians. But, on the other hand, Russian support for their independence seems to arise purely from a desire to weaken Georgia and its successful transition into a western European state; it is unclear what exactly Russia would want to do with either fledgling state if it were able to help them secede from Georgia. Furthermore, it is unclear whether they even want to help the two regions secede, as that would apparently set bad precedent for the territorial sovereignty of nations (much like Kosovo) and threaten the unity of the Russian Federation.
It's all rather confusing but at least I now understand what exactly was happening there before it caught my interest. Some interesting bits from the piece follow:

"Take South Ossetia, which like Abkhazia had autonomous status within Soviet Georgia. Although many South Ossetians live in Tbilisi and elsewhere in Georgia, its people are really connected in terms of family, kin and language with North Ossetia, which is now in Russia, across the mountains to which it is connected through the Roki tunnel.
"Ossetians speak a language related to Persian and believe (truly) that the King Arthur of British myth was actually an Ossetian. I found billboards in Tskhinvali emblazoned with pictures of men dressed as knights in armour celebrating the 17th anniversary of South Ossetia's declaration of independence.
"The Abkhaz, like the South Ossetians, have all been given Russian passports and vote in Russian elections, even though their unrecognised statelets are legally part of Georgia. They use the rouble, their people work and study in Russia and they speak Russian at least as much as Abkhaz or Ossetian. Their elderly receive their pensions from Russia. And, as the last few days have helped demonstrate, without Russian military support, it is doubtful whether the breakaways would still exist.
"Of course, Russia is interested in its territorial integrity, not Georgia's. By supporting Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it has the means to keep Georgia at its mercy and prevent it from following the pro-western path chosen by its electorate. But beyond that, it has little real interest in the breakaway states.

All in all, a very illuminating piece.

[via Guardian]

Jammu and Kashmir conflict heating up again

2008-08-14T09:10:00.009-04:00

As Russian army (and many irregulars) roll through central Georgia untrammeled, another conflict seems to be coming to a boil as well: the imbroglio between India and Muslim separatists in Kashmir. I don't know if people have been following this situation, but, recently, the Indian central government (the "Centre" as they call it) considered giving over some forest land to a development group with the intent of improving facilities for the thousands (possibly even millions) of Hindus who make the trek to Amarnath temple (located in Kashmir) annually. Some of the Muslim separatist factions in Kashmir decided to raise a ruckus about this, claiming that the development group was a front set up by the Hindu nationalist party, BJP, to alter the demography of Kashmir (ie, resettle Kashmir valley with Hindus to sway political decision-making in the valley).
Now, to be honest, at first, I just thought this was another of the many pathetic posturing exercises that the seemingly endless political factions indulge in on a regular basis. But, it turned out to be quite a bit more. Apparently, the level of protests, both in Muslim-majority Kashmir and Hindu-majority Jammu, has risen to levels that have not been seen since the early 1990s. Reuters had this to say about the newly-brewing conflict:

Indeed, some fear Kashmir will become a diplomatic football once again between the two nuclear rivals, with New Delhi unsure of a new civilian government in Islamabad that it perceives is in a dangerous vacuum.

Clearly, this is no longer just posturing.
However, I find the situation rather frustrating. Do the separatists actually think their lives will be "better" once they separate from India and, maybe, join Pakistan? Even putting aside the large sums of money India pours into Kashmir on an annual basis for development and what not (seemingly to no effect), separating from India would be economic suicide for the region. If they could get their act together, Kashmir, as part of India, would be a huge tourist attraction (as it used to be prior to the terrorism that began in 1989). As part of Pakistan, an Islamic Republic, the prospect for tourism/trade/etc. fall dramatically (simply because foreigners feel less comfortable dealing with a religious nation than with a secular one). As an independent state, Kashmir's prospects are even worse; how likely is it that Srinagar airport (the only viable international airport in the valley) will be able to provide as easy access to Kashmir for tourists as ... all of the transportation access points to India available to foreign tourists? Thinking simply about their own best interests would convince most "separatists" to accept India with open arms.
This is the reason that I find the notion that the separatists in Kashmir are entirely home-grown to be a total hogwash. There has to be external pressure for separatism in Kashmir; no Kashmiri, Muslim or Hindu, would ever think that seceding from India is in his/her best interests. Therefore, there are external actors that are stoking the fire. And I am not simply talking about the ISI of Pakistan (CIA/FBI equivalent), who have been accused recently of fabricating the whole notion of an economic blockade by Jammu Hindus of the only access route via truck to Kashmir. No, several Indian political parties stand to benefit from making Kashmir a conflict zone, notably the BJP. The BJP is fuelled by radicalization of Indian politics and so, it is no surprise that the BJP (and its close friend, the RSS) took up the "Hindu" cause of the Amarnath land transfer (aside: this is where one sees how important language is; BJP/RSS very consciously made something that could easily have been a development-related issue into a Hindu/Muslim conflict to foment religious radicalism on both sides) as soon as they sensed that Hurriyat and PDP (Muslim-majority political parties in Kashmir) were trying to polarize the issue in religious terms (I guess Hurriyat and PDP also know how to play the language game).
If all these external actors had never meddled with the extremely complex religious relations extant within Kashmir, not only would there no longer be a problem in that Indian state, but the whole notion of a Kashmir problem would probably not exist.

[2008-08-14] Update: I was wrong when I said that the Amarnath project was spearheaded by the central government of India; the state government was the one that started the land development project.

[2008-08-21] Update: A commenter on I Me My had some interesting comments that I chose to respond to here. Please read that, as I feel it is an interesting extension on what was written here.

[via Reuters]

Georgia - Russia Conflict

2008-08-12T09:47:00.004-04:00

I seem to be admitting my ignorance quite often on this blog, but... I felt like I don't know much about the Georgia-Russia conflict taking place currently in the Georgian areas of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I figured the best resolution of this would be a nice map explaining everything. Thanks to the Guardian, I found just such a map. You can get to the original map via the link at the bottom of the page (but it is in PDF format). For your perusal, I have put up a JPEG version of it here. Hope it helps you understand the conflict as much as it helped me.

Note: the oil pipelines inset is particularly helpful...

[via Guardian]

Order of Countries in Opening Ceremony Altered by NBC

2008-08-09T21:21:00.002-04:00

Much like most of the United States last night, I watched the Olympic opening ceremonies, delayed 12 hours, by the grace of the National Broadcasting Company (another complaint for another entry, maybe). During the March of Nations, the commentators, Matt Lauer and Bob Costas kept going on about how Chinese does not have an alphabet and, therefore, the sequence of countries in the march would be determined not by any "alphabetical" sequence.

Turns out, it went beyond that. NBC actually edited the sequence of the March of Nations so that the United States was near the end (whereas, in reality, it was somewhere in the middle). I don't know if this happens often or has happened in the past, but this strikes me as entirely unscrupulous. On the one hand, NBC commentators criticize censorship and other forms of government control of knowledge and information in China and, at the same time, their own network seems to be reworking entire opening ceremonies (and thus misrepresenting information to 300 million+ Americans) all for the sake of what? Higher network ratings? I'm not sure if that's as ominous as information control by the government, but it certainly is far more sleazy.

[via Slashdot]

UN helping developing nations develop sustainably

2008-08-08T09:27:00.006-04:00

The UN Industrial Development Organization has started up its first zero emissions power station in rural Kenya this week. It seems that they intend to harness solar and hydro energy to sustain upto 500 households plus several micro-enterprises in the area (Kibai village, 150 kilometers from Nairobi).
Admittedly, this was not part of the original mandate of the United Nations. But, I laud them for their desire (and ability) to adapt to their rather shifted role in this new millenium. At this point, most powerful nations regard the UN as something to generally ignore and swat aside, unfortunately. Rather than giving up and throwing in the towel, the UN has retooled itself to something more of a development-oriented organization. Instead of directly shaping a peaceful world through debate and discussion as was the initial plan for the United Nations, they are, through organizations like UNIDO, UNDP, etc., indirectly working towards long-term peace in the world by helping developing nations (such as Kenya here) shape a sustainable future for themselves.
This is the sort of thing that I point to when people tell me that the UN is useless. The UN is not useless; it has merely reshaped the methods to its end in an attempt to adapt to the world around it.

[via Kenya Environmental & Political News]

Obama and NASA funding

2008-08-07T12:51:00.004-04:00

I don't know if anyone was paying attention to this when it happened back in November 2007, but Obama unveiled his education plan to the US to much laudation that month. However, one thing that bothered me, which may not have been noticed by most others because, honestly, noone cares all that much about NASA anymore (nor does NASA give people reason to care, most of the time), was that he intended to pay for his education initiative by delaying funding for NASA's Constellation program:

Though Obama called for a renewed investment in math and science education, his plan would actually pull money from the federal government's greatest investments and achievements in math and science. Obama would delay funding for the NASA Constellation program for five years, though he would maintain the $500 million in funding the program would receive for its manufacturing and technology base, in order to help fund his education policy.

This bothered me quite a bit; after all, it's sort of depressing that the only way his campaign found to increase education funding was to delay (read: shut down) the future of America's human space exploration program (for those who don't know, Constellation will be replacing the aging space shuttle program).
So, when I read yesterday that Obama promised not to cut NASA funding, I was a bit confused. After reading a bit more carefully, I understood what was happening; Obama was speaking in Brevard County, Florida, where a large segment of the population is sustained by NASA's Cape Canaveral. He would have come down on the "wrong side" of the issue with that audience so he decided to change his mind (perhaps temporarily) about NASA's human space exploration program.
I have been grumbling about Obama quite a bit of late. The fact that I don't grumble about McCain shouldn't be read to mean I like him; it's more like McCain doesn't even show up on the radar as a viable presidential candidate in my eyes. And to be honest, I really don't think Obama's that bad; I think he's probably the most hope-inducing presidential candidate I have been around to see. It's just that he's not as principled as I thought he was when I heard his Race Speech (although that probably makes him a better candidate and president). I'm going to stop grumbling for some time.

[via Florida Today]

Did you know Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are private?

2008-08-05T13:01:00.006-04:00

I feel like a bit of an idiot right now, but I'm fairly sure that most people still think that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the two enormous corporations now at the center of the credit/loan crisis, are government agencies or, at the very least, public-private companies heavily controlled by the US Federal government.
I was wrong (and if you are one of my presumed majority, so were you).
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are "government-sponsored enterprises". Now, the official definition for what that means is pretty long, but the essence of it is:

The term "government-sponsored enterprise" means a corporate entity created by a law of the United States that has a Federal charter authorized by law; is privately owned, as evidenced by capital stock owned by private entities or individuals; is under the direction of a board of directors, a majority of which is elected by private owners...
[via the US House Office of Law Revision Counsel]

This assumption of mine led to my comfort with several recent developments that I am no longer as sure about. For one, it is not absolutely clear to me that the taxpayers should be massively bailing out any more privately-held companies (Bear Sterns being the first) who seemingly ruined their houses themselves (see NYT article, At Freddie Mac ... Warning Signs). It again seems like a bit of smoke and mirrors: let the populace think that we're part of the government so that they don't think twice about having to bail us out and we have an easier time of getting low interest rates on capital.
Ultimately, having already made my peace with bailing out Bear Sterns, I am in favor of helping out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as well (perhaps even more so, as, through them, the government is helping out a lot of borrowers who are having trouble making payments on their loans' principal and accrued interest). I just wish I had known I am helpint to bail out another series of privately-owned corporations...

Obama okay with offshore oil-drilling

2008-08-04T22:51:00.004-04:00

Earlier today, Barack Obama shifted his view on offshore oil drilling in the United States during a speech he gave to Michigan voters. Just to recap, previously, Senator Obama was strictly against drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for any reason, even to make things easier for Americans (which, in the long term, and probably even the short term, it won't do). His view has changed somewhat:

He said he might be willing to accept some exploration of limited offshore drilling as part of a more comprehensive energy bill that would include things he favors, like renewable fuels and batteries for electric-powered cars.

(By the way, the above quote is the most equivocal statement I've read in a long time in the New York Times ["might be willing", "some exploration", "more comprehensive"...]) It's sadly clear why he is doing this - to garner up some votes that McCain seemed to be taking away from him. But, if he really was going to be an "Ideas President" and the "Candidate for Change," he really would not succumb to such distractions. I understand that he wants limited exploration of offshore drilling, packaged within a larger push towards oil independence based on alternative energy investments and hybrid automobile incentives. But that still does not explain why anyone with generally smart economic advisors (some of them being UChicago professors) would suggest even limited offshore drilling when everyone (including Obama himself) says that there is no long-term benefit to drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Just a few days ago, he did the right thing, saying "I'm in favor of solving problems. What I don't want to do is say something because it sounds good politically." Why did he change his mind so suddenly?

[via NYT]

[2008-08-05] Update: I thought about this a little more last night... Somehow, I feel that what Obama did here was take the easier way out. If you will recall, his popularity (at least with me, I guess) skyrocketed when, instead of simply distancing himself from Rev. Wright, Senator Obama gave a speech on race relations that was so elegant in content and delivery that it has since become known as the Race Speech. He didn't take the simple way out there; rather, using his intelligence and eloquence, Obama explained to us his viewpoint and stance. Admittedly, he ultimately did back away from Rev. Wright (leaving Wright's church), but he did it with a measure of class that is unseen in current politicians. This time around, I can't say I feel he took any high road. He saw he was on the unpopular side of an issue. Despite knowing and admitting earlier to knowing that the right side of the issue was the unpopular side, he changed his view so that he was no longer on the right/unpopular side. Maybe I have McCain to blame for this particular situation (who, by the way, has proven many times over that he is worse for the environment and long-term human survival on the earth than Obama by several magnitudes). But, somehow, I feel the blame falls not just on McCain. This time around, Obama failed to raise the level of debate and Americans (and probably the world) will suffer as a consequence.

Zimbabwe hyperinflation update

2008-07-31T13:14:00.002-04:00

It seems that the Zimbabwean central bank is fighting the inflation in Zimbabwe by lopping 10 zeroes off the end of its currency, making 10,000,000,000 Z$ into 1 Z$. Sadly, as mentioned by the Guardian, a new Z$ is not enough to buy a loaf of bread...
Will this ploy to control inflation work? Of course not. This simply makes it easier for people to read the amounts of money they are spending and receiving, and even that, only for a few months, till hyperinflation makes the value of the new Z$ high enough for the CB to lop off more zeroes from it.
The way to really curtail hyperinflation is to stop printing currency to pay the military. While printing currency allows Mugabe to pay his soldiers in the short-term, this printed money ultimately goes to the open market, where, due to the steady, unrelenting inflow of Zimbabwe dollars in circulation, the Zimbabwe dollar steadily loses its value. The solution for Zimbabwe then really is that simple: stop printing paper money so fast that it drives your economy into hyperinflation. Unfortunately, because Mugabe is currently running a somewhat unpopular regime, that is unlikely to happen for quite a while, which means that we will hear about the Zimbabwe central bank re-revaluating Zimbabwe dollars fairly soon.

[via Guardian]

Booming Brazil

2008-07-31T10:01:00.002-04:00

There is an article in the New York Times today on the economic boom that Brazil is experiencing currently. While the United States suffers through an annual economic growth rate of 1.9%, Brazil's growth rate for the last year was upwards of 5%. While not as frenetic a pace as China or India, it is probably a much more managable growth rate for Brazilian businesses, allowing them to transition more smoothly into the more prosperous economy. Even more encouraging is the news that, during this economic boom, the income gap between the rich and the poor has shrunk by 6 percentage points. The article credits the growth to government programs such as Bolsa Familia, which provides food subsidies for lower-income families, and the creation of government-backed microloan banks that provide capital to small businesses.
However, amid all the back-clapping for Brazil, the New York Times mentioned some things positively that I did not find as reassuring:

In fact, with a stronger currency and inflation mostly in check, Brazilians are on a spending spree that has become a prime motor for the economy, which grew 5.4 percent last year.

They are buying both Brazilian goods and a rising flood of imported products. Many businesses have relaxed credit terms to allow Brazilians to pay for refrigerators, cars and even plastic surgery over years instead of months, despite some of the highest interest rates in the world. In June the country reached 100 million credit cards issued, a 17 percent jump over last year.

It seems to me that this is the same sort of consumer exuberance, propped up by possibly dubious credit/loan practices that put the American economy in the disastrous position it is in today. In the short run, such a sudden increase in purchasing ability makes perceived wealth of consumers increase, but in the long run, it simply increases the debt that they carry on their shoulders. Therefore, while the economic growth on the shoulders of domestic growth is likely a positive occurrence, if that domestic growth encourages behavior that is driving an increase in irresponsible indebtedness for average Brazilians, I do not believe it is in the best interest of Brazilians or their economy.

[via NYT]

Post-scarcity civilizations (like the Culture)

2008-07-30T23:38:00.000-04:00

What exactly is a post-scarcity civilization? A post-scarcity civilization is a society in which members of the society do not work in order to sustain themselves (and their families) but because they enjoy the work that they do. I have been fascinated by this idea ever since I started reading Iain Banks' series of novels about the Culture, a galaxy-spanning post-scarcity civilization. While he does not tackle the Culture directly in any of his novels, the underlying structure of the civilization is made clear in each of his books.
And it is beautiful. Like Banks says in a recent CNN interview, it is a sort of a "secular heaven" for social liberals. Generally speaking, everyone has as much of everything that they could possibly want, to the point that nobody really hoards anything anymore. Commercial ventures are created and dissolved based on whim - some member of the Culture may have found it interesting to run such an enterprise for a decade or so and tired of it, dissolving it at his pleasure. The government is generally non-existent. The only things tying the entire Culture together is the common set of ideas regarding way of life and the technology that sustains that way of life. Aside from that, local bureaucratic things are handled by sentient beings who enjoy administering to such things (with trillions of members, it becomes somewhat easier to find individuals willing to take care of the "annoying things"). There are no real trials because there is little crime in the Culture, as there is no real necessity driving criminal behavior. Any crimes that do transpire seem to be handled by social exclusion, exile from the Culture being a social punishment for the crime.
Admittedly, this seems a utopian society. But that is a very plausible state of being for a post-scarcity civilization. What is the need for an overbearing laws and government administrators in a situation where resources are not limited? The major reason for government is the "equitable" distribution of a limited set of resources amongst the population. With the limit lifted, there is no longer a reason for a strong government. To some extent, the idea of economics also evaporates as there are no longer limited resources for which individuals must compete... Thinking about post-scarcity civilizations is a scary thought, but pleasantly so (if that is possible). It opens up the possibility of a society not based on ties of excluding others and defending one's group from outsiders but rather on a common set of ideas, thought structure, and way of life... Some might call it anarchy but if, in this anarchy, everyone gets what they want/need, is an anarchy so bad?

[more info about the Culture at io9]

Aside: In the recent interview, Banks suggest that the path to human inception into the Culture depends largely on genetic modification. Really interesting that somebody comes out in favor of genetic modification. I always thought it was sort of an inevitable part of human future, good or bad, which would, at first, differentiate rich and poor humans even more, but ultimately benefit everyone, but Banks really takes it quite a bit further. [via CNN]

Chinese Food in Flushing

2008-07-30T08:52:00.000-04:00

Ever since I went to Flushing for my cousin's party in June, I have been intrigued by the semi-urban neighborhood that is Flushing. It seemed vibrant for all sorts of unexpected reasons: it has a large immigrant population, scores of relatively active activists protesting and lobbying for all sorts of causes, and a couple of streets where there are actually more pedestrians than cars (GASP!). But, not knowing much about that part of Queens (an outer borough of New York City), I was hesitant to go forth to Flushing again. However, it seems the New York Times has come to my aid this time... Aside from the article linked to below, they also have a pretty interesting "Interactive Graphic" that lays out some of the foods available near the Flushing Main St. subway stop (on the 7 subway line). For anyone else who is interested, check it out.

[via NYT]

File sharing and the Music Industry's Response

2008-07-29T10:25:00.003-04:00

The Guardian has an interesting article on the history of digital file sharing and the music industry's reaction to said file sharing. The author points out that the music industry' years of stubbornly refusing to accept that the digital medium has "bred a killer strain of antibiotic-resistant filesharing technology that grows more and more difficult to police by the year." I think that is almost 100% true. The author (Doctorow) also has a fairly clear alternative response laid out for the industry (albeit probably a little late in the game):

* acknowledge that it's going to happen;
* find a place to collect a toll;
* charge a fee that's low enough to get buy-in from the majority;
* ignore the penny-ante fee evaders;
* sue the blistering crap out of the big-time fee-evaders.

If the music industry had, like the author suggests, found a way to get most people to pay for accessing a network like Napster in the early days of music file sharing, it would probably not find itself in the poor position it is now: hated by a majority of consumers while not really making much money in the process. The music industry will have to reshape its approach to the digital medium or face the prospect of a (timely) death.

[via Guardian]

Governments' UFO Investigations

2008-07-29T10:07:00.001-04:00

Finally, the New York Times has published an opinion piece relating to a topic near and dear to any X-Files fan's heart: UFOs. I don't know if they were being tongue-in-cheek by putting it in or whether the author actually convinced them that UFO investigations is a topic that is part of "all the news that's fit to print". I do not personally believe that aliens are visiting earth regularly (in their ethereal forms) just to study us, but I do find the evidence collected on the topic to be really interesting (a really interesting book that I read a long time ago on the topic of UFOs was Chariots of the Gods, by Erich von Däniken; generally ignored by most, it was actually a really good argument in favor of historical visits made by aliens shaping the cultural beliefs of human society). The one disappointing part of the article was the sad attempt to make UFO studies more important by tying them to terrorists; if guerilla fighters/terrorists/rebels/etcetera really have access to technology that developed nations cannot detect, we would be in far more trouble right now than we can imagine. In general, a strong effort to engage the public on the topic of UFOs (aside from the cheap attempt at a terrorism tie-in).

[via NYT]

Afghanistan and the War against Drugs

2008-07-24T13:09:00.001-04:00

Not sure what I actually think of the article or the comments following after it. But the whole problem is really interesting: how exactly can a foreign government help another nation, each with its own internal politics, reduce its drug protection? Or is it a lost battle and should be given up on as such? Moreover, should we even attempt to curb the farming and production of illicit drugs? Would it be better to just make them legal and astound ourselves by the consequent reduction in demand?

[via NYT]

Doctors and Medicare

2008-07-24T13:02:00.001-04:00

It seems that private practice doctors and hospitals get paid differently for Medicare patients under the current system. Due to this distinction within the system, private practice doctors seem to order a lot more tests on expensive machinery than do hospitals. The writer of this Op-Ed (a doctor himself) advocates bringing both medical care facilities (private practices and hospitals) under the same umbrella with regard to payment methods. He says that instead of being paying private practitioners based on the number and complexity of services rendered to a patient, Medicare should pay them the same way it pays hospitals, by "case rate", which determines the payment to the hospital for a Medicare patient based on the underlying illness. I am sure this has its own downfalls; for instance, what about patients whose illnesses are misdiagnosed (or worse, undiagnosed). But, ultimately, I wonder if this would not be a less wasteful way of paying doctors for taking care of Medicare patients.

[via NYT]

Calling 1962 ...

2008-07-24T11:11:00.001-04:00

Seems like the ~~Soviets~~ Russians and Americans have had enough of this fighting terrorism stuff and just want to go back to two-player sword brandishing exercises.

"While they are deploying the anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech republic, our long-range strategic aircraft already will be landing in Cuba," the source told the paper. No final decision on landing bombers in Cuba had been taken, it added.

Today defence analysts told the Guardian there was little strategic point in using Cuba as a nuclear base - adding that the idea appeared to have been floated simply as a way of irritating the US and underscoring Russia's anger.

Actually, compared to the day-to-day nuisance that is fighting non-state actors, it is no wonder that these two superpowers are dreaming of the good old days of the USSR-USA Cold War.

[via Guardian]

Space-based solar power

2008-07-23T12:56:00.001-04:00

Op-ed on the viability of space-based solar energy collection, beamed down to earth through radio waves.

[via NYT]

Runaway inflation causes banknote paper shortage in Zimbabwe

2008-07-23T12:40:00.002-04:00

No, seriously... the Zimbabwe government is running out of paper to print money on. While it is partly due to the sanctions imposed on Mugabe's regime by the international community, a large reason for the lack of paper is the absurd pace at which inflation makes worthless any money that is printed in the country.

In August 2006, the central bank issued a $5 note. A $500,000 note followed a year later. On 2 May 2008, a $500m banknote hit the streets but was swiftly near worthless, and $5bn, $25bn and $50bn notes followed just a fortnight later.

It seems that today (July 23, 2008) a $100bn note is worth 7p (0.14 $US). It would be interesting (and sad) to see what it will be worth in just a few days.
But wait, there's more... the government has put a $100bn/day limit on bank withdrawals for civilians, which can buy ~1/2 a loaf of bread. On the other hand, soldiers can withdraw up $1.5tn/day, 15 times as much. Certainly doesn't smell like a military dictatorship...

[via Guardian]

Obama on Israel-Palestine and Iran

2008-07-23T12:28:00.001-04:00

Obama, in his trip to the Middle East (and, it seems, Europe) reiterated his stance on Israel-Palestine, perhaps a little too strongly for Palestinian tastes:

"I'm here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the United States, my abiding commitment to its security, and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner, whether as a ... senator or as a president, in bringing about a more lasting peace in the region," he said.

He went on to add that Jerusalem should remain Israel's "undivided" capital, although he backtracked very soon after, saying that everything should be up for negotiation (which, I guess, includes Jerusalem, part of which was annexed by Israel during the 1967 war). Certainly not his best bit of diplomacy...

[via Guardian]

Congress passing bill to alleviate mortgage payer distress

2008-07-23T10:47:00.001-04:00

Following up on my previous blog about whether, much as the US government has bailed out lenders, the government should help loan-takers. It seems that the US Congress is about to pass a bill that will allow homeowners to avoid foreclosure by taking less expensive loans backed by the US government:

The bill would let hundreds of thousands of homeowners trapped in mortgages they can't afford on homes that have plummeted in value escape foreclosure by refinancing into more affordable, fixed-rate loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration. Lenders would have to agree to take a substantial loss on the existing loans, and in return, they would walk away with at least some payoff and avoid the often-costly foreclosure process.

I guess this is the path that the government was forced to take, having already bailed out major lenders. I still don't know if I am 100% on board with massive bailouts like this (regardless of whether it is for companies or people), but I am glad that the government is not simply focusing on corporate problems and entirely ignoring the people.

[via NYT]

To all who feel Obama is changing his tune

2008-07-22T23:42:00.003-04:00

Really, the piece covers all the complaints I have heard made by people who say they don't like Obama. As the New Yorker article explains, most of the "shifts" aren't really shifts, although he does concede one (maybe two) "substantive tweaks" (as he calls them). And, I hate to put too sharp a point to it, are we really okay with any of the alternatives?

[via New Yorker Magazine]

Texas governor wants biofuels mandate reduced

2008-07-22T23:22:00.005-04:00

Today, the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, came out against the required year-over-year increase of ethanol in gasoline products. He made his point in an ever-so-Texan turn of phrase:

"When you find yourself in a hole, you have to quit digging," Mr. Perry said in an interview. "And we are in a hole."

Linguistic aesthetics aside, this is really interesting as it seems that the tide may finally be turning against the abomination that is biofuel. As John Oliver pointed out in his weekly podcast, using corn for biofuels is the ultimate slap in the face of developing nations - you may not have enough food to feed yourselves, but we'll continue burning the food we do have to run our cars.

[via NYT]

American consumer squeezed

2008-07-22T16:52:00.002-04:00

I really don't know how I feel about this mess. In general, I feel everyone should take care of their own problems, but the American government is helping out the lenders that provided credit (ie, debt) to consumers without carefully considering if they could pay it back. Should the American government not help the people that took the credit (ie, debt) from lenders?

[via NYT]

India no-confidence vote

2008-07-22T10:31:00.006-04:00

India's nuclear deal with the United States brought about a vote of confidence for the government that it barely survived today. Both leftist and right-wing parties rose up again Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's coalition government, with the Communist Party and their brethren claiming that the treaty "would make India little more than an American pawn."
Let's hope this sentiment was purely that, an emotionally charged statement made to cause anti-American fervor within the opposition to the Congress-led government of India because in all other ways, this deal seems to be practically a freebie for India. In exchange for opening up most of its civilian nuclear plants, India gets access to nuclear technology and materials from other nations. Note that I am not saying that India has to give up its nuclear arsenal or sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty... Unlike all other nations who have access to international nuclear technology and material markets (aside from powerhouses like the US), all other nations had to sign the treaty and most had to give up their nuclear arsenals (if they had them). That puts India on equal footing with superpowers like the United States and Russia. That is why I reiterate, I hope the Communist Party was only trying to drum up votes when it claimed that this treaty makes India an American pawn; if anything, India comes out looking far more powerful than it ever has before.
As an aside, I would like to note that the Indian PM was put to a vote of no-confidence because he did what was in the best interest of the nation. I wonder whether such a vote would have arisen had the deal been put through by any nation besides the US...

[via Guardian]

Women Workers Decreasing

2008-07-21T17:35:00.006-04:00

Another economy-related article, this one pointing out that, for the first time since the mid-1900s, the percentage of women employed in the workforce has decreased from the beginning of an economic expansion to its end. Initially, people (read: economists) thought this was due to womens' shift in priorities from the 70s to today, but they feel otherwise now:

After moving into virtually every occupation, women are being afflicted on a large scale by the same troubles as men: downturns, layoffs, outsourcing, stagnant wages or the discouraging prospect of an outright pay cut. And they are responding as men have, by dropping out or disappearing for awhile.

So, while the increasing economic troubles may have a silver lining in shifts in coca production or innovation in energy production/consumption trends, there is a significant social cost to all that silver lining.

[via NYT]

War on Drugs - Take Two

2008-07-21T09:15:00.009-04:00

I just read this article on new farming incentives offered by the Bolivian president, Evo Morales, to his farmers:

The unlikely advocate for change is the Bolivian president, Evo Morales, who as leader of a powerful coca growers' union fought U.S. crop-substitution programs for two decades. But rising grain prices and food shortages have made Morales reconsider, and he is now asking coca farmers to supplement their crops with rice and corn as a way of holding down coca production while helping to feed the poorest country in South America.

It still takes a lot more effort to grow rice/corn/etc. than coca (which, it seems from the article, grows with little effort in northern South America). However, thanks to the new incentives put into place by Morales in parts of Bolivia, many farmers seem to be converting part of their coca fields to rice and corn fields willingly.
Sort of interesting that the rise in food and gas prices is causing the change that the US has been trying to force on cocaine production for so many years. It shows that while food and gas prices' increase has hurt everyone, there are some (presumably) positive side effects to the crisis.
But, of course, the best part of the article was Morales's indignantly revolutionary cry, "Viva coca! Death to the Yankees!". I guess Morales wants to clearly separate his program for replacing part of the coca production in Bolivia from the US-endorsed program to replace all coca production with stuff like bananas (whose price is also increasing, apparently). Surprising what decades of meddling with a continent can do to one's reputation...

[via IHT]

RESET

2008-07-19T08:49:00.004-04:00

Clearly, I haven't written in this blog in a long time... "I've been busy" would be the perfect excuse. In fact, it'd be so perfect that it would not really be an excuse. I have been busy. But, this post is not about excuses. This post is simply a signal to all those who care (caretown, population: 0) that I am restarting with this blog.

The new blog will differ somewhat from the old blog. For one, I don't think I'll be writing such long pieces as I used to nearly as often (that came out awkward; read: less long posts). More likely, you will receive interesting news tidbits with my personal commentary attached. I assume nobody actually cares, but it is also a place for me to store news/information that I can cleverly bring up in conversations to seem erudite. To be honest, that's probably the main reason for this blog - I need frequent confirmation of how highly people think of me. Alright, that's that.

RESET.

US, China, and Space Weaponization

2007-01-19T10:27:00.000-05:00

Last year, around August, the US government released a new space policy which they said was fairly similar to the rather benign policy written up by the Clinton administration. As a result, with little or no debate, this suggested policy became actual policy. However, had the media or Congress actually looked at it a bit more carefully, we would have seen that the Bush administration was hankering for a space war. The gist of the policy was, "No one should weaponize space except for when the US needs to do so for reasons of national security." That's not a direct quote but it's close enough.
Now, 4 months later, the Chinese just tested their first anti-satellite ballistic missile on January 11th and we're surprised. The Bush administration even says that "China's development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area." Spirit of cooperation?!?! We basically told the world we'll feel free to use space to attack anyone we want to attack - we'll just hide behind a vague, fear-induced version of national security. I'm angry at the Chinese for testing such a weapon but not surprised. If I were the Chinese government, I would have done the same, if only to show Washington what a dangerous national space policy they are pursuing. But what is sadder is that, despite a supposedly aggressive media and a democratic system in place, much of the US population probably has no idea what brought on such an action on the part of the Chinese.
We share the blame for the portentous situation we are in today.

I love TV

2006-07-24T18:40:00.000-04:00

"Do the crossword for me," says my mother, pointing to the New York Times heap dated July 24, 2006 sitting on the table in front of us.
The television is off, finally, which allows us to focus our attention elsewhere, after serving as a desensitizing window to the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict.
Six days ago, when the coverage of the fighting was almost a week more novel than it is today, I was unable to convince a Jewish friend of mine that Israel's attack on Lebanon was undeserved - at the time some 200 Lebanese had died because a group they didn't necessarily agree with and which certainly did not represent them as a nation had kidnapped two Israeli soldiers. She agreed with everything I posed as reasons for Israel not bombing Lebanon back "twenty years" (as an Israeli general-type said), but could not bring herself to seeing why those reasons added up to Israel not defending themselves after years of "this sort of thing" (she didn't say exactly that, so the quotes are more paraphrasing than direct quotation). That was 6 days ago, when the news coverage and the whole issue had seemed important.*
I realized, 3 days ago (deathcount in Lebanon ~325 people), that, if I had approached a Muslim friend about the conflict, he/she and I would have disagreed as well - he/she would have disparaged Israel's attacks to an absurd extent, at which point, I would find myself defending Israel, its people, and their, fairly understandable, desire to live outside of constant fear.
Today I saw what seemed to be the result of Israeli use of phosphorus in their aircraft-based bombings. Apparently, the chemical is banned by several treaties concerning which weapons are acceptably terrible and which ones cross into unacceptable terribleness, but nevertheless, there were 2 Lebanese kids on TV, suffering from phosphorus burns that, if they survive, will scar them for life.
As I watched that, I dunked my fries (I take two at a time to justify a more sizable sauce dunking) and, as I ate the fries, made a note to myself to add more Tabasco to the sauce mixture next time. The Lebanese kids continued their crying, leaving tear trails where the ointment was carried away by the saline drops running down their faces. I left the TV room once my food was finished. The news reported that another bomb had gone off in an Israeli kibbutz while I was disposing of my food tray. The news coverage by this time was almost as novel as the proceedings of Afghanistan's democratic government.

* Looking back, I think I meant amenable to change rather than pressing or dire.

Universalism, Rethought

2006-06-06T15:30:00.000-04:00

Ever since I heard President Clinton's speech to the Class of 2006 at Princeton University, an interesting thought has been brewing in my head. While I am usually skeptical regarding any sort of universalism (see my article on Ms. Hirsi Ali or the Muhammad Cartoons), there could be a way of bringing about "shared values" that President Clinton spoke about.

In his speech, President Clinton gave a concrete example of how opinions (and values) can change over time. In Indonesia, he said, after the war in Iraq began, approval of American actions was down to 30%. However, after the tsunami, where approximately 30% of Americans gave money in aid for tsunami victims and countless NGOs from the US and other countries (like the Netherlands and UK) came in to help rebuild the lives of the victims, that same approval rating was up to 58%. Therefore, as a result of an empathetic struggle to rebuild Southeast Asia, where the citizens of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and India saw that Americans actually cared about their well-being, relations between America and those countries (in particular, Indonesia) improved considerably.

The key point in the above example is that the opinions and values of the region evolved not through some propaganda offered up by the American government, but through the hard work and monetary contributions of American citizens. If the government of the US had been the key player in the Indonesian relief effort, there may have been any number of suspicions regarding why the US government was so interested in helping Indonesians. However, when American people, a diverse and characteristically discordant group, come together in an effort to rebuild the region, such suspicions fall away. There is no worry of a conspiracy existing between all the different groups that came to the aid of the Indonesians - the multilateral and non-governmental nature of the effort prevented that. Therein lies the key to a practical universalism.

By avoiding "uni-traditional" and governmental actions, the world can work towards the sort of "shared values" that President Clinton speaks of. If the actions are "uni-traditional" (ie, all the aid groups come from within Western nations), immediately there is the worry of conscious manipulation of another culture's values by the aiding culture. If the actions are governmental, there is a similar worry of governmental conspiracy to colonize the region they are aiding. Thus, in order to achieve the shared values that President Clinton feels would result in "more friends and fewer enemies," any actions causing a profound effect on a region (whether culturally, economically, or physically) must be taken by multi-traditional and non-governmental entities. That is, a relief effort in any part of the world must, in order to succeed in the long-term, possess participants from as large a cross-section of the world as possible. Then, any cultural effect caused by the effort, be it a direct result of the effort or an indirect consequence, will be seen not as a malicious trick by any one group, but rather a coming together of people in an effort to improve the lot of their fellow person, resulting in the growth of a basic set of shared values.

------

As a side note, I would like to say that President Clinton's idea about NGOs is similar to what I suggested as a possible solution in Iraq. The diverse nature of NGOs would prevent any sort of focused influence effected by any one country. As a result, the shared values that arise will be, as the president said, "general and embracing and [would] work everywhere," rather than being values perceived to be imposed upon Iraqis by the Coalition of the Willing.

Rationale for the Muhammad Cartoons

2006-06-02T12:57:00.000-04:00

The New York Times published an editorial written by Flemming Rose in Der Spiegel explaining why he printed the Muhammad Cartoons in his newspaper last year. He caricaturizes himself as a 60s hippie who, over the years, has become jaded by the exploitation of the left by the very victims they try to protect. He speaks of fundamentalist Muslim clerics in Europe taking advantage of the doctrine of "victimology" to use it against the people who defend them. And so on and so forth.

After making a case against the clerics, he moves onto defending his own actions. He makes a very strong case for himself, writing:

By treating a Muslim figure the same way I would a Christian or Jewish icon, I was sending an important message: You are not strangers, you are here to stay, and we accept you as an integrated part of our life. And we will satirize you, too. It was an act of inclusion, not exclusion...

However, as one of my close friends pointed out, it's like covering oneself in honey just after a bee's nest has been poked, merely because covering oneself in honey is within the bounds of allowed action (and perhaps even the "right thing to do"). She referred to his actions as "idiotic" and "mistimed." However, while I agree it was mistimed, I think he sees his own actions as idealistic rather than idiotic. There have been many situations when we have lauded a person for doing something like this, saying he or she "did the right thing" despite having every reason not to. Ultimately, I think, while he had the right to do what he did, especially as his reasons were idealistic, I think he did, in fact, mistime them. But furthermore, as he writes, the Muslim community in Europe should not have reacted quite as violently as it did - being a citizen of a multicultural democracy carries with it the implicit assumption that ones culture and religion may very well be the butt of a joke every once in a while. As a citizen of a democracy, one also has the right to protest such perceived violations, but not to the point of threatening the lives of other humans - such a reaction solves nothing and has potentially gigantic costs.

The Iraq Issue

2006-05-27T01:17:00.000-04:00

Blair and Bush are finally conceding that they made some mistakes in Iraq. The de-Baathification of the government led to a large number of angry people with guns while reducing the effectiveness of any army the US and UK help them put together (as every extensively trained Iraqi is disenchanted with us due to the de-Baathification). They admit that removing Hussein from power was not what was needed to spark a democratic Iraq and that they needed a plan before having gone into the country. Politically-wise, this concession helps them stop the bleeding by appealing to the sympathy of the voters. However, now that they have admitted to the mistakes, they need to start doing something to fix Iraq.

First of all, we need to admit this is not going to be a short term situation. We are stuck there. If we leave now (or soon), all we do is show the Middle East that we do not much care for them and that we entered Iraq for all the reasons they think we entered for: oil, imperialism, war against Islam, etc. As such, I agree we need to train Iraqi forces, but that does not mean our troops are leaving very soon (I see at least 3-4 years more there). But the sudden rush to increase Iraqi forces has been incredibly bad: widespread corruption, uniformed death squads, etc. are consequences that come to mind. We need to take our time - even artificially sown democracy does not rise overnight.

Second, we need to focus more on the humanitarian aspect of our invasion of Iraq. We killed a few tens of thousands of Iraqis and displaced probably even more. It is unsurprising that we do not have a positive image in their eyes. As such, we need to bring in NGOs to aid in rebuilding people's lives. This would mean a huge relief fund built especially for NGOs within the Coalition of the Willing who are willing to go into Iraq and help people settle down again. That could be anything from physically helping them rebuild their houses, help them setup educational facilities from elementary school to secondary institutions, help them establish local governance, etc. The list goes on and on. It will cost a lot and there will be a lot of failed attempts, but, I think, this is the most important part of any long-term improvement of Iraq.

Finally, if our efforts in Iraq are to succeed, we have to alter perceptions of America and American actions in the Middle East (as explained by ex-Secretary Albright). A large part of why al Qaeda succeeds in recruiting new terrorists is that Muslim youth feel that America is an evil entity desirous of the end of Islam. Of course that is untrue, but al Qaeda is able to spin everything that the US does into a large-scale assault on Islam. We need to correct that perception. To do so will involve not just a PR campaign but also a campaign of positive action involving massive efforts to improve relations between Muslims (within and outside the US) and the rest of the population. Bringing NGOs into Iraq could be considered a part of this effort, but it should be the best fleshed out part, because I truly believe it is the most important one.

I imagine there are tons of other aspects to Iraq that I have not thought about yet. However, in my eyes, the aforementioned three would go a long way to improving what is, at this point, an utter and absolute mess.

(I realize this is a rather liberal point of view on the whole Iraq issue. Although I imagine most people reading this will be rather liberal, if anyone can think of any other improvements for Iraq, I would be interested to know them (liberal or conservative).)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Human Rights vs. Tolerance

2006-05-17T12:34:00.000-04:00

Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, member of the Dutch Parliament, was recently found to have falsified her refugee information when she arrived in the Netherlands in 1992. I just heard a radio interview with her on WNYC about her new book The Caged Virgin. Her views on Islam, as I see them, are influenced by her earlier interactions with the religion: her grandmother performed a circumcision (FGM) on her when she was six years old and then her father attempted to marry her off to a distant cousin when she was twenty-two. In all, she has not had a particularly positive relationship with Islam and Muslims.

That is why, while I may agree with her that certain tenets in Islam are contrary to western liberal thought, it is unfair to say that we should not be tolerant of apparently intolerant cultures (as she says in her interview on WNYC). Protection of female rights and cultural tolerance, while closely entwined in her context, are not the same issue. Religious tolerance stems from an idea of cosmopolitanism that is a strongly-held tenet of western liberalism and female rights belong to the idea of universal human rights, also a major aspect of liberalism.

Ms. Hirsi Ali, as far as I can tell, wishes to do away with cultural tolerance to preserve human rights. I would propose we follow something of a middle path, one that will neither ignore human rights nor eschew cultural tolerance. Within countries that hold the same set of beliefs, ie western liberal countries (I daresay the US may not be one with our recent anti-abortion legislations), we protect the human rights of individuals, be they citizens, residents, visitors, or refugees, against any malefactors. After all, if a group of people wishes to practice their cultural traditions, it must ensure that the beliefs of that culture do not clash with the policies of the nation in which they have chosen to reside. However, outside this set of nations, our government pursues a policy of cosmopolitanism - governmental agents and agencies do nothing that will offend the residents of nations outside the group outlined earlier.

However, that does not restrict NGOs from carrying on their own campaigns for human rights, campaigns such as those discouraging child marriages and female genital mutilations and encouraging the use of sexual contraceptives. As long as the NGOs are not coercive in their tactics and merely attempting to educate and equip people with the knowledge and tools to improve their lives, they are within their bounds. On the other side, we must allow NGOs from other nations access to our populace. They must be able to educate and equip any members of our population who agree with what they are saying. Again, their actions must be limited to non-coercive tactics that do not violate the laws of our nations, much like NGOs from our nations cannot violate the laws of their nations.

I believe that such practices will reduce the objections that people like Ms. Hirsi Ali may have against cultural tolerance. I realize that she feels she has suffered a lot of intolerance at the hands of a culture that we are tolerating, but eschewing tolerance would destroy western liberalism far more quickly and assuredly than any amount of repeated attacks by outside cultures.

References:

Ms. Hirsi Ali's May 5, 2006 Interview with Brian Lehrer on WNYC
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Wikipedia article

Update:

An interesting epilogue: Upon leaving the Dutch Parliament, Ms. Hirsi Ali is going to the United States, where she will be joining a conservative think tank, American Enterprise Institute - slightly confusing, considering her stated allegiance to western liberal thought.

US - Iran: Actions and Reactions

2006-05-12T00:05:00.000-04:00

People's reactions to the recent situation in Iran has me rather confused and slightly angry. People around me keep criticizing the United States for its handling of the situation. As far as I can see, we have done nothing yet that is "wrong" even in the most idealistic sense of the word. All we have done so far is gone to the United Nations to see if we can impose sanctions on Iran if they continue forward with their nuclear program without the oversight of international inspectors. We have also tried to downplay the importance of President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush, but that is also not something immediately condemnable. What is it then that people find wrong?
Upon continued discussion, it seems that one point of contention is the sanctions America is trying to impose on the Iranian people. After all, what did the people of Iran do against the United States? But, let us consider what exactly economic sanctions are. Saying that the US will impose economic sanctions against Iran means that, in some form, the United States will reduce trade between companies established in the US and companies established in Iran. Some people say that is unfair. But how is it fair for the US government to stack up the interests of Iran against the interests of the United States and decide in favor of Iranian interests? As the economic sanctions seem to be a tactic to improve American security interests, then by all means, it seems perfectly fair to impose. Furthermore, by requesting the same sanctions at the United Nations, we are merely asking other nations to join us in reducing their trade with Iran. The other delegates should only do so if they also think that economic sanctions are in the interests of their respective nations. Moreover, they are absolutely free to not impose such sanctions - the United States is not strong-arming anyone to do anything by bringing the matter to the United Nations. This is one of the few times that the United States is doing something that comes close to resembling a sane plan of action and to see people deriding it makes no sense. We should applaud such actions by this administration and hope for more of the same rather than the cowboy-blundering we have seen in the past.
Also, some people claim that President Ahmadinejad's letter is not being received as the immense diplomatic gesture that it is. While I would agree that the administration does not seem to be reacting to it quite as I, a private individual, would, it seems almost needless to say that the letter is certainly getting far more attention than is being shown to the public. That is to say, the United States is certainly aware that this is the first, direct, written communication between Iran and the United States since 1979 and it is surely being given due attention. It does seem rather coincidental that the letter comes right at the eve of a decision within the United Nations regarding sanctions upon Iran. However, rather than speaking to the nuclear program for which the sanctions are being considered, the letter focuses on the blunders of George W. Bush as a leader. Ahmadinejad writes of the failure of western liberal democracy and invited the US to try fundamentalism as a form of government. While I am the first to admit that President Bush's actions in the past 6 years have been rather short of stellar, it is unclear to me that converting to a fundamentalist government will, in any way, resolve all the issues that have arisen during his presidency. If anything, moving away from religious fervor, to which President Bush is sadly inclined, might in fact be a better way to resolve some of the issues and prevent future ones. But, coming back to the timing of the letter, it is clear that it was written not to the president of the United States, but to the leaders, diplomats, and citizens of the nations considering the sanctions against Iran being suggested by the United States. Ahmadinejad's ploy seems rather obvious; by questioning the actions, motives, and general image of leader of the country leading the campaign to impose sanctions, he wishes to reduce the overall perceived need for the sanctions.
For the first time in six years, I don't feel absolutely ashamed by the actions taken by my country. To see people condemn them simply because they were taken by someone we do not necessarily like is wrong and, honestly, somewhat scary. We should analyze each situation on its own merits and decide what we think of it as individuals rather than merely toeing our respective party lines.

2005-12-06T21:34:00.000-05:00

What is the difference between wearing a fur coat and eating a grilled chicken sandwich? Both actions require the termination of animal life; both are not necessary (one could wear a down coat or eat a tofu burger). However, I resist placing them on the same plane of acceptability. Eating a chicken sandwich just does not feel as inappropriate as wearing a fur coat.
In order to continue this discussion, it is imperative to establish what I find inappropriate in eating a grilled chicken sandwich or wearing a fur coat. The taking of another animal's life for my own whims is the crux of the impropriety. I do not feel that my desire of the hour should allow me to abet the death of a fellow member of the animal kingdom. Why? Because it gives me far more power in terms of life and death than I would wish anyone to have, regardless of whether that person is or is not me.
Then, how is eating a chicken better than wearing a fur coat? Is it merely an issue of class warfare? That is, am I just angry that only rich people can afford a fur coat and, thus, for me, the fur coat has become an outward symbol of the unnecessary, overly decadent, and, perhaps, personally unattainable, lifestyle of the ridiculously rich? The answer to that is, simply put, no. The more complex answer is that I have no problems with the other things rich people do: purchase clothing at expensive stores, have meals at delightfully extravagant restaurants, establish offshore bank accounts to shelter their income from US taxation, the list goes on. Seriously, none of the above bother me; I take them all as part and parcel of the total richness package. You can have your expensive dinner, but then you also have to deal with the problem of placing your money somewhere it won't "leak". So, based on the above, I can safely say that I do not see myself as a class warrior.
If not class warfare, what is it? Could it be some sort of instinctual feeling that meat=food whereas fur!=clothing? Do I find some weird hunter-gatherer rationalization every time I see people eating meat which is lacking for the fur-wearers? That is an interesting supposition. It certainly fits with another fact I have not mentioned yet: I find wearing leather shoes/boots rather acceptable. Could it be that I have some inherited memory of my ancestors wearing leather foot coverings and eating meat off the skewer that allows me to continue in my non-vegetarian, leather-boot-wearing ways? The answer to that, I think, is no. Fur must have been worn rather often during the days of the hunter-gatherers. While not a social statement regarding one's status, fur did keep one warm, even during the ice age. So, to assert that fur was less a part of my hunter-gatherer ancestry than leather shoes would be a false statement. Therefore, it is not an instinctual feeling that allows me to eat meat but not wear fur.
Ultimately, it comes down to economy and respect. That is, a fur coat does not seem as economical in its solution to the problem it addresses as meat or a leather boot. Less abstractly speaking, a hunk of meat goes much further to resolve the issue of a lack of protein in one's diet than any other form of protein available to me: lentils, tofu, etc. (certainly, I could bring in the issue of aesthetics and point out how horrible tofu tastes, but that would defeat my argument). In much the same way, a leather boot will outlast almost any other form of extreme weather shoe wear by a long shot because, and this is rather unsurprising, it is made out of the stuff that animals wore to protect them from the elements their entire lives - skin. Fur, on the other hand, could be replaced by all sorts of "more economical" warmth-preserving objects: woolen coats, down jackets, goose feather parkas, even leather jackets. I say even leather jackets because leather is an animal product, one that kills the animal, despite which it is better than fur because it is more economical than a fur coat. How so? It takes far fewer total animal lives to synthesize a leather jacket as compared to a fur coat. So far, I have only talked about the economy aspect of the issue. But the leather jacket comparison brings in the respect aspect. It shows respect for the sacrifice of the animal lives being made for one's warmth/nutrition/etc to minimize the overall effect one's life has on other animals. That is, the less animals I kill to continue functioning the better. Of course, I could become a vegetarian, but, in my thinking, that detracts from the economy side of the equation. Thus, a careful balance of economy and respect may explain why eating meat and not buying fur clothing seem perfectly consistent to me.
Do I ultimately buy this ultimate explanation of my stated moral dillema? I would have to say yes. Sure, there are other ways of explaining why fur is wrong (ie, anal electrocutions, wire cages, psychological anguish, overall cuteness of chinchillas, etc), but really, all those are just appeals to any emotional attachment one may have to small furry animals. Also, many of those same reasons (the ones in parentheses just above) would also apply to eating meat and it will be a cold day in hell before I give up on the fine taste of a leg of lamb... Cheers.

2005-10-08T09:07:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, I went to a modern music concert. Usually, I find something that turns me off the group. But that was not the case yesterday. Try as I might, the ensemble seemed to be doing everything in a striving for perfection. Their composition and performance both yearned for a ... no, an expression of ideas. While everyone is always doing that, I am usually not convinced by it. Yesterday was different, I felt they were reaching for perfect expression. I don't know, I just appreciated their efforts. What's more interesting was that I wanted to leave as soon as the music was done. I didn't want to ask questions, hob-nob with the performers or the composers, or sip some wine while everyone else did that. I couldn't have that. The music had shown me the pure, noble side of these people and, I knew, if I stayed any longer, my perception of them would invariably become stained by their personalities, behaviour, speech patterns, etc. It already started happening as I was trying to make my exit. I noticed their choices of alcohol, their conversations with each other, etc. I really wanted to leave. So badly did I desire it that I couldn't wait for the elevator - I walked down the stairs to avoid waiting with others for the elevator.
Upon ruminating further with a friend, I decided that there are two sides to people - their personalities and their visions. I've found personalities are a much more subjective issue - they can be great but not appeal to me or they can be really shitty and totally win me over. It's so subjective that I'm sort of afraid to subject the visions of people to their personalities. If I've only experienced their visions, I would be wont to know who they are - my perception of those people is as high as it can get. Meeting those people will not only reduce my consideration of them but also, sadly, of their vision. That's ultimately why I left as quickly as I did. That is all.

2004-05-15T11:25:00.000-04:00

It's been quite a while since I've posted here. It seems that this blog has become a place for me to vent about political happenings. I was reading the Princeton Tory, a WAY-WAY-WAY right-wing magazine published by apparently well-educated people (being Republican and smart always seemed mutually exclusive to me, but perhaps I am "misguided"). Most of the stuff there was balderdash (the typical neo-con crap: anti-abortion, pro-religion-in-state, etc.). But there was a kernel of truth in there: they pointed out that most people in this country don't know half the people they are getting angry with. Of course, their argument stemming from that fact was complete crap, but still, that fact did bother me; mostly because it's true. Thus, my new goal, for the time between work and sleep this summer, is to a) become more educated regarding our government and b) help others do the same. Hopefully, this will enable everyone to make better choices when election time comes around.
Well, that's out of the way. Now to the real political venting. Obviously, the prisoner humiliations and the beheading are on everyone's mind right now, and rightfully so. Both show a rather disappointing side of the human psyche. However, I believe that the militants who beheaded the US citizen (Berg) were being truthful when they said it was in retaliation for the humiliations they (as a group) suffered at the hands of the prison guards (read: retarded 18 year old drunks being made to do something they were DEFINITELY not equipped to do). Terrorists might be vengeful, over-the-top, and other extreme things, but when they are brainwashed, they are probably going to say what is on their mind. So, all that BS people have been saying about the terrorists trying to pin the beheading on Abu Ghraib when they just wanted to kill is exactly that: BS. Someone I know, who shall remain anonymous, said to me: "I'd rather be humiliated like in the prisons than be executed like in the video." Now, sure, that makes sense, TO US. But has anyone consulted a Middle Easterner? Apparently not. The humiliations they were forced to bear are AS BAD IF NOT WORSE than a beheading. Being forced to perform sexual acts with others (especially for the married men) places a stigma on those men worse than death. Most of them say they can't again live in their hometowns and are being forced to move. They and their families will forever be separated from the rest of their society as the people who were humiliated at Abu Ghraib. So, in all, DON'T TELL ME THAT YOU'D RATHER BE HUMILIATED BY 18-YEAR-OLD HICKS (FROM THE UNITED STATES ARMY RUNNING A HIGH-SECURITY PRISON THAT SHOULD RIGHTFULLY BE RUN BY SOMEONE WITH FAR MORE EXPERIENCE) THAN BE BEHEADED BY TERRORISTS BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN FORCED TO GO THROUGH EITHER!!!! That comment really pissed me off, so I figured I'd vent here. I saw the beheading, it was extremely gruesome and TOTALLY reproachable. But that doesn't somehow make the Abu Ghraib prison torture somehow, 'less bad'. That is all. If anyone wishes to explain another point of view, feel free to post comments.

2004-03-22T22:52:00.000-05:00

I'm not really angry about any political event right now, so I'll spread some interesting news:

I just found out that the number two al Qaeda guy they had surrounded for the past 5 days or so escaped! How you ask? Through a TWO KILOMETER long tunnel!!! That is a LONG tunnel. One mile is the same as 1.6 km, so that tunnel was about 1.25 miles long! That's incredible, especially considering the countryside in that area is rather rocky/hilly etc. Now, the Pakistani brigadier in charge is trying to tell us that the tunnel is brand new; that they didn't come across it the last time they looked through the area. I find that to be really funny. Noone digs a 2km long tunnel that fast! In Great Escape, a 300 ft tunnel took them well over 5-6 weeks. That leads me to believe that I must have misinterpreted the brigadier; he must have meant either that the last time they checked this area was NEVER or ... really, really, really long ago. That makes sense.

In other news, Sedna is not the tenth planet, but Pluto is still the ninth planet. Why? Sedna is only a smidgeon smaller than Pluto (about 10-15% smaller, I think). They're both on the inner edge of the Oort Cloud. There's no reason one should be a planet and the other not besides the whole 'tradition' thing. If we kept with tradition, we'd still be teaching that God created Earth and all its beings rather than that mumbo-jumbo scientists call evolution. Why, I bet we'd even be teaching that the earth is flat and in the center of the universe. What I'm trying to say is that tradition holds back science. It may be useful in other fields, but not science. Let either Sedna become a planet or let Pluto's planethood fall by the wayside. We can't be hypocritical just to keep with tradition.

There's nothing else to report really. Even though I'm liking Kerry less and less the more I find out about him, I'm still going to vote for him (namely because Bush can't seriously be allowed to "run" this country for four more years). It really hurts to admit to this, but I'm more voting against Bush than voting for Kerry. It's a sad day when one has to do that in a democracy...

2004-03-16T23:47:00.000-05:00

Time for a bit of political venting:

I'm sure everyone has heard about Spain. Zapatero is now in power, finally doing what all of Spain really wanted: the removal of Spanish forces from the US-led invasion of Iraq (yes, invasion). Of course, as soon as he takes power (Zapatero), there is a document found, purportedly by US intelligence (in Spain [why are they there]), belonging to al Qaeda that explicitly states that the group set off those bombings in order to make the conservative government lose the upcoming election.
Now, there are (at least) two obviously absurd conclusions to be made from this "discovery." Firstly, if the al Qaeda were in fact setting off the bomb to force the expulsion of the conservative government, wouldn't it be rather obvious to the operatives working in Spain? That is, would they really need a document explicitly stating the reason for the attacks? (The answer is no) It makes no sense to have such a document.
Secondly, again assuming al Qaeda set off the bombs with the explicit intent to remove the conservatives in Spain, why would they not come out as soon as possible and take responsibility. Seeing as this is a time-sensitive thing (as elections usually are), they would like to let everyone know that al Qaeda is doing this so that the populace of Spain knows to expul the government that got the al Qaeda on Spain's back in the first place. But they didn't; rather, they let it come out on its own through slow police inquiries and the CAPTURE OF THE TERRORISTS THEMSELVES. Would they REALLY have wanted their arrests to be the final keystone in the framework for determination of guilt in the attacks? I don't think that makes sense (not even to Dubya).
Finally (yes, there are three, not two), assuming the al Qaeda wanted to get Spain to leave Iraq alone; would this REALLY be the best way to do it? First of all, the entire notion that al Qaeda would care enough about getting Spain out of the US-led coalition is ridiculous. First of all, al Qaeda IS NOT RELATED TO IRAQ IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. Secondly, assuming that the fundamentalists in al Qaeda wish to see Westerners out of Iraq, history has shown them that bombing a country usually doesn't help in getting the country to leave them alone (case in point: Sept. 11, 2001). Unless we assume that al Qaeda members (and the several university-taught terrorists leading that organization) refuse to learn from history and like to put their heads in the guillotine, the whole notion makes no sense.
Now you ask, why did they attack the Madrid trains? That's a good question. The way I figure it, there are several terrorist cells in cities across the world. I don't think this was intended as an attack on Spain alone; rather, it was meant as a second iteration of the attack on the WTC in New York in 2001. The al Qaeda (brainwashed by their leaders as they unfortunately are) wanted to further drive home the fact that no Westerner is safe from them -- not in the US nor in the EU. It is a sad state of affairs that you kill 6000+ and then 200+ people to state your message, but I believe that is the reasoning behind it. Nothing as fancy as the conservative right would have us believe.
In conclusion, don't believe the tripe they feed us in the television news (seeing as it is tripe, I hope no one would believe it even if I didn't tell them [unless of course, they like tripe]); it's all just a big lie to justify W's desire to be the World Good Guy (even if that means we break every single piece of international law and custom in existence today).

2004-03-08T00:33:00.000-05:00

Starsky and Hutch:
First, I have never seen the original. I don't even know if it was a show or a movie, which is why I just wrote original rather than original show, or original movie, or original series. But the movie I just saw was funny. Snoop Dogg is actually a very good actor. Haha, the golf course scene. Get it? Not if you didn't see the movie. See the movie. I'm getting bored of this blogging thing. That's it. This might very well be the last blog post.

2004-03-07T18:33:00.000-05:00

So I realize that people might not actually know "what I mean" by not-quite-suction-cups. The transparent clear plastic that you see on suction cups is the material on the soles of one of my new flip-flops. It doesn't have actual suction cups, but the material's enough to ensure I don't slip (I haven't ever slipped, so I don't know why I'm worried, but they looked damned cool in the store).
That wasn't the real reason I put up this new post. I changed the name of my blog from "My Blog" to "blog (derivation: weB LOG)" but it wasn't sticking and I wanted to see if a new post would fix it. Checking ... NOW.

2004-03-07T18:24:00.000-05:00

First post ever, don't want to make it too interesting. This blog is mostly for my own peace of mind: I want to be able to remember stuff from day to day rather than... not remembering it, I suppose.

Today I bought flip-flops. Two of them: one has coconut trees on it and is blue and the other has suction cups at the bottom so I don't slip in the shower (not quite suction cups, but you know what I mean).

I have a logic problem set due soon (read: Tuesday) as well as a studio pinup tomorrow (Monday) and am right now setting up a blogger site. Good time management. This is all.