Structured Procrastination
Written 10 years ago, but rediscovered. In my case, by reading DeLong. Now I understand what I do I can get better at it. A plan for a personal pyramid scheme ...
Friday, June 04, 2004
Faces of US dead - Iraq War
washingtonpost.com: Faces of the Fallen
A gallery of the fallen. Ages 18 and up. The site provides a picture and lists rank, age, home address and context of death.
A gallery of the fallen. Ages 18 and up. The site provides a picture and lists rank, age, home address and context of death.
Quantum Entanglement: what does it tell about the nature of reality?
Quantum Entanglement and Information
NPR's science show interviewed a Waterloo physicist on the implications of a recent announcement. Researchers were able to use quantum entanglement amongst three atoms to enhance clock accuracy.
This is one of those announcements that causes some people to nod off, some people to start figuring out investment angles, and others to look for very remote housing locations. The guest speaker pointed out that, in the long run, it was probably no more significant than the deployment of fire, agriculture and electricity. I believe him.
Most of all, however, the call forced me to listen to yet another description of quantum entanglement. Hearing it in the context of industrial applications (quantum encyrption is now a real application, clock enhancement, etc) finally caused me to crack.
Quantum entanglement is just too weird to "fit" a naturally occuring universe. I can see why it freaked Einstein out.
I don't think it even fits all that well with an accidental artifactual universe -- though I suppose it might suggest something about the intent of the designer.
I don't think it fits with an omniscient deity in a physical universe. Too quirky.
No, in all the bizarre scenarios for the nature of reality, it's the closest fit for a simulation. Not a designed part of the simulation, but rather an artifact of the underlying computational system. Were I writing science fiction, I'd say "we" uncovered an imperfection or flaw in the simulation, an artifact resulting from a limitation of the underlying system. Now, as we pull on this thread, we're revealing more and more of what lies ahead.
In the story when we start using quantum computers fully, we'll be starting to indirectly access the computation substrate underlying our so-called reality. Hmm. I wonder what happens then? A buffer overflow might have some interesting consequences. Or maybe, as we start to run "parasitic processes" against our computational framework, we'll merely slow everything down (not that we'd notice directly -- except we might be able to measure some anomalies in our quantum computers).
An alternative narrative would be that the universe is indeed "god's computer" (hey, that dark matter has to do something, right? :-) -- but we're not an intended part of the computation. So it might be running simulation, but we're a side-effect. Or maybe the universe is simply a peripheral.
In this story we're parasitic processes, a sort of common side-effect. The universe was designed for optimum computation, with as few parasites as possible, but these things happen. Maybe it's a fundamental design flaw. As long as we don't consume too much CPU power we're not worth squashing. But once we crank up those quanta ... This also explains why the univese seems so quiet. Other "parasitic processes" occur, but shortly after they develop advanced technologies they start consuming a lot of "CPU" power. So they get squashed.
I think that house in the wilderness, without electricity, is starting to sound better all the time.
I'm sure Vernor Vinge is writing a story about this even now.
NPR's science show interviewed a Waterloo physicist on the implications of a recent announcement. Researchers were able to use quantum entanglement amongst three atoms to enhance clock accuracy.
This is one of those announcements that causes some people to nod off, some people to start figuring out investment angles, and others to look for very remote housing locations. The guest speaker pointed out that, in the long run, it was probably no more significant than the deployment of fire, agriculture and electricity. I believe him.
Most of all, however, the call forced me to listen to yet another description of quantum entanglement. Hearing it in the context of industrial applications (quantum encyrption is now a real application, clock enhancement, etc) finally caused me to crack.
Quantum entanglement is just too weird to "fit" a naturally occuring universe. I can see why it freaked Einstein out.
I don't think it even fits all that well with an accidental artifactual universe -- though I suppose it might suggest something about the intent of the designer.
I don't think it fits with an omniscient deity in a physical universe. Too quirky.
No, in all the bizarre scenarios for the nature of reality, it's the closest fit for a simulation. Not a designed part of the simulation, but rather an artifact of the underlying computational system. Were I writing science fiction, I'd say "we" uncovered an imperfection or flaw in the simulation, an artifact resulting from a limitation of the underlying system. Now, as we pull on this thread, we're revealing more and more of what lies ahead.
In the story when we start using quantum computers fully, we'll be starting to indirectly access the computation substrate underlying our so-called reality. Hmm. I wonder what happens then? A buffer overflow might have some interesting consequences. Or maybe, as we start to run "parasitic processes" against our computational framework, we'll merely slow everything down (not that we'd notice directly -- except we might be able to measure some anomalies in our quantum computers).
An alternative narrative would be that the universe is indeed "god's computer" (hey, that dark matter has to do something, right? :-) -- but we're not an intended part of the computation. So it might be running simulation, but we're a side-effect. Or maybe the universe is simply a peripheral.
In this story we're parasitic processes, a sort of common side-effect. The universe was designed for optimum computation, with as few parasites as possible, but these things happen. Maybe it's a fundamental design flaw. As long as we don't consume too much CPU power we're not worth squashing. But once we crank up those quanta ... This also explains why the univese seems so quiet. Other "parasitic processes" occur, but shortly after they develop advanced technologies they start consuming a lot of "CPU" power. So they get squashed.
I think that house in the wilderness, without electricity, is starting to sound better all the time.
I'm sure Vernor Vinge is writing a story about this even now.
Thursday, June 03, 2004
The well oiled white house ...
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: May 30, 2004 - June 05, 2004 Archives
The way the Tenet Termination was executed, as a strange afterthought by GWB as he boarded a helicopter, is worrisome. I want to see Bush retired in November for the creation of bad policy and incompetent execution of his stated policies. In addition, if he's committed illegal acts then he should be prosecuted or impeached -- though that should be done with care and only for dire need. I think the persecutory impeachment of Clinton distracted the nation from the threats we faced then and now.
What worries me more is GWB's psychic health. Anyone who's taken the Presidency is a dozen times tougher, nastier, more ruthless and driven than anyone most of us ever know -- but GWB is beginning to worry me.
Having said all that, beside the possibility that the White House's favored Iraqi exile was an Iranian agent, that the spy chief just got canned, that the OSD is wired to polygraphs, and that the president has had to retain outside counsel in the investigation into which members of his staff burned one of the country's own spies, I'd say the place is being run like a pretty well-oiled machine.
The way the Tenet Termination was executed, as a strange afterthought by GWB as he boarded a helicopter, is worrisome. I want to see Bush retired in November for the creation of bad policy and incompetent execution of his stated policies. In addition, if he's committed illegal acts then he should be prosecuted or impeached -- though that should be done with care and only for dire need. I think the persecutory impeachment of Clinton distracted the nation from the threats we faced then and now.
What worries me more is GWB's psychic health. Anyone who's taken the Presidency is a dozen times tougher, nastier, more ruthless and driven than anyone most of us ever know -- but GWB is beginning to worry me.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
The Media Must Be Stopped! We must destroy freedom in order to save it ...
Fafblog! the whole worlds only source for Fafblog.
I can't complain about the great job the Bush regime is doing boosting the readership for satirists. Satire had been in decline for some time.
Good complement to The Onion's article on winning by terror (see posting of a week ago or so).
Recently a few distressed voices in the wilderness have been raised in alarm at the newest, darkest, and most dangerous threat to America's success in the war on terror: the media. Morton Kondracke recently pointed out that the media 'is in danger of talking the United States into defeat in Iraq. And the results would be catastrophic.' He goes on to pin the West's Iraq problems squarely where they belong: on the media's fixation with the Abu Ghraib scandal. How astute, Mr Kondracke! For it was in fact the press's obsession with military torture that allowed the the Shiite and Sunni insurgencies to claim whole cities from the American occupation.
But what to do about this pernicious enemy within? Analytical wunderkind and concerned lover of law Glenn Reynolds muses, 'Freedom of the press, as it exists today (and didn't exist, really, until the 1960s) is unlikely to survive if a majority -- or even a large and angry minority -- of Americans comes to conclude that the press is untrustworthy and unpatriotic.' Quite true, Professor Reynolds. And America will likely need that angry minority if we're to inforce patriotism on our press, and end the nightmarish salvo of information and journalism that threatens to cripple the war effort. For this is not merely a war for freedom. Indeed, it is also a war against freedom - specifically, that freedom which seeks to destroy freedom.
These concepts may be too complex and nuanced for the unsophisticated or Democrats to fully grasp, but the Medium Lobster will endeavor to explain. A free-loving society must protect not only its freedoms, but the society which enables those freedoms to be protected, for if that society was to be destroyed, then all freedoms would disappear. In order for freedom to persist, we must outlaw the freedom to destroy or damage society. Thus, freedom cries out for us to destroy those freedoms which would destroy freedom, such as murder, genocide, violent revolution, sedition, criticism of good wars, publication of disheartening news regarding those wars, criticism of the Commander In Chief during wartime, the teaching of seditious literature, obscenity ...
I can't complain about the great job the Bush regime is doing boosting the readership for satirists. Satire had been in decline for some time.
Good complement to The Onion's article on winning by terror (see posting of a week ago or so).
Chalabi and Iranian codebreaking: old rumors in blogworld
The New York Times > Washington > Chalabi Reportedly Told Iran That U.S. Had Code
I read this in the "blogosphere" a couple of weeks ago. I can't remember where. Lately the blog-world has been about 1-2 weeks ahead of the mainstream media, and not obviously less accurate. Some sort of peculiar gestalt effect?
Chalabi claimed to have gotten the news from a "drunken official". The focus is on Cheney and Rumsfeld's offices, presumably starting with the heavy drinkers there.
I wonder what Ann "Treason" Coulter will say if the "official" turns out to be a very senior member of the Bush administration. Oh well, no-one got too upset about Cheney's organization leaking names of our CIA agents ...
WASHINGTON, June 1 — Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi leader and former ally of the Bush administration, disclosed to an Iranian official that the United States had broken the secret communications code of Iran's intelligence service, betraying one of Washington's most valuable sources of information about Iran, according to United States intelligence officials...
The Bush administration, citing national security concerns, asked The New York Times and other news organizations not to publish details of the case... The administration withdrew its request on Tuesday, saying information about the code-breaking was starting to appear in news accounts.
American officials said that about six weeks ago, Mr. Chalabi told the Baghdad station chief of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security that the United States was reading the communications traffic of the Iranian spy service, one of the most sophisticated in the Middle East.
According to American officials, the Iranian official in Baghdad, possibly not believing Mr. Chalabi's account, sent a cable to Tehran detailing his conversation with Mr. Chalabi, using the broken code. That encrypted cable, intercepted and read by the United States, tipped off American officials to the fact that Mr. Chalabi had betrayed the code-breaking operation, the American officials said...
The inquiry, still in an early phase, is focused on a very small number of people who were close to Mr. Chalabi and also had access to the highly restricted information about the Iran code.
Some of the people the F.B.I. expects to interview are civilians at the Pentagon who were among Mr. Chalabi's strongest supporters and served as his main point of contact with the government, the officials said.
I read this in the "blogosphere" a couple of weeks ago. I can't remember where. Lately the blog-world has been about 1-2 weeks ahead of the mainstream media, and not obviously less accurate. Some sort of peculiar gestalt effect?
Chalabi claimed to have gotten the news from a "drunken official". The focus is on Cheney and Rumsfeld's offices, presumably starting with the heavy drinkers there.
I wonder what Ann "Treason" Coulter will say if the "official" turns out to be a very senior member of the Bush administration. Oh well, no-one got too upset about Cheney's organization leaking names of our CIA agents ...
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
The Economist isn't doing much better than the NYT
Economist.com | The threat from al-Qaeda
I am more than fed up with the pusillanimous pomposity of the Economist's reporting on GWB. The above sentence, taken from 'Still plotting, still recruiting', is typical. Let's deconstruct it at a Journalism 101 level. Who believes al-Qaeda is seeking to influence the election? Based on what? What outcome would al-Qaeda favor? Would they support a familiar facilitator like GWB, or risk a more effective opponent? Assuming they prefer to reelect Bush, would al-Qaeda favor a cruel attack to strengthen Bush's base -- or feign weakness so that Bush could claim to protected America?
Intellectual laziness meets a craven lust for access to Bush insiders -- and delivers vapid stupidity. The Economist needs a serious kick in the proverbial pants.
According to Mr Bush's officials, the period of increased threat will continue at least until the American presidential elections in November, whose outcome al-Qaeda is believed to be seeking to influence...
I am more than fed up with the pusillanimous pomposity of the Economist's reporting on GWB. The above sentence, taken from 'Still plotting, still recruiting', is typical. Let's deconstruct it at a Journalism 101 level. Who believes al-Qaeda is seeking to influence the election? Based on what? What outcome would al-Qaeda favor? Would they support a familiar facilitator like GWB, or risk a more effective opponent? Assuming they prefer to reelect Bush, would al-Qaeda favor a cruel attack to strengthen Bush's base -- or feign weakness so that Bush could claim to protected America?
Intellectual laziness meets a craven lust for access to Bush insiders -- and delivers vapid stupidity. The Economist needs a serious kick in the proverbial pants.
Abu Ghraib was made in America
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: America's Abu Ghraibs
Herbert makes a good case -- the treatment of prisoners in many states is not so different from the treatment of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib. I recall an NPR show on this topic -- mercifully Minnesota was well above average. In the south things were pretty bad.
Compared to other wealth nations, America is a relatively harsh, violent, and brutal place.
Herbert makes a good case -- the treatment of prisoners in many states is not so different from the treatment of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib. I recall an NPR show on this topic -- mercifully Minnesota was well above average. In the south things were pretty bad.
Compared to other wealth nations, America is a relatively harsh, violent, and brutal place.
Kerry and policy
John Kerry for President - 100 Days to Change America
By chance, waiting for an airplane in late May, I heard Kerry speak about national security. This was one of a series, which I believe is referenced on this page.
I say "believe" because:
1. The Kerry web site is large and complex, and the "serious" material is not preeminent.
2. The mainstream press ignored the speech.
It was a good speech. Despite the gravity of the topic, I felt like cheering. It seemed miraculous to hear intelligent dialogue from a President -- an office that GWB has degraded.
In a similar vein, DeLong reviews Kerry's healthcare plan -- and likes it.
By chance, waiting for an airplane in late May, I heard Kerry speak about national security. This was one of a series, which I believe is referenced on this page.
I say "believe" because:
1. The Kerry web site is large and complex, and the "serious" material is not preeminent.
2. The mainstream press ignored the speech.
It was a good speech. Despite the gravity of the topic, I felt like cheering. It seemed miraculous to hear intelligent dialogue from a President -- an office that GWB has degraded.
In a similar vein, DeLong reviews Kerry's healthcare plan -- and likes it.
Monday, May 31, 2004
Robert Reich's Reason : A Terse Review
Amazon.com: Books: Reason : Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America
I've just finished Robert Reich's book "Reason". With a title like that (Coulter's "Treason" without the "T") I couldn't resist the impulse buy.
It's a quick and fun read. The bottom line is that Reich is trying to resurrect (recreate?) both the American Liberal (meaning something close to what The Economist means by Liberal -- the 19th century enlightened rationalist) and the Democratic Party as the party of Liberalism.
His key points are:
1. Evangelicals and right wing white conservatives have a fairly severe hang-up about anything to do with human sexuality coupled with a less public fear of "immigrant invasion" as well.
2. Neocons shares some of the same sexual hang-ups, so they were able to forge a solid alliance with the evangelicals. They express outrage about many things, but the outrage outrage is readily reducible to sex and taxes.
3. Neocons are still reacting to the 1960s, where they missed out on the orgies. The "Left" of the 60s has disappeared, but the Neocons keep trying to resurrect the Hippie corpse.
4. The Right's language of outrage can be smoothly and properly applied to the excesses of Wall Street, the scamming of the naive investor (pension and mutual funds), and the epidemic corruption of American politics.
5. The Evangelical/Neocons are now harvesting the fruits of a 20 year program to advance their agenda at every level of government and social organizations, with funding from amoral, shortsighted, egomaniac billionaires with sexual hang-ups.
6. The Evangelical-Neocons justify their actions by recreating Spencer's Social Darwinism -- last popular in the 19th century Gilded Age. By their "Values" Wealth is the best measure of Virtue (either God's Virtue or the Market's Virtue -- depending personal preference). Thus a wealthy man is by definition virtuous and to be applauded, and a poor man is by definition sinful and ought to be ignored (or euthanized). The means by which one acquires wealth, whether by birth, industry, talent, luck or theft is irrelevant. (Credit to my wife, Dr. E.L., for noting the irony of Evangelical Social Darwinism.)
7. The Democratic Party is in awful shape; fractious and demoralized. Democrats come together briefly for Presidential elections then fall apart. The Unions have no future. The Party must be reinvented.
8. Traditional (respectable) conservatives (John McCain, Gerald Ford, even GB I, etc) are in even worse shape than the Democratic party.
9. There's no "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" -- but there might as well be. The action of individuals advancing their own interests without regard to ethics or a sustainable future, combined with the Puritanical obsessions of the social conservatives and the consolidation of the media around right wing owners, has produced the functional equivalent of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".
10. The US will always be a two party system -- barring radical change to the constitution. Change must occur within the structure of the two parties.
11. Globalization, on balance, is a very good thing for the world and for American security and prosperity. Protectionism would be a disaster, and, in any event, what globalization did not displace technology would.
11. The middle class of the late 20th century is disappearing. Symbolic analysts (aka knowledge workers) are becoming the only true middle class. Manufacturing is disappearing in the US, and manufacturing workers are being forced into the service economy. Service economy wages are stagnant due to increasing competition, and overall non-symbolic-analyst workers are moving into the lower class (near-poverty or poverty wages. This group lives on the edge of disaster.
12. Progressive taxation is just -- "equal pain" rather than "equal proportion".
13. The best way to deal with the stresses of globalization and especially with the stresses induced by technological transformation, is training and education -- not redistribution of income.
14. Early education and training is the answer to most social problems, with the right training and education almost everyone can have a good future in an American with a strong moral core and honest government. (Implicit in much of Reich's writing is an assumption that environment is the main determinant of human behavior, and altering environment is the key to improving people's behavior and improving social justice.)
What do I agree with?
Items number 1-12 with a major caveat on item #10 (globalization). I think Reich underestimates the "threat" of outsourcing to his vaunted symbolic-analysts. In contrast to manufacturing, this group is threatened much more by outsourcing than by the direct effects of technological transformation.
What do I disagree with?
Items 13 and 14; specifically the unstated but implicit thesis that a human is almost entirely the product of his environment.
Ironically Reich is indeed the product of his environment here -- when he went through college it was utterly forbidden to raise the possibility that human capacities and behaviors were constrained by genetics, biology, or anything but the post-natal environment. Reich is persisting in the 19th century belief that humans are fundamentally malleable -- at least when young.
Most of the research of the past 10-20 years points to a more complex picture. Temperament appears to be almost entirely genetically determined, but temperament can be altered by medications -- a form of environmental influence. Character, arguably of greater import than temperament, can be influenced by the post-natal environment.
Genetics and intrauterine environment appear to set "upper levels" for most human potentials, but on the other hand few people really push the limits of their potential. Training cannot restore lost sight, but training can allow a blind person to read. An Aspergergian is unlikely to be the life of the party, but Apsergians may train to "fake" many social interactions.
And yet ... all the work and cross-training in the world would never have made me a concert pianist or an NFL linebacker. (Of course with the "right" course of drugs perhaps the latter might have been attainable ...)
The making of a person is complex, and technologies are shifting the nature-nurture borders, but the evidence is strong that humans are not endlessly malleable. This is an increasing problem, because 21st century America rewards a fairly narrow range of workers. In the new-world, many of the old-middle class may not have a happy home -- no matter how hard they retrain. In a fundamental way, many Americans may be "disabled" for the modern workplace.
Reich should not be so quick to write-off redistributive solutions. We will need some creative thinking to produce a healthy American when the true "disability" rate starts to top 30%.
Otherwise -- a great book. Highly recommended.
I've just finished Robert Reich's book "Reason". With a title like that (Coulter's "Treason" without the "T") I couldn't resist the impulse buy.
It's a quick and fun read. The bottom line is that Reich is trying to resurrect (recreate?) both the American Liberal (meaning something close to what The Economist means by Liberal -- the 19th century enlightened rationalist) and the Democratic Party as the party of Liberalism.
His key points are:
1. Evangelicals and right wing white conservatives have a fairly severe hang-up about anything to do with human sexuality coupled with a less public fear of "immigrant invasion" as well.
2. Neocons shares some of the same sexual hang-ups, so they were able to forge a solid alliance with the evangelicals. They express outrage about many things, but the outrage outrage is readily reducible to sex and taxes.
3. Neocons are still reacting to the 1960s, where they missed out on the orgies. The "Left" of the 60s has disappeared, but the Neocons keep trying to resurrect the Hippie corpse.
4. The Right's language of outrage can be smoothly and properly applied to the excesses of Wall Street, the scamming of the naive investor (pension and mutual funds), and the epidemic corruption of American politics.
5. The Evangelical/Neocons are now harvesting the fruits of a 20 year program to advance their agenda at every level of government and social organizations, with funding from amoral, shortsighted, egomaniac billionaires with sexual hang-ups.
6. The Evangelical-Neocons justify their actions by recreating Spencer's Social Darwinism -- last popular in the 19th century Gilded Age. By their "Values" Wealth is the best measure of Virtue (either God's Virtue or the Market's Virtue -- depending personal preference). Thus a wealthy man is by definition virtuous and to be applauded, and a poor man is by definition sinful and ought to be ignored (or euthanized). The means by which one acquires wealth, whether by birth, industry, talent, luck or theft is irrelevant. (Credit to my wife, Dr. E.L., for noting the irony of Evangelical Social Darwinism.)
7. The Democratic Party is in awful shape; fractious and demoralized. Democrats come together briefly for Presidential elections then fall apart. The Unions have no future. The Party must be reinvented.
8. Traditional (respectable) conservatives (John McCain, Gerald Ford, even GB I, etc) are in even worse shape than the Democratic party.
9. There's no "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" -- but there might as well be. The action of individuals advancing their own interests without regard to ethics or a sustainable future, combined with the Puritanical obsessions of the social conservatives and the consolidation of the media around right wing owners, has produced the functional equivalent of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".
10. The US will always be a two party system -- barring radical change to the constitution. Change must occur within the structure of the two parties.
11. Globalization, on balance, is a very good thing for the world and for American security and prosperity. Protectionism would be a disaster, and, in any event, what globalization did not displace technology would.
11. The middle class of the late 20th century is disappearing. Symbolic analysts (aka knowledge workers) are becoming the only true middle class. Manufacturing is disappearing in the US, and manufacturing workers are being forced into the service economy. Service economy wages are stagnant due to increasing competition, and overall non-symbolic-analyst workers are moving into the lower class (near-poverty or poverty wages. This group lives on the edge of disaster.
12. Progressive taxation is just -- "equal pain" rather than "equal proportion".
13. The best way to deal with the stresses of globalization and especially with the stresses induced by technological transformation, is training and education -- not redistribution of income.
14. Early education and training is the answer to most social problems, with the right training and education almost everyone can have a good future in an American with a strong moral core and honest government. (Implicit in much of Reich's writing is an assumption that environment is the main determinant of human behavior, and altering environment is the key to improving people's behavior and improving social justice.)
What do I agree with?
Items number 1-12 with a major caveat on item #10 (globalization). I think Reich underestimates the "threat" of outsourcing to his vaunted symbolic-analysts. In contrast to manufacturing, this group is threatened much more by outsourcing than by the direct effects of technological transformation.
What do I disagree with?
Items 13 and 14; specifically the unstated but implicit thesis that a human is almost entirely the product of his environment.
Ironically Reich is indeed the product of his environment here -- when he went through college it was utterly forbidden to raise the possibility that human capacities and behaviors were constrained by genetics, biology, or anything but the post-natal environment. Reich is persisting in the 19th century belief that humans are fundamentally malleable -- at least when young.
Most of the research of the past 10-20 years points to a more complex picture. Temperament appears to be almost entirely genetically determined, but temperament can be altered by medications -- a form of environmental influence. Character, arguably of greater import than temperament, can be influenced by the post-natal environment.
Genetics and intrauterine environment appear to set "upper levels" for most human potentials, but on the other hand few people really push the limits of their potential. Training cannot restore lost sight, but training can allow a blind person to read. An Aspergergian is unlikely to be the life of the party, but Apsergians may train to "fake" many social interactions.
And yet ... all the work and cross-training in the world would never have made me a concert pianist or an NFL linebacker. (Of course with the "right" course of drugs perhaps the latter might have been attainable ...)
The making of a person is complex, and technologies are shifting the nature-nurture borders, but the evidence is strong that humans are not endlessly malleable. This is an increasing problem, because 21st century America rewards a fairly narrow range of workers. In the new-world, many of the old-middle class may not have a happy home -- no matter how hard they retrain. In a fundamental way, many Americans may be "disabled" for the modern workplace.
Reich should not be so quick to write-off redistributive solutions. We will need some creative thinking to produce a healthy American when the true "disability" rate starts to top 30%.
Otherwise -- a great book. Highly recommended.
Sad days at the NYT
The New York Times > Week in Review > The Public Editor: Weapons of Mass Destruction? Or Mass Distraction?
I've read Raines fascinating but self-serving essay on the Times (The Atlantic). The coverage of Iraq adds a new angle. Personally I've been frustrated by the awful job the Times has done with Al Gore, with the Bush election, and with the Bush regime since then. Krugman, DeLong and others have pointed to a desire within the Times to cultivate relations with the ruling party.
It's a fairly consistent picture of a troubled newspaper.
Readers were never told that Chalabi's niece was hired in January 2003 to work in The Times's Kuwait bureau. She remained there until May of that year.
I've read Raines fascinating but self-serving essay on the Times (The Atlantic). The coverage of Iraq adds a new angle. Personally I've been frustrated by the awful job the Times has done with Al Gore, with the Bush election, and with the Bush regime since then. Krugman, DeLong and others have pointed to a desire within the Times to cultivate relations with the ruling party.
It's a fairly consistent picture of a troubled newspaper.
Abuse of civilians by occupying forces -- same old, same old
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Military: Army Is Investigating Reports of Assaults and Thefts by G.I.'s Against Iraqi Civilians
I read of this last year, during a time when Iraqi's were blogging pretty actively. It sounded like theft of liquor, household goods, money, etc was pretty common. Sometimes there was internal conflict; some officers and soldiers forced others to return stolen goods.
I suspect by historical standards our forces aren't doing badly, but the standards of occupying forces are pretty low. If we'd had enough forces in place, with appropriate force protection, rest, supply and troop rotation, I think we'd have done a lot better.
WASHINGTON, May 30 — The Army is investigating at least two dozen cases in which American soldiers are accused of assaulting civilian Iraqis or stealing their money, jewelry and other property during raids, patrols and house-to-house searches, senior Defense Department officials said Sunday.
In some instances, investigators say, soldiers were reported to have stolen cash from Iraqis they stopped at roadside checkpoints, apparently under the pretext of confiscating money from suspected insurgents or their financial backers.
The Army's Criminal Investigation Command is also examining at least six cases in which soldiers on missions reportedly kicked, punched or beat civilian Iraqis, or fired their weapons near the Iraqis to scare or intimidate them.
Those statistics and broad descriptions are included in an internal summary prepared earlier this month by the investigation command at the request of senior Army officials who are struggling to understand the scope of mistreatment and potential crimes committed by American soldiers in Iraq beyond the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and other Army-run detention sites.
... The Army has acknowledged it is investigating 37 deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan involving prisoners in American custody. Other confidential Army documents have chronicled a widespread pattern of abuse involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan that implicates more military units than previously known.
I read of this last year, during a time when Iraqi's were blogging pretty actively. It sounded like theft of liquor, household goods, money, etc was pretty common. Sometimes there was internal conflict; some officers and soldiers forced others to return stolen goods.
I suspect by historical standards our forces aren't doing badly, but the standards of occupying forces are pretty low. If we'd had enough forces in place, with appropriate force protection, rest, supply and troop rotation, I think we'd have done a lot better.
Thursday, May 27, 2004
On the erosion of privacy in the Reign of George the Feckless
Department of Justice brief, Opposition to Northwestern's Motion to Quash Subpoena, Nat'l Abortion Fed'n v. Ashcroft, No. 04 C 0055 (N.D. III)
I wrote about this in May of 1996, about 8 years ago today.
There is no federal common law physician-patient privilege… In light of modern medical practice and third party payors, individuals no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential.'
I wrote about this in May of 1996, about 8 years ago today.
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
If you know enough, it's not that hard to build a nuclear bomb -- less the fissile material
Report Urges Tighter Nuclear Controls (washingtonpost.com)
A SUV bomb that levels a city. This isn't all that new. I recall reading in the NYT a year or two ago that even smaller weapons were no longer extraordinarily difficult to construct, though for smaller weapons I gather the parts are not so easily obtained.
Technology marches on. Today it takes experts a bit of time. Five years from now it takes lesser experts less time. Ten years from now it's a high school project. How well can we do locking up all fissile material?
Then one day a fusion bomb becomes relatively easy to build.
Bush is fighting yesterday's wars with yesterday's methods.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. wondered aloud one day in 2002 whether someone could build an atomic weapon from parts available on the open market. His audience, the leaders of the government's nuclear laboratories, said it could be done.
Then do it, the Delaware Democrat, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, instructed the scientists in a confidential session. A few months later, they returned to the soundproof Senate meeting room with a workable nuclear weapon, missing only the fissile material.
'It was bigger than a breadbox and smaller than a dump truck, but they were able to get it in,' Biden said in a recent speech. The scientists 'explained how -- literally off the shelf, without doing anything illegal -- they actually constructed this device.'
The relative ease with which U.S. scientists built an explosive nuclear weapon illustrates the need to secure plutonium and highly enriched uranium scattered in armories and research sites around the world, a pair of Harvard University researchers argue in a new study that contends the Bush administration is not doing enough.
A SUV bomb that levels a city. This isn't all that new. I recall reading in the NYT a year or two ago that even smaller weapons were no longer extraordinarily difficult to construct, though for smaller weapons I gather the parts are not so easily obtained.
Technology marches on. Today it takes experts a bit of time. Five years from now it takes lesser experts less time. Ten years from now it's a high school project. How well can we do locking up all fissile material?
Then one day a fusion bomb becomes relatively easy to build.
Bush is fighting yesterday's wars with yesterday's methods.
A hero for Iraq?
U.N. Closes In on Choice To Lead Iraq (washingtonpost.com)
If this guy is for real, maybe he could run for President in the US when he's finished his stint in Iraq.
If he does take the job from hell, Bush should transfer his secret service detail to Shahristani and make do with second stringers.
Is it only from Hell that heroes come?
Shahristani, who has a doctorate in nuclear chemistry from the University of Toronto, served as chief scientific adviser to Iraq's atomic energy commission until 1979, when Hussein became president. When he refused to shift from nuclear energy to nuclear weaponry, he was jailed. For most of a decade, he was in Abu Ghraib prison, much of it in solitary confinement. He escaped in 1991 and fled with his wife and three children to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq and, eventually, Iran, where he worked with Iraqi refugees. He later moved to Britain, where he was a visiting university professor.
But unlike other exiles, Shahristani was not active in opposition parties, choosing instead to focus on humanitarian aid projects. He does, however, have a critical connection: He is close to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the country's most powerful Shiite cleric, whose support is essential for the viability of an interim government.
Shahristani, who has described himself as an adviser to Sistani, said he has met with the ayatollah several times since the fall of Hussein's government. Shahristani said Sistani has played a 'very, very constructive' role in Iraq over the past year. Iraqi officials familiar with Brahimi's mission said Shahristani's lack of political affiliation could be an asset, allowing him to serve as a bridge between various factions.
Shahristani crossed into Iraq two days before Hussein fell to deliver aid to the city of Karbala. Since then, he has divided his time between Karbala and the southern port of Basra, working on humanitarian projects in both places.
If this guy is for real, maybe he could run for President in the US when he's finished his stint in Iraq.
If he does take the job from hell, Bush should transfer his secret service detail to Shahristani and make do with second stringers.
Is it only from Hell that heroes come?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)