21st century disaster response: handy to have an aircraft carrier ...

The New York Times > International > International Special > Military: Tsunami Tests U.S. Forces' Logistics, but Gives Pentagon a Chance to Show a Human Face

The aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, for example, carries as much municipal infrastructure in the Indian Ocean as many American cities.

---

The US has $20 billion worth of equipment in the Indian Ocean doing relief work.

An aircraft carrier makes a rather convenient platform for emergency relief. Will thought in the future turn to ways in this "dual use" capability of an aircraft carrier might be explicitly enhanced? I doubt the UN will have enough money to operate its own platform, but the American Empire could use some friends.

The Kennedy Curse? Perhaps not all curses are mythical.

NEWS.com.au | Hidden Kennedy delivered from curse (January 10, 2005)

Rosemary Kennedy wasn't brilliant. I gather, from the limited description in this story, that she might have had an average to slightly below average IQ with some focal cognitive defects and learning disabilities.[1]

She was a disappointment to her ambitious father.

At the age of 23, in 1941, her father, Joseph Kennedy, had her lobotomized -- allegedly on the advice of one or more physicians. She spent the rest of her life in an institution. Over the next 40 years all of Joseph's children, save Rosemary, died a violent death.

I knew of Rosemary, I didn't know the story of her lobotomy.

This is a tale worthy of Shakespeare. At this point in my life I don't follow the theater, but a robot could write a play around this tale. Was Joseph Kennedy a complete monster, or only a very flawed human being? Did those physicians really recommend a lobotomy? What was their relationship to the American Eugenics movement, which flourished from 1905 to 1940? What happened to them afterwards? Did they ever face a sort of justice?

Josephy Kennedy suffered for his crimes. Was his suffering just? Even for his crimes, the punishments seem excessive.

[1] Caveat: It would not be surprising, given her age, if in fact Rosemary's true disability was the onset of schizophrenia. That would also better explain the recommendation for lobotomy, in the 1940s all manner of psychosurgery was being misapplied to schizophrenia. It would be typical of the media and many writers to confuse congnitive disabilities with schizophrenia.

What do Social Security "Reform", the Iraq War, IOKIFYAR, Rumsfeld, Plato, Strauss and Nietzsche have in common?

Faughnan's Notes: Social Security talking points

What do all of these things have in common? For a hint, look here and here and here and here.

All of these programs and persons share elements of a common philosophy:

1. There is a morality for the common man, and a "higher morality" for the uber man.
2. In the "higher morality" the ends often justify the means.
3. The masses need comforting stories that will ease their lives. If they could understand the big picture they'd probably agree with the decisions, but they really can't.
4. The burden of greatness is heavy. Those who bear it deserve some special privileges, some exemptions from the rules that guide the lighthearted masses.

So there are rational, albeit debateable, reasons to invade Iraq -- even in the absence of sufficient resources to provide post-conquest stability. Likewise there are rational reasons to change the way social security is provided -- as part of a larger package that transforms the role of governmnent. I could make those arguments in a debate. I don't agree with the premises of the arguments or the extensions of the premises, but there do exist rational arguments worthy of discussion.

We never hear those discussions.

What's noteworthy about the Bush administration, and consistent with Strauss/Nietzsche/Rumsfeld/Bush morality, is that those "rational" arguments are forbidden. Speaking them aloug would reveal dangerous thoughts and concepts to the masses.

Instead we hear "stories" about social security "crises" (really, crises arising more from a transformation of government than from a demographic transition -- Japan is another story) or about Iraq being responsible for 9/11. Stories that, we now know, are often funded by covert payoffs to administration propagandists.

Nietzsche. Strauss. Plato. Great thinkers all, but not men I'd want running my country. Their moral values are now the Bush moral values.

A clever summary of the classic republican perspectives on the poor

Asymmetrical Information: Numbers that just don't add up

1. Those tricksy bastards (Dems) are wildly overstating the problems [this post];

2 A lot of the problems associated with the lower end of the income scale are a result of the stupidity of the poor (and really, what can you do with the stupid?) [this post]
;
3. Almost all Republicans have suffered through much more trying times than any of the poor have faced - and they've kept the aspidistra flying, dammit; the poor need to stop whining [this post];

4. Mercy is twice blessed because it is given; it cannot be commanded by the government. If someone has screwed up and doesn't get another chance - well, they made their own bed. That someone else, with a different background, has had a second chance (or however many chances one gets in getting from 20 to 40 as a drunk) is of no import whatsoever, and people who are envious of the latter group should have had the forethought to have better parents. Indeed, even asking that we temper our scorn for them is too much - might be a disincentive to change [drug post];

5. Of course, the poor don't need to have forethought because we keep cosseting them. If we let a few old people starve to death on the streets, they'd smarten up, work harder, and start investing; doing anything at all to help the poor merely robs them of the incentive to improve their lot [SS post];

6. Occasionally, you run across the very rare situation where it's hard to entirely blame the poor for their situation, like natural disasters. In those cases, we may give them some help. But, before doing so, it's important to note
- that they've done very little for us;
- that they are insufficiently grateful at the moment of the crisis;
- that if we're going to put aside our principles and help them, we must get credit!
[stingy post].

---

Many of these are variations of a longstanding theological premise -- that poverty is God's way of showing who he disproves of.

How to get great press for free and fake out government: Intel/eBay "Rethink"

Rethink Initiative: Recycle

Wow. What a great PR move. I want to hire eBay's marketing/PR team.

They get a great press release out on their innovative program to handle all the toxic eGear we dump daily. But when you go the site, you find tons of marketese and a link to a seemingly unrelated nonprofit (Earth911) that provides a database of recyclers. Then it turns out Earth911 is a marketing effort for more Silicon Valley types. When I follow the Earth911 to my zip I get ZERO electronic recyclers and a mixture of marketing materials.

It all smells like a pathetic industry attempt to forestall California legislation with a clever PR fillip.

California -- it's time to move. Mandate recycling of eGear. The rest of America will (reluctantly) follow along.

In Gore-world, we save 100,000 from a tsunami

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: Looking for the Next Tsunami

A worldwide disaster monitoring and forecasting initiative was started by Al Gore's team in the Clinton administration. It was ended, of course.

In an alternate reality Gore won in 2000. (Actually he won in our reality, but that's a different story.) In that world we have captured bin Laden and neutralized Iraq. Our warning system would have just saved about a hundred thousand people in the Indian Ocean, building more gratitude for American foresight and leadership. In that world the US is admired and respected by friends and neutrals, and feared and respected by our enemies.

In another world ...

IOKIYAR means a "Higher Morality": Four years of a bad novel

The New York Times > Opinion > Krugman: Worse Than Fiction

It's good to have Paul back. Here he delivers cogent summary of four years of the Bush regime. He's right, one couldn't write a novel this simplistically bad. Maybe a bad comic book is a better analogy.

I like the acronym: "Iokiyar: it's O.K. if you're a Republican." How does one pronounce that? Eye-OKay-i-yar? It captures the O'Reilly perspective quite well. If one is part of the Party, then the conventional rules of morality do not apply.

Hmm. A Member of the Party means one is above mere everyday plebian morality? Where have I heard that one before?

The risks of joining religious fervor to revolutionary politics: lessons from the Weimar Republic

The New York Times > New York Region > Public Lives: Warning From a Student of Democracy's Collapse

Frizt Stern is a historian with a special interest in the collapse of German democracy and the rise of fascism. Recently he spoke about the similarities between modern American right-wing christianity and the fusion of christian images with fascist doctrine in Nazi germany:

'There was a longing in Europe for fascism before the name was ever invented,' he said. 'There was a longing for a new authoritarianism with some kind of religious orientation and above all a greater communal belongingness. There are some similarities in the mood then and the mood now, although also significant differences.'

HE warns of the danger in an open society of 'mass manipulation of public opinion, often mixed with mendacity and forms of intimidation.' He is a passionate defender of liberalism as 'manifested in the spirit of the Enlightenment and the early years of the American republic.'

'The radical right and the radical left see liberalism's appeal to reason and tolerance as the denial of their uniform ideology,' he said. 'Every democracy needs a liberal fundament, a Bill of Rights enshrined in law and spirit, for this alone gives democracy the chance for self-correction and reform. Without it, the survival of democracy is at risk. Every genuine conservative knows this.'

... 'The Jews in Central Europe welcomed the Russian Revolution,' he said, 'but it ended badly for them. The tacit alliance ..between the neo-cons and the Christian right is less easily understood. I can imagine a similarly disillusioning outcome.

Jared Diamond and the Rwandan Malthusian crisis

Amazon.com: Books: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

I heard Jared Diamond speak once. I was disappointed. He's fairly full of himself, and he seemed prone to claimin other's ideas as his own.

That said, I have give him points for noting that Rwanda's genocide fit the predictions of Dr. Malthus quite well. I thinks he's right; I noted the same thing in my 9/11 essay from 2001. When I was a Watson Fellow in 1981, I read quite a bit about demographics and population density. In the 1970s and 1980s Rwanda was often mentioned as the country closest to a Malthusian crisis. The population was very large, and the environment was being rapidly degraded.

Some people probably imagine than when a Malthusian crisis occurs, people go home and quietly starve. Malthus was not that dim. He predicted the crisis would play out in the form of war, murder, strife and mayhem.

So, kudos to Diamond for mentioning something that thousands must have known was probably true, but none were both prominent and willing to reveal that the horrors of Rwanda had been long anticipated.

Which beggars the interesting question -- who's next? In 1981 I'd have said Bangladesh, but they've quietly been edging away from the precipice for 20 years. Next up would have been other parts of Africa, but disease and war are lowering populations. So, at this time, I'm not sure any largeish nation is likely to repeat the Rwandan experience of a full-fledged Malthusian crisis.

DeLong's social security talking points

Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog: The Social Security Party Line: Talking Points

Worth memorizing if the discussion comes up. To me the Bush policy makes sense only as part of an overall strategy to severely decrease the size and role of the federal government and to eliminate "progressivity" from the tax code and from benefits (medicare, social security, etc). I think Bush may consider education, however, to be in a different category from social security.

In other words, when Bush talks about the "ownership society", he's talking about something he believes in. (I think he also believes poverty is a sign of God's displeasure, but he doesn't talk about that.)

One can, and should, have legitimate and interesting debates about these goals. Of course such honesty is unacceptable to all sides, so instead Bush will blow hot air.

On second thought, let's not replace Rumsfeld

Salon.com | The torturer general

Alberto Gonzales' arguments in defense of humanity's vilest practice are identical to those used by the generals who fought Argentina's dirty war. It staggers belief that this man is to hold our highest legal post.

---

Many of us thought Ashcroft was pretty bad. But when Ashcroft goes, we get Gonzales. On second thought, Ashcroft wasn't that bad.

This has to be Bush's way of punishing us. First Kerik, then Gonzales.

I think I've switched to support Rumsfeld. Were he to go, Bush would have to resurrect Goering as a replacement.

More answers to the "believe but cannot prove" question...

THE WORLD QUESTION CENTER 2005

I was misled by the answers the NYT's excerpted. They left many of the best answers behind. The Edge.org site has them all. This one is from Anton Zeilinger. I think he's at least partially correct. Note he's saying that the act of creating information (as in the state of the cat) is creating reality -- or rather, like a wave and a particle, reality and information are inseprable. The act of observation both creates information and reality (dead cat).

What I believe but cannot prove is that quantum physics teaches us to abandon the distinction between information and reality.

The fundamental reason why I believe in this is that it is impossible to make an operational distinction between reality and information... one might be tempted to believe that everything is just information. The danger there is solipsism and subjectivism. But we know, even as we cannot prove it, that there is reality out there...

So if reality exists and if we will never be able to make an operational distinction between reality and information, the hypothesis suggests itself that reality and information are the same. We need a new concept which encompasses both. In a sense, reality and information are the two sides of the same coin.

I feel that this is the message of the quantum. It is the natural extension of the Copenhagen interpretation. Once you adopt the notion that reality and information are the same all quantum paradoxes and puzzles disappear, like the measurement problem or Schrödinger's cat. Yet the price to pay is high. If my hypothesis is true, many questions become meaningless. There is no sense then to ask, what is 'really' going on out there. Schrödinger's cat is neither dead nor alive unless we obtain information about her state.

So I'm walking along and I'm hit by lightning. Nothing, not a passing bird, not myself, observes my fate. Am I dead? Perhaps not until someone observes my body? Hmm. That's definitely weird enough.

There are more like this. It's really worth starting at the beginning and working through the entire list. The physicists, as usual, are whackier than anyone. (This is praise, btw.)

The evolution of the immune system

The Whale and the Antibody: Corante > The Loom >

A somewhat longish discussion on a fascinating topic. Once again one wonders what world the antievolutionists live in. It addresses questions I wondered about back in med school.

America the not-so generous?

The New York Times > Opinion > Kristof: Land of Penny Pinchers

...Americans give 15 cents per day per person in official development assistance to poor countries. The average American spends four times that on soft drinks daily.

In 2003, the latest year for which figures are available, we increased such assistance by one-fifth, for President Bush has actually been much better about helping poor countries than President Clinton was. But as a share of our economy, our contribution still left us ranked dead last among 22 top donor countries.

We gave 15 cents for every $100 of national income to poor countries. Denmark gave 84 cents, the Netherlands gave 80 cents, Belgium gave 60 cents, France gave 41 cents, and Greece gave 21 cents (that was the lowest share, beside our own).

It is sometimes said that Americans make up for low official aid with private charitable donations. Nope. By OECD calculations, private donations add 6 cents a day to the official U.S. figure - meaning that we still give only 21 cents a day per person.

---

I'd suspected our private donations didn't make up for our limited government donations, but it's good to get the (bad) numbers.

On the other hand ...

The real contributions to eradicating poverty are made through balancing free trade with some measure of support for those dislocated by subsequent changes in economies, and through foreign investment motivated by profit and balanced by some measure of protectective regulation. In that competition America under Bill Clinton, and even under George Bush II, has done relatively well. Since this benefits Americans as well as the impoverished it's an easier sell in some quarters, but since most Americans don't believe it helps them it's also something that's sold silently.

So we should perhaps match France's aid budget (though how much of France's aid is tied aid -- sometimes worse than nothing at all?), but the real battle is fought elsewhere.

Passive smoking and school performance -- causation or correlation?

BBC NEWS | Health | Tobacco smoke dulls child brains

Children exposed to passive smoking are likely to do worse at school than their peers, research suggests.

Exposure to even low levels of tobacco smoke in the home was linked to lower test results for reading and maths.

The greater the exposure, the worse the decline was, the US Children's Environmental Health Center team found among nearly 4,400 children.

The findings support calls to ban smoking in public places, they told Environmental Health Perspectives...

---

I was ok until that last paragraph. I think the tobacco merchants ought to be assigned to sell their wares in the heart of Fallujah, but the assertion that this study supports a ban on smoking in public places assumes causation. The study only showed correlation, it wasn't designed to show causation. There's a very strong inverse relationship between IQ and longterm adult smoking, but the evidence suggests that the IQ is primary. Since IQ (the test result that is) is strongly influenced by heredity, and perhaps secondarily by uterine environment, it's hard to imagine this study could really account for those affects.

I'd bet that they've discovered an unsurprising correlation and that cessation of smoking in the home would not increase test scores. (However a better uterine environment due to smoking cessation might make a difference -- but that's not passive exposure. Intrauterine smoking is a direct exposure.)