Israel and Lebanon: why I can't condemn Bush (for once)

I've never been in a war. I would prefer not to be. Those who've read me will not mistake me for a Bushie, a neo-con, or a chicken-hawk.

But.

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization embedded in Lebanon deep among the civillian population. They claimed to have 10,000 missiles and they were lobbing them into Israel. How wrong is Israel to invade Lebanon? Certainly they seem to have as strong a claim as the US had to invade Afghanistan (heck, Jimmy Carter supported that!), and a far stronger claim than the US had to invade Iraq.

Early Warning by William M. Arkin - washingtonpost.com

... When the U.N. high commissioner for human rights and former war crimes prosecutor Louise Arbour raises war crimes and argues that there is 'indiscriminate shelling of cities,' I guess she is referring to Hezbollah's indiscriminate attacks upon Israel. I might not like what Israel is doing, and my personal tendency might be anti-war, but I just don't see war crimes or indiscriminate anything in Israel's conduct.

I remember when Isreal was internationally attacked for going into Gaza City in pursuit of embedded terrorists. They were intensely criticized, and I joined in as well. I read the follow-up, however. In retrospect Israel's conduct during that assault was at least as "cautious" as the US seems capable of executing, and maybe even a cut above what we can do - even when we're trying.

I believe Bush will move with deliberate slowness, barely cooperating with international diplomatic efforts, aiming to give Israel a window in which to attack Hezbollah. This is one of the rare times I'm not absolutely certain Bush is being incompetent or wrong.

PS. Even more oddly, I sort-of-barely-sympathize with Bush's stem cell research veto. I think the nation is very much in denial about the "slippery slopes" in biotech and we do need more public engagement than we've had.

Tom sees Tomorrow: a political cartoon

Tom Tomorrow draws cartoons from the left. Today he juxtaposes a 2003 cartoon with a 2006 news story. It really is worth following the links; only a minute required.

For the tiny fraction that reads it, the seemingly ephemeral blogosphere is a kind of emergent memory. Ironically it has much longer recall than traditional media.

The astounding speed of human genetic transformation: The Germanization of Britain

Really dumb title. Fascinating research with immense implications:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Britain 'had apartheid society'

... There are a very high number of Germanic male-line ancestors in England's current population. Genetic research has revealed the country's gene pool contains between 50 and 100% Germanic Y-chromosomes...

... Estimates range between 10,000 and 200,000 [germanic] Anglo-Saxons migrating into England between 5th and 7th Century AD, compared with a native population of about two million.

To understand what might have happened all of those years ago, UK scientists used computer simulations to model the gene pool changes that would have occurred with the arrival of such small numbers of migrants.

The team used historical evidence that suggested native Britons were at a substantial economic and social disadvantage compared to the Anglo-Saxon settlers.

The researchers believe this may have led to a reproductive imbalance giving rise to an ethnic divide.

Ancient texts, such as the laws of Ine, reveal that the life of an Anglo-Saxon was valued more than that of a native's.

Dr Mark Thomas, an author on the research and an evolutionary biologist from University College London (UCL), said: "By testing a number of different combinations of ethnic intermarriage rates and the reproductive advantage of being Anglo-Saxon, we found that under a very wide range of different combinations of these factors we would get the genetic and linguistic patterns we see today.

"The native Britons were genetically and culturally absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons over a period of as little as a few hundred years," Dr Thomas added.

"An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have quickly established themselves by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their military power and economic advantage.

"We believe that they also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised.

Astounding. Vastly outnumered by the indigenous peoples, the newcomer's advantages combined with selective mating meant a complete ethnic and genetic conquest in mere centuries. I would never have guessed this. I wonder if it explains what happened to the Neandertals. In that case the Cro Magnon immigrants probably didn't interbreed very much and might have had very significant technological advantages. The Neandertals might have vanished, by the standards of history, overnight.

This is one of a series of stories emphasizing that the human genome has been under extensive selection pressure in the past thousand year, far more than most biologists had once thought.

Does Alzheimer's cause diabetes?

Kudos to a cautious article in the NYT which is careful to write that a study "links" Diabetes and Alzheimer's, without saying it's a diabetes -> Alzheimer's relationship -- even though the study director thinks it is. Note this quote:

Studies Link Diabetes to Risk of Alzheimer’s - New York Times

... More recently, though, scientists have begun to think that the diseases are connected in other ways as well. In both, destructive deposits of amyloid, a type of protein, build up: in the brain in Alzheimer’s, in the pancreas in Type 2 diabetes...

Which leaves open the possibility that a defect related to amyloid accumulation underlies some cases of both beta cell failure and neuronal failure. At one point islet cells where thought to derive from neural crest tissue, but that appears to have been disproven. Alas, the origin of stem cells is rather a popular topic and hard to approach in a quick google search ... Certainly a connection to the cells afflicted by Alzheimer's would support a shared etiology ...

Godchecker: why I love the web

It's stuff like this that renews my faith in the power of the web (credit - Pharyngula):

Godchecker.com - Your Guide To The Gods. Mythology with a twist

Welcome to Godchecker - your Guide to the Gods

We have more Gods than you can shake a stick at. Godchecker's Mythology Encyclopedia currently features over 2,850 deities.

Browse the pantheons of the world, explore ancient myths, and discover Gods of everything from Fertility to Fluff with the fully searchable Holy Database Of All Known Gods.

It's a treasure trove for fantasy, comic book and other writers. Consider Itzamna.

Yes, it's irreverent (thousands of deities will do that to a person), but it's a brilliant idea and it's a window on one of the central preoccupations of the past 10,000 years of human existence. A vast amount of creativity over thousands of years, combined with the invisible hand of memetic selection, and the peculiar invention of the web, has produced this work. Raise a glass to it!

PS. What's with spiders?! They have their own flock of deities ...

The risks of photographing your children

A man takes pictures of his children on a camping trip. They're naked. His life becomes "a living hell".

Positive predictive value is a very subtle concept [1], but somehow we need to teach it far more widely. In the meanwhile, be very careful about the children's pictures.

Update 7/18/06:

[1] In this case the "test" is the judgment of the clerk at the photography store. Given that the prior probability of pornography in family photographs publicly developed is probably much less than 1%, even if the clerks have spectacularly good judgment the vast majority of "positive" results will in fact be false positives. In the world of medicine, this test would not be FDA approved.

Brad DeLong and the crisis of modern journalism

The president propagandizes (lies) about tax cuts paying for themselves. Journalists, with the honorable exceptions of the Wall Street Journal and The Economist, respond with he said/she said stories. DeLong blows a gasket.

I must be in the Zeitgeist. This is a more topical variant on the topic I raised earlier today -- why are journalists (and politicians) so disconnected from knowledge?

Here's my theory on the he said/she said practice that's destroyed modern jounalism, and, claims DeLong, threatens our society.

Newspapers are weak nowadays. Their business models (advertising) are under threat. Rove has perfected techniques to punish the disobedient. Journalists fear for their jobs and livelihood. The he said/she said routine allows one to tell half the truth -- without offending the powerful. Why should a journalist point out the president is lying, and lose their job, when nobody seems to care?

Oh wait, I've pointed the finger at the American people again. Funny how that works in a democracy. In this case, though, there is a mitigating factor. The economic collapse of newspapers is driven by technological transformation, not the result of societal disinterest alone. If our society endures we'll find a replacement for newspapers, but in the meantime their failing business model is hurting all of us ...

The 9th century civil war in Baghdad

The Abassid Caliphs (762 - 935 ACE) was an average In Our Time programme -- meaning it's quite excellent [1]. I was enjoying a 2nd listening on my morning commute when I realized I'd missed a major connection on the first go-round. They were discussing the civil war that destroyed much of 9th century (812-813 ACE) Baghdad, a war between the "western" Arabs and the "eastern" Persian forces fought in part over the requirements for becoming Caliph. One side insisted that only descendants of the Prophet were eligible, the other wanted power to be open to any devout and well educated Muslim.

Obviously twelve hundred years is not that long in the Middle East, but we knew that.

I suspect this connection is so obvious to most educated Iraqis that it probably goes unremarked. Certainly any scholar of the period would have thought of it when Bush first threatened invasion.

What I find curious is that I hadn't read this before. I don't read everything, but I do read quite a bit... Why is there such a gap between those who write for newspapers and the rest of the world? How can we better connect journalists to knowledge? [2]

[1] See my note on how to get these archival shows on your iPod.

[2] Of course even I don't dare wonder about connecting politicians to knowledge ... Imagine a world in which the President had to compete a training program before ascending to power ... in which senators went to class ... in which 'In Our Time' was the core of a required program of study ... A silly thought. On the other hand, isn't that what the US military does? Don't we require board exams and continuing education of physicians? In an increasingly complex world, why don't we require examination and certification of politicians? Maybe a 'no senator left behind program ... With public review of the results of course ... Heh, heh, heh...

Marine Philip Carter on the disaster of reducing the standards for soldiers

[As noted in the comments, I'd remembered Phillip's history incorrectly. He also spells his first name with two Ls! Arrgghh. I'd correct the title but since Blogger uses the title as the link (terrible practice) that would break any links. Apologies to Mr. Carter.]

Phillip Carter was a former marine soldier and a newly minted lawyer, scholar and journalist when he again became a marine soldier to serve in Iraq.

Phillip is extreme. I'm sure the Bushies are capable of ignoring him, but he must make them feel a wee bit queasy.

Today he tells us the lesson taught by the Steven Green rape/murder charges. Mr. Green is accused of raping a 14 yo Iraqi girl and murdering her and her family to cover up his crime. If this is true then he is a troubled and bad man who will likely be executed.

That's not the lesson. The lesson is that Mr. Green should never have been a soldier. He did not meet the military standards in place prior to the conquest of Iraq. He was recruited because the army was desperate -- they couldn't fill their quotas. They lowered the barrier and Mr. Green became a warrior.

Mr. Carter has written quite a bit on this topic on his blog and in print. Read the story and follow the links at the end.

Do not believe those who claim our military is in fine shape. We don't have the force structure to fight the war(s) we're now in. Mr. Carter has some suggestions ...

Richard Neill: The case against pay for performance

Richard has assembled a diverse set of links on the case gainst P4P: "The result of this thinking is P4P programs that promote physician behaviors that detract from the demonstrably valuable task of balancing complex competing co-morbidities to achieve improved outcomes.".

It reminds me of 'no child left behind'. From a special needs perspective I have mixed feelings. On the one hand testing less capable children makes it harder to ignore them. On the other hand, it creates paradoxical incentives to make them disappear. I think we'll learn similar lessons when we emerge from the other side of P4P.

When I was a real doctor, most of my patients were "special needs". Sure they were diabetic, but that wasn't necessarily their biggest problem -- or even in the top 3. Strange, but true. You dealt with what they were ready to deal with, and negotiated between the physician's priority and the patient's priority.

P4P will happen. It lets payors reduce payments, so it's inevitable. (Surely you were not so naive as to think P4P really meant extra money for doing well, rather than cuts for not doing well?) It will cause good and harm, but in the end I suspect Richard will be proven right.

Average age for mobile phone in Britain

This was a throwaway line at the end of an article on IPv6:

340,282,366,920,938,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 new web addresses created by internet chiefs . . . so we won't run out of space soon, then - World - Times Online:

8 The average age at which a child gets a mobile phone in Britain.

Huh? Age 8? Come on.

Mommy, what's smoking?

On the one hand, girls and women smoke for weight control and the foul spawn of satan are marketing candy flavored tobacco.

On the other hand, our 7 yo asks "Mommy, what is smoking" when reading a children's story from the 1960s. That's when we realize that nobody smokes in our neighborhood. Nobody. Our children don't see people inhaling burning materials.

Tonight my date* and I had a beer at a local bar -- which has been smoke free for a few months - along with the rest of the metro area. It was very pleasant.

When I was 7 I definitely knew what smoking was, and I knew about cleaning ashtrays. It's easy to miss progress.

* aka my spouse

DeLong, Mankiw, Krugman and why Paul should leave the NYT

Brad DeLong, Paul Krugman and Greg Mankiw are having a 3 way debate. Paul writes in the NYT, a sad place to be now that he's behind the Paywall (more below). Brad champions Paul in DeLong's blog, Mankiw challenges Paul (and Brad) from his blog. Spectators chime in from the comments section and kibitzers add items in their own blogs. It's all very 21st century.

Mankiw represents a rare breed, the hyper-intelligent and articulate "Republican" (actually, I'm not sure he's Republican, but he did work for Bush for a while). [1] Paul and Brad are Clinton democrats. So it's a great discussion. Today Brad writes:

Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: The Pattern of Growth in Income Inequality

...The big rise in inequality in the U.S. since 1980 has been overwhelmingly concentrated among the top 1% of income earners: their share has risen from 8% in 1980 to 16% in 2004. By contrast, the share of the next 4% of income earners has only risen from 13% to 15%, and the share of the next 5% of income earners has stuck at 12%. The top 1% have gone from 8 to 16 times average income, the next 4% have gone from 3.2 to 3.7 times average income, and the next 5% have been stuck at 3 times average income...

Mankiw argues that talent and education is worth more than it was, Krugman/DeLong agree that's probably true below the 99th percentile, but the real gains are a "market failure" presumably resulting from the actions of a corrupted legislature (my summary, read the articles to draw your own conclusion).

It's great to see this debate, and it shows again that the the NYT is dying. Krugman can't respond in detail because he's constrained by his 700 word limit. We can't read him directly because the NYT is desperate and needs Krugman to pull in subscribers. One result is we've lost Paul's voice. That's not good.

I'd like to see a major paper lure Paul away, and have Krugman negotiate two things: no paywalls and a blog extension of the printed column ...

[1] Most intelligent Republicans are silent these days, shamed by the glories of Bush.

Why the second front?

Why has Israel gone to war now with both Hezbollah and Hamas? Why did Hezbollah and Hamas choose to incite Israel now?

Obviously I don't have any inside information, or even any expert knowledge. So I'll resort to what one usually does when one is ignorant; I'll imagine There's a logical explanation.

I'm George Bush. There's a civil war in Iraq and US forces are strained. Iran and Syria are using Iraq for their own ends, which includes trying to keep the US tied down. (That's what I'd do if I were Iran and Syria, because it's entirely reasonable to fear Bush will go after me next.)

What can Bush do? He could open a second front -- give Iran and Syria something else to worry about. Except he doesn't want to attack them directly -- not with a US senate election coming up. Maybe he knows Israel is worried about Hamas and Hezbollah anyway. So he gives Israel an explicity statement of support -- if you decide to go after these guys, we'll guard your back and funnel supplies as needed.

And so there's a second front.

I don't know if any of this is a good idea, but Bushian incompetence has foreclosed most of the good ideas. All that's left now are the bad ideas. It makes a kind of sense ...

Update 7/21/06: At least one person who's not ignorant came to the same conclusion, though he portrays Israel as an unwitting tool of the Bush agenda. I think it's more of a cooperative decison.

Fountain of reason or den of chaos? The best news is ...

One of Brad DeLong's hobbies is ripping the New York Times and (especially) the Washington Post for crummy journalism. In general, he makes his case well. On the other hand, people who read DeLong would probably agree with him:

Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: "If You Really Want to Know What's Going on, I Recommend Sticking to the Blogs":

But this is the world in which we live in: respected weblogs run by intelligent commentators with good track records and strong senses of honor are our best information sources these days.

The more mainstream journalists criticize the "rabid blogosphere", the more panicky they seem. The people on my bloglist are simply more informed, intelligent, and rational than 99% of what I read in the NYT or elsewhere. I don't know why that is so. Many the people I read are journalists and writers, so it's not a problem with journalists per se. My guess is that something's broken about the way the work of journalists gets turned into newspaper columns...