Saturday, July 30, 2005
While perusing...
While looking through my old Model T books, I was captivated by this ad...
Ford aimed the ad at extremely poor folks, without romanticizing their situation. The dirt and disorder of poverty comes through clearly, but it's taken for granted that poor folks want to survive and improve their lot. They want to cling to something trustworthy: the doctor, and by sneaky extension, the Ford. Can you imagine a modern ad selling the Focus to homeless drunks? Modern appeals to the poor are in the hip-hop vein, where the underlying assumption is not improvement but revolution.
Now look at the doctor. Knowing ruefully that he could cure almost nothing [this was three years before penicillin], he nevertheless tried. Would he understand modern doctors who can cure or control almost everything, but who are required to waste most of their time and money on unnecessary tests and paperwork?
-----
And while I'm in blast-from-the-past mode, consider this Chrysler ad from WW2. How did this make it to publication? It doesn't spend even one syllable on the crucial distinction between the 99.9% of Japanese who were good peaceful people versus the tiny handful of bad apples who obviously did not represent the true ideals of Shinto.
This was typical of all ads, news, and entertainment. And yet, despite this unconscionable lack of cultural understanding and tolerance, we somehow mysteriously managed to win that war. ¶ 9:37 AM
Ford aimed the ad at extremely poor folks, without romanticizing their situation. The dirt and disorder of poverty comes through clearly, but it's taken for granted that poor folks want to survive and improve their lot. They want to cling to something trustworthy: the doctor, and by sneaky extension, the Ford. Can you imagine a modern ad selling the Focus to homeless drunks? Modern appeals to the poor are in the hip-hop vein, where the underlying assumption is not improvement but revolution.
Now look at the doctor. Knowing ruefully that he could cure almost nothing [this was three years before penicillin], he nevertheless tried. Would he understand modern doctors who can cure or control almost everything, but who are required to waste most of their time and money on unnecessary tests and paperwork?
-----
And while I'm in blast-from-the-past mode, consider this Chrysler ad from WW2. How did this make it to publication? It doesn't spend even one syllable on the crucial distinction between the 99.9% of Japanese who were good peaceful people versus the tiny handful of bad apples who obviously did not represent the true ideals of Shinto.
This was typical of all ads, news, and entertainment. And yet, despite this unconscionable lack of cultural understanding and tolerance, we somehow mysteriously managed to win that war. ¶ 9:37 AM
New Nukes! New Nukes! New Nukes!
Polistra hasn't been seen 'in these columns' for a little while. After the London bombing she went back to the Mill to calm down. Looks like she's been busy, though....
The Congress has been busy as well, giving us a Return to Nukes which will make far more difference in the long run than a Return to Flight. The Energy bill does several things:
Revives a program for nuclear fuel reprocessing, which was killed after Three Mile Island. Long overdue.
Pushes education of nuke engineers, including a fellowship and internship arrangement for two-way interaction between the national labs and the academics.
Revises the Price-Anderson Act, dealing with liability of nuke plant operators. Enlarges the limits and adds inflation adjustment.
Section 641 is the big one. Idaho National Engineering Lab (INEL) will be developing a new prototype reactor aimed at commercial use, to directly generate hydrogen for auto fuel as well as electricity.
Includes some subtle but important changes in regulation of hydroelectric dams, making it harder for the enemy's Environmentalist Regiment to block new or improved power generation.
After 30 years of letting dark superstition and OPEC rule us, we're finally taking a giant official step back toward science and independence.
Barring unforeseen developments on other fronts, I think this will be the Bush Administration's biggest domestic legacy. ¶ 7:29 AM
The Congress has been busy as well, giving us a Return to Nukes which will make far more difference in the long run than a Return to Flight. The Energy bill does several things:
Revives a program for nuclear fuel reprocessing, which was killed after Three Mile Island. Long overdue.
Pushes education of nuke engineers, including a fellowship and internship arrangement for two-way interaction between the national labs and the academics.
Revises the Price-Anderson Act, dealing with liability of nuke plant operators. Enlarges the limits and adds inflation adjustment.
Section 641 is the big one. Idaho National Engineering Lab (INEL) will be developing a new prototype reactor aimed at commercial use, to directly generate hydrogen for auto fuel as well as electricity.
Includes some subtle but important changes in regulation of hydroelectric dams, making it harder for the enemy's Environmentalist Regiment to block new or improved power generation.
After 30 years of letting dark superstition and OPEC rule us, we're finally taking a giant official step back toward science and independence.
Barring unforeseen developments on other fronts, I think this will be the Bush Administration's biggest domestic legacy. ¶ 7:29 AM
Thursday, July 28, 2005
A small step for a man ...
... a giant leak for mankind.
Apologies to Henry Ford for the visual metaphor. Henry was criticized for producing his beloved T after it was hopelessly out of fashion. But NASA beats Henry. The T was made from 1908 to 1927 = 19 years. The Shuttle has been flying from 1981 to 2005 = 24 years, and no sign of stopping.
Irrelevant sidebar: As with gas prices, it's easy to get nostalgic about the low price of a Model T. Well, let's do the numbers. A four-door sedan in 1925 listed for $750. This included an engine capable of 40 MPH in a tailwind, but didn't include windshield wipers, heater, or instrumentation, which most other sedans of the time had. (You could get a 'base' T for less, if you wanted to crank-start.) Inflation from 1925 to now is about 12. So this price is about $9000 in modern dollars. For that same price, you can get a Kia Rio four-door, which gives you (to say the least) a bit more performance, safety, and luxury. ¶ 11:17 AM
... a giant leak for mankind.
Apologies to Henry Ford for the visual metaphor. Henry was criticized for producing his beloved T after it was hopelessly out of fashion. But NASA beats Henry. The T was made from 1908 to 1927 = 19 years. The Shuttle has been flying from 1981 to 2005 = 24 years, and no sign of stopping.
Irrelevant sidebar: As with gas prices, it's easy to get nostalgic about the low price of a Model T. Well, let's do the numbers. A four-door sedan in 1925 listed for $750. This included an engine capable of 40 MPH in a tailwind, but didn't include windshield wipers, heater, or instrumentation, which most other sedans of the time had. (You could get a 'base' T for less, if you wanted to crank-start.) Inflation from 1925 to now is about 12. So this price is about $9000 in modern dollars. For that same price, you can get a Kia Rio four-door, which gives you (to say the least) a bit more performance, safety, and luxury. ¶ 11:17 AM
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
NASA: adventure or nostalgia?
Nostalgia is fine. Getting back on the bike after you fall off is fine. But if you're going to spend billions of dollars, you should be accomplishing something meaningful.
Busting hurricanes is extremely meaningful, and is already known to be possible. Clearly it requires some expensive engineering and testing. NASA could help with that.
Busting up persistent or 'stuck' jet streams is not known to be possible, which makes it an excellent New Frontier. There must be some way to disrupt the positive-feedback patterns that have done so much damage in recent years; some way to get the jet stream moving, so it doesn't give three months of rain to some locations and three months of baking to others. ¶ 1:30 PM
Nostalgia is fine. Getting back on the bike after you fall off is fine. But if you're going to spend billions of dollars, you should be accomplishing something meaningful.
Busting hurricanes is extremely meaningful, and is already known to be possible. Clearly it requires some expensive engineering and testing. NASA could help with that.
Busting up persistent or 'stuck' jet streams is not known to be possible, which makes it an excellent New Frontier. There must be some way to disrupt the positive-feedback patterns that have done so much damage in recent years; some way to get the jet stream moving, so it doesn't give three months of rain to some locations and three months of baking to others. ¶ 1:30 PM
Monday, July 25, 2005
Fighting?
I'll bet you've seen a news item like this more than once:
Brenda Evans, 38, who is fighting cancer, received an unpleasant surprise in the mail yesterday....
And I'll bet you've thought something like this:
Fighting? If that's a war, Brenda's fighting for Cancer, not against it.
When I hear experts talking about a "civil war within Islam", I see this picture. So far, the alleged "moderate side" of Mohammed's world has been fighting on the same side as the cancer. I'll believe it's a Civil War when I see spontaneous resistance, preferably suicide attacks, by the "moderate side". ¶ 3:33 PM
Brenda Evans, 38, who is fighting cancer, received an unpleasant surprise in the mail yesterday....
And I'll bet you've thought something like this:
Fighting? If that's a war, Brenda's fighting for Cancer, not against it.
When I hear experts talking about a "civil war within Islam", I see this picture. So far, the alleged "moderate side" of Mohammed's world has been fighting on the same side as the cancer. I'll believe it's a Civil War when I see spontaneous resistance, preferably suicide attacks, by the "moderate side". ¶ 3:33 PM
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Collateral damage? Not quite......
At this point it appears that the man shot by British police was not directly connected to the bombers, though he may have known them.
Remember: A major goal of unconventional warfare, from protest marches to bombings, is to confuse and de-legitimize the authorities. Cognitive dissonance. The enemy forces the police to choose between: (1) in the heat of chase, shoot an obvious suspect or (2) hold fire. If the police choose (1), the enemy-controlled media [led here by BBC, which has been pro-Mohammed since 1988] will destroy the will of the people. If the police choose (2), the terrorists are simply free to operate.
As I've said dozens of times before, we didn't have this problem in WW2 because the enemy's propagandists were obviously based in Germany, Italy and Japan and had names like Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw-Haw. Now they're based in New York and London, and the pro-American propagandists are down here in the samizdat band.
What do we need to do? Maintain our unconfused resolve. And (a bit harder) try to spread the idea that wartime behavior is not the same as peacetime. In WW2 this need was pounded home nightly by both news and entertainment. Don't hoard, don't consume, lights out at night to avoid giving bombers a target. Our requirements are different, but the need for instruction is just as strong. Don't leave mysterious packages, don't spill white powder in public places, don't act like a bomber.
This was not just a lucky event for the enemy; it's part of the plan. Senhor Menezes was killed by the Mohammedans just as surely as the unfortunate tourists in Sharm el Sheikh.
-----
Later: It occurs to me that incidents like this also form a good argument for Official English in the long run. If authorities have to give cautions in 27 different languages, the information will be lost in the buzz. It should be clearly stated that failure to understand English is your problem, not ours. And an argument for reinstating the lost emergency broadcast setup. Yes, we do have the EAS, but it's used solely for weather, and based mainly on computer-generated messages. It needs to be 'humanized'. ¶ 10:33 PM
Remember: A major goal of unconventional warfare, from protest marches to bombings, is to confuse and de-legitimize the authorities. Cognitive dissonance. The enemy forces the police to choose between: (1) in the heat of chase, shoot an obvious suspect or (2) hold fire. If the police choose (1), the enemy-controlled media [led here by BBC, which has been pro-Mohammed since 1988] will destroy the will of the people. If the police choose (2), the terrorists are simply free to operate.
As I've said dozens of times before, we didn't have this problem in WW2 because the enemy's propagandists were obviously based in Germany, Italy and Japan and had names like Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw-Haw. Now they're based in New York and London, and the pro-American propagandists are down here in the samizdat band.
What do we need to do? Maintain our unconfused resolve. And (a bit harder) try to spread the idea that wartime behavior is not the same as peacetime. In WW2 this need was pounded home nightly by both news and entertainment. Don't hoard, don't consume, lights out at night to avoid giving bombers a target. Our requirements are different, but the need for instruction is just as strong. Don't leave mysterious packages, don't spill white powder in public places, don't act like a bomber.
This was not just a lucky event for the enemy; it's part of the plan. Senhor Menezes was killed by the Mohammedans just as surely as the unfortunate tourists in Sharm el Sheikh.
-----
Later: It occurs to me that incidents like this also form a good argument for Official English in the long run. If authorities have to give cautions in 27 different languages, the information will be lost in the buzz. It should be clearly stated that failure to understand English is your problem, not ours. And an argument for reinstating the lost emergency broadcast setup. Yes, we do have the EAS, but it's used solely for weather, and based mainly on computer-generated messages. It needs to be 'humanized'. ¶ 10:33 PM
Friday, July 22, 2005
Bleg: I'd really like an answer to this question.
Would a Jihadist claim to be a follower of Bahai as a cover story, or would that be simply unthinkable?
I encountered an interesting character on the bus today; he claimed to have been in the US for several years, as a Bahai refugee from either Iran or Pakistan. Hard to tell the details because his English was almost nonexistent. Sort of quick phrase-book stuff.
In max-suspicion mode, Bahai seems like a good cover story for a recent arrival. But if it's just unimaginable, then this guy is a true refugee; I know that Bahai-ists (or whatever they're properly called!) have been seriously persecuted in Iran, and I don't want to make this guy's life unnecessarily hard.
-----
Later: No answer; just as well. I'll stick with instinct and do nothing, though I might regret it. I knew some real Jihadi types back in the '70s in Oklahoma, and this guy was not like them in any way. Just a lost soul who deserves to find whatever freedom he can. I won't erase the question, though. Given the way the Web works, I'm sure the question will sooner or later trickle up or down to somebody who should consider it. ¶ 2:14 PM
I encountered an interesting character on the bus today; he claimed to have been in the US for several years, as a Bahai refugee from either Iran or Pakistan. Hard to tell the details because his English was almost nonexistent. Sort of quick phrase-book stuff.
In max-suspicion mode, Bahai seems like a good cover story for a recent arrival. But if it's just unimaginable, then this guy is a true refugee; I know that Bahai-ists (or whatever they're properly called!) have been seriously persecuted in Iran, and I don't want to make this guy's life unnecessarily hard.
-----
Later: No answer; just as well. I'll stick with instinct and do nothing, though I might regret it. I knew some real Jihadi types back in the '70s in Oklahoma, and this guy was not like them in any way. Just a lost soul who deserves to find whatever freedom he can. I won't erase the question, though. Given the way the Web works, I'm sure the question will sooner or later trickle up or down to somebody who should consider it. ¶ 2:14 PM
Roberts again
I don't give a happy horseshit whether he's decent, brilliant, collegial, fair-minded, responsible, well-respected, etc, etc.
I only want him to be LITERATE.
That's all it requires: a Supreme must actually READ the Constitution. The legacy one that was written in 1789, not the one that consists of the collected treasonous ravings of black-robed saboteurs.
A literacy test is simple:
"Do you disagree with any of Justice Thomas's decisions?"
If he won't answer the question, he doesn't deserve support. If he can think of more than one or two minor disagreements, he doesn't deserve support.
Why is this so difficult and subjective? If you wanted to hire 9 baseball players, you'd look for a variety of talents and specialties, but you'd want all 9 to play by the rules of baseball, not the rules of soccer or curling. If you were hiring 9 C++ programmers, you'd seek different talents and specialties, but you'd want all 9 to write C++ code that compiles under the Stroustrup standard. You wouldn't want them to produce Shakespearean sonnets or Faulknerian novels, no matter how fine such writing may be in other circumstances. ¶ 9:01 AM
I only want him to be LITERATE.
That's all it requires: a Supreme must actually READ the Constitution. The legacy one that was written in 1789, not the one that consists of the collected treasonous ravings of black-robed saboteurs.
A literacy test is simple:
"Do you disagree with any of Justice Thomas's decisions?"
If he won't answer the question, he doesn't deserve support. If he can think of more than one or two minor disagreements, he doesn't deserve support.
Why is this so difficult and subjective? If you wanted to hire 9 baseball players, you'd look for a variety of talents and specialties, but you'd want all 9 to play by the rules of baseball, not the rules of soccer or curling. If you were hiring 9 C++ programmers, you'd seek different talents and specialties, but you'd want all 9 to write C++ code that compiles under the Stroustrup standard. You wouldn't want them to produce Shakespearean sonnets or Faulknerian novels, no matter how fine such writing may be in other circumstances. ¶ 9:01 AM
What's the diff IV and V
When the British police say they'll shoot to kill, they mean it, by God.
Good.
Our authorities didn't do that after 9/11, though the infinitely heroic civilians aboard Flight 93 did.
-----
Another more subtle difference: Fox is interviewing Lord John Taylor at the moment, who appears to be of African origin. Lord John is saying that the use of deadly force is fully justified, and that jailing bad Imams is also fully justified.
What would any of our black Lords be doing in such a situation? Lord Jesse, Lady Maxine, the Earl of Sharpton, etc? They would already have incited a full-scale riot against the police by now.
I think there's more hope for Britain than for us.
-----
On New York's idiotic random searches, and the bizarrely careful description of what the public should be watching for:
I wonder if the police have ever actually ridden a bus.
Half the passengers are wearing several coats, mumbling, chanting, sweating, clenching fists, fumbling with the contents of bags.... This description will do a great job of catching your basic street transients or schizo outpatients, or eccentric older folks. It also provides the real terrorists with an excellent and specific list of behaviors to avoid. ¶ 7:11 AM
Good.
Our authorities didn't do that after 9/11, though the infinitely heroic civilians aboard Flight 93 did.
-----
Another more subtle difference: Fox is interviewing Lord John Taylor at the moment, who appears to be of African origin. Lord John is saying that the use of deadly force is fully justified, and that jailing bad Imams is also fully justified.
What would any of our black Lords be doing in such a situation? Lord Jesse, Lady Maxine, the Earl of Sharpton, etc? They would already have incited a full-scale riot against the police by now.
I think there's more hope for Britain than for us.
-----
On New York's idiotic random searches, and the bizarrely careful description of what the public should be watching for:
I wonder if the police have ever actually ridden a bus.
Half the passengers are wearing several coats, mumbling, chanting, sweating, clenching fists, fumbling with the contents of bags.... This description will do a great job of catching your basic street transients or schizo outpatients, or eccentric older folks. It also provides the real terrorists with an excellent and specific list of behaviors to avoid. ¶ 7:11 AM
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Northern exposure
A well-built tunnel on the US-Canada border has been discovered and shut down. The tunnel ran from a greenhouse in Langley, BC to a vacant house in Lynden, WA just across the border. This seems to be the first such tunnel on the northern border.
The US Attorney, in a news conference right now, says they are investigating it first as a drug-smuggling operation, but hints that there may be other purposes connected to Homeland Security.
Apparently the authorities have been watching the operation from planning to completion, and made the arrests after seeing the first delivery of drugs. So the tunnel never had a chance to be used freely.
They have arrested three people named Raj, Wu, and Alenzuela. (Probably wrong spelling; transcribing from the news conference.) Interesting combination of names, eh?
In a way this is good news; if the smugglers find it necessary to build a tunnel, perhaps our surface enforcement is more effective than it appears.
Story, before the news conf, here. ¶ 11:06 AM
The US Attorney, in a news conference right now, says they are investigating it first as a drug-smuggling operation, but hints that there may be other purposes connected to Homeland Security.
Apparently the authorities have been watching the operation from planning to completion, and made the arrests after seeing the first delivery of drugs. So the tunnel never had a chance to be used freely.
They have arrested three people named Raj, Wu, and Alenzuela. (Probably wrong spelling; transcribing from the news conference.) Interesting combination of names, eh?
In a way this is good news; if the smugglers find it necessary to build a tunnel, perhaps our surface enforcement is more effective than it appears.
Story, before the news conf, here. ¶ 11:06 AM
Again
Savages have struck again in London...
One odd and entirely meaningless thing, but considering al Qaeda's love of symbolism, worth pondering. Were the locations chosen to create a lethal anagram?
Warren Street [War in the street?]
Shepherd's Bush
The Oval [Office?]
Waterloo [obvious]
If we were dealing with an clever individual psychopath like BTK or Unabomber, we could assume these were intentional references.
-----
Remembering something... I wasn't fully serious when I said this but now I'm starting to wonder about it.
¶ 8:17 AM
Savages have struck again in London...
One odd and entirely meaningless thing, but considering al Qaeda's love of symbolism, worth pondering. Were the locations chosen to create a lethal anagram?
Warren Street [War in the street?]
Shepherd's Bush
The Oval [Office?]
Waterloo [obvious]
If we were dealing with an clever individual psychopath like BTK or Unabomber, we could assume these were intentional references.
-----
Remembering something... I wasn't fully serious when I said this but now I'm starting to wonder about it.
¶ 8:17 AM
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Roberts
Looks like we dodged the bullet on this one.... Roberts is an excellent and shrewd choice, as far as can be determined. During his short Appeals Court service, he dissented to a decision that supported the Endangered Species Act. I can't find more detail on the ruling, but if People for the American Way hates him for it, that's a pretty good indication.
Later: Sometimes traffic analysis gives more info than language. The loyal troops are defending Roberts, but I note that Rush finds it necessary to have TWO guest interviews this morning, one with Giuliani and one with VP Cheney. When Rush violates his "I'm all the news you need" policy twice in a day, you know the strategists must sense a severe need for reinforcement. Leads me to wonder if there's a hidden ideological problem with Roberts that needs to be immunized....
¶ 9:52 PM
Looks like we dodged the bullet on this one.... Roberts is an excellent and shrewd choice, as far as can be determined. During his short Appeals Court service, he dissented to a decision that supported the Endangered Species Act. I can't find more detail on the ruling, but if People for the American Way hates him for it, that's a pretty good indication.
Later: Sometimes traffic analysis gives more info than language. The loyal troops are defending Roberts, but I note that Rush finds it necessary to have TWO guest interviews this morning, one with Giuliani and one with VP Cheney. When Rush violates his "I'm all the news you need" policy twice in a day, you know the strategists must sense a severe need for reinforcement. Leads me to wonder if there's a hidden ideological problem with Roberts that needs to be immunized....
¶ 9:52 PM
Jellyfish
Had it up to here with the urbane sophisticates at NR who feel that defending the civilized world is "stupid" and "immoral", but can't think of a goddamn reason why. Ironic that our establishment is turning Carterish just at the moment when the British establishment is finally turning Churchillian. ¶ 10:32 AM
Had it up to here with the urbane sophisticates at NR who feel that defending the civilized world is "stupid" and "immoral", but can't think of a goddamn reason why. Ironic that our establishment is turning Carterish just at the moment when the British establishment is finally turning Churchillian. ¶ 10:32 AM
Monday, July 18, 2005
The Niger scandal
The country of Niger doesn't need epistemology. It needs regime change.
Here's a good set of stories on recent events there. Essentially, the NGOs and aid agencies are trying hard, but the local government is too stupid to go along with them.
It has lots of uranium, which is what started the "other" scandal, and farmland which produces plentifully in good years. If those resources could be used intelligently, Niger could be a moderately successful country.
Can we spell "colonialism"?
At some point Africa will have to cast off Soviet-era propaganda and decide which is more important: full and corrupt independence, or survival. Hopefully soon.
-----
Later: Could be a secondary advantage. For the last few decades, France has been acting like a non-custodial father: driving recklessly, shooting up the saloon. Possibly he would behave better if he got custody of his African 'offspring' again.
(I'm reminded of the old joke, "What happens when you play a country's record backwards?") He might also be able to send some of his Mohammedans back to the colonies, where they could help rebuild those places instead of causing trouble at home.
The country of Niger doesn't need epistemology. It needs regime change.
Here's a good set of stories on recent events there. Essentially, the NGOs and aid agencies are trying hard, but the local government is too stupid to go along with them.
It has lots of uranium, which is what started the "other" scandal, and farmland which produces plentifully in good years. If those resources could be used intelligently, Niger could be a moderately successful country.
Can we spell "colonialism"?
At some point Africa will have to cast off Soviet-era propaganda and decide which is more important: full and corrupt independence, or survival. Hopefully soon.
-----
Later: Could be a secondary advantage. For the last few decades, France has been acting like a non-custodial father: driving recklessly, shooting up the saloon. Possibly he would behave better if he got custody of his African 'offspring' again.
(I'm reminded of the old joke, "What happens when you play a country's record backwards?") He might also be able to send some of his Mohammedans back to the colonies, where they could help rebuild those places instead of causing trouble at home.
Labels: epistemology
¶ 10:17 PM
What's the diff III
More of those quaint little Brit/Am differences.
British Foreign Sec't'ry Jack Straw spoke in a clear Churchillian tone today:
It is the responsibility of people in the civilised world to stand up to that terrorism and not provide them with any excuse whatsoever.
Compare with a typical calm and measured exchange between an American reporter and a Bush administration spokesjelly:
Reporter's question: YOU FLEW THE PLANES INTO THE TOWERS, BUSHITLER! DIE! DIE! DIE!
Spokesjelly: Well, now, Helen [giggle] I don't think we can say that just yet...
Reporter's question: HALLIBURTON! KLAN! SKULL AND BONES! ROVE! NAZI! POL POT! BUSH LIED! TRILLIONS DIED! I WILL EVISCERATE YOU WITH MY BARE HANDS!
Spokesjelly: Now, I think we should wait for the [giggle] investigation, you know, and it's true that Muslims were completely justified.....
Reporter's question: YOU COMMITTED ALL THE CRIMES AND SINS OF THE KNOWN UNIVERSE DURING THE LAST QUADRILLION YEARS!!!!!! AND MORE!!!!! DIE!!!!! DIE!!!!!! DIE!!!!!! WE ARE GOING TO HANG YOU FROM THE STARS AND TEAR YOU INTO YOUR COMPONENT ATOMS!!!!!!!!
Spokesjelly: Well, maybe we're only 99.9999999 percent guilty of those crimes, you know, and it's not strictly impossible, in theory anyway, that not everyone in the [giggle] world would fail to disagree [giggle] with that entirely valid assumption.... ¶ 3:56 PM
British Foreign Sec't'ry Jack Straw spoke in a clear Churchillian tone today:
It is the responsibility of people in the civilised world to stand up to that terrorism and not provide them with any excuse whatsoever.
Compare with a typical calm and measured exchange between an American reporter and a Bush administration spokesjelly:
Reporter's question: YOU FLEW THE PLANES INTO THE TOWERS, BUSHITLER! DIE! DIE! DIE!
Spokesjelly: Well, now, Helen [giggle] I don't think we can say that just yet...
Reporter's question: HALLIBURTON! KLAN! SKULL AND BONES! ROVE! NAZI! POL POT! BUSH LIED! TRILLIONS DIED! I WILL EVISCERATE YOU WITH MY BARE HANDS!
Spokesjelly: Now, I think we should wait for the [giggle] investigation, you know, and it's true that Muslims were completely justified.....
Reporter's question: YOU COMMITTED ALL THE CRIMES AND SINS OF THE KNOWN UNIVERSE DURING THE LAST QUADRILLION YEARS!!!!!! AND MORE!!!!! DIE!!!!! DIE!!!!!! DIE!!!!!! WE ARE GOING TO HANG YOU FROM THE STARS AND TEAR YOU INTO YOUR COMPONENT ATOMS!!!!!!!!
Spokesjelly: Well, maybe we're only 99.9999999 percent guilty of those crimes, you know, and it's not strictly impossible, in theory anyway, that not everyone in the [giggle] world would fail to disagree [giggle] with that entirely valid assumption.... ¶ 3:56 PM
Sunday, July 17, 2005
What's the diff II
The allegedly "moderate" part of Mohammed's world in Britain after 7/7 sounds very different from the same alleged section in America after 9/11. The Brits are condemning terrorism with absolutely no Buts, while every single "moderate" leader in America gave a brief lip-service condemnation, only as preface for a long recitation of grievances against the West.
From The Herald:
Following the bomb attacks in London, Shahid Malik MP appeared on national media condemning the outrage which was, in part, committed by one of his constituents. ... A Labour MP, he opposed the war in Iraq and many British Muslims hope Malik will one day become the first Muslim Cabinet minister. Used to being assaulted by ... fundamentalist Muslims, he thought his outright condemnation of the bomb attacks and his claim that the Muslim community must bear some responsibility would earn him enemies among his own people. 'When I spoke out I expected a backlash ... but I had people being very supportive and who agree this is a wake-up call for all of us.'
What's the difference? For one thing, Britain has an active anti-immigrant political party with Fascist overtones, the BNP, with considerable membership in the cities where Mohammedans are common. More importantly, the British police have declared that they will shoot on sight anyone who appears to be planning another terrorist act. After 9/11, our FBI (apparently) questioned and detained a significant number of potential suspects, but we bent over forward and grasped our knees to avoid naming the enemy publicly.
In a warrior culture, the threat of actual force wonderfully concentrates the mind..... ¶ 8:34 PM
From The Herald:
Following the bomb attacks in London, Shahid Malik MP appeared on national media condemning the outrage which was, in part, committed by one of his constituents. ... A Labour MP, he opposed the war in Iraq and many British Muslims hope Malik will one day become the first Muslim Cabinet minister. Used to being assaulted by ... fundamentalist Muslims, he thought his outright condemnation of the bomb attacks and his claim that the Muslim community must bear some responsibility would earn him enemies among his own people. 'When I spoke out I expected a backlash ... but I had people being very supportive and who agree this is a wake-up call for all of us.'
What's the difference? For one thing, Britain has an active anti-immigrant political party with Fascist overtones, the BNP, with considerable membership in the cities where Mohammedans are common. More importantly, the British police have declared that they will shoot on sight anyone who appears to be planning another terrorist act. After 9/11, our FBI (apparently) questioned and detained a significant number of potential suspects, but we bent over forward and grasped our knees to avoid naming the enemy publicly.
In a warrior culture, the threat of actual force wonderfully concentrates the mind..... ¶ 8:34 PM
What's the diff?
Interesting and well-done story on NBC's Dateline tonight, about al Qaeda's continuing connections with Liberian ex-dictator Charles Taylor. As the story unfolded, I noticed an echo ... and soon realized that the story was parallel in many ways to the Niger / Saddam / Wilson story.
Enemy using disorganized African countries to acquire money and weapons; Bush administration softpedaling or covering up. Specifically, we paved the way for Taylor to take a cushy exile in Nigeria, and because we need Nigeria's oil, we're allowing him to continue dealing with Osama's folks from his "house arrest". This is arguably justifiable in the heat of war (enemy of my enemy and all that) but it still doesn't look good.
What's not parallel: No members of the Party of Treason are screaming about this situation. Why? Because in this case administration incompetence leads to NOT fighting the enemy. Letting the enemy grow strong is always OK with Democrats, even when it should give them a great chance to issue valid criticism of Bush. In the Niger / Saddam case, the questionable intelligence led to FIGHTING the enemy, which is never OK with Democrats. ¶ 7:49 PM
Enemy using disorganized African countries to acquire money and weapons; Bush administration softpedaling or covering up. Specifically, we paved the way for Taylor to take a cushy exile in Nigeria, and because we need Nigeria's oil, we're allowing him to continue dealing with Osama's folks from his "house arrest". This is arguably justifiable in the heat of war (enemy of my enemy and all that) but it still doesn't look good.
What's not parallel: No members of the Party of Treason are screaming about this situation. Why? Because in this case administration incompetence leads to NOT fighting the enemy. Letting the enemy grow strong is always OK with Democrats, even when it should give them a great chance to issue valid criticism of Bush. In the Niger / Saddam case, the questionable intelligence led to FIGHTING the enemy, which is never OK with Democrats. ¶ 7:49 PM
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Random local notes
Latest on Gayor West: Shannon Sullivan's recall effort is finally gathering momentum. A state judge has agreed to speed up the examination of the Gayor's objection to the recall, so the petitions will have a fighting chance to hit the fall ballot. [I've repeatedly observed that Wash state judges are surprisingly rational; really shouldn't be a surprise, since they're elected to short terms, not appointed for life.]
Mixed: Wash has been trying to restore its open primary system after a federal Emperor decided it was "unconstitutional" a couple years ago. The '04 election was run with genuine party primaries, but the locals wanted their own tradition back, so they passed an initiative designed to get around the Emperor's objections. Didn't work; yesterday a different Emperor said the new setup was also "unconstitutional", which of course it isn't. I have mixed feelings about this: open primaries are a bad idea, leading to weak parties. But the state should be allowed to pick its own method, no matter how dumb. When black-robed Emperors force unwanted laws down the people's throats, rebelliousness takes over, and there's no chance to examine the inherent virtues of one method over another.
Swarmings: Vancouver, BC is suffering from a spate of swarming incidents, in which a wolfpack of teens beat up another teen, usually chosen for low status. This seems to be a long-standing Canadian problem, as you can determine by a quick Google on 'swarmings'.
Here's how we get swarmings: A couple of young assholes were shooting bottle rockets directly into the windows of passing cars. They chose the wrong car, containing a pair of older assholes, who chased the younger assholes on foot. One of the younger assholes ran into traffic and was hit and killed by a car. Now the older assholes are being charged with manslaughter, the surviving younger asshole is being treated as a victim instead of a criminal, while the dead younger asshole is being treated as a hero instead of a criminal.
Story here. ¶ 8:18 AM
Mixed: Wash has been trying to restore its open primary system after a federal Emperor decided it was "unconstitutional" a couple years ago. The '04 election was run with genuine party primaries, but the locals wanted their own tradition back, so they passed an initiative designed to get around the Emperor's objections. Didn't work; yesterday a different Emperor said the new setup was also "unconstitutional", which of course it isn't. I have mixed feelings about this: open primaries are a bad idea, leading to weak parties. But the state should be allowed to pick its own method, no matter how dumb. When black-robed Emperors force unwanted laws down the people's throats, rebelliousness takes over, and there's no chance to examine the inherent virtues of one method over another.
Swarmings: Vancouver, BC is suffering from a spate of swarming incidents, in which a wolfpack of teens beat up another teen, usually chosen for low status. This seems to be a long-standing Canadian problem, as you can determine by a quick Google on 'swarmings'.
Here's how we get swarmings: A couple of young assholes were shooting bottle rockets directly into the windows of passing cars. They chose the wrong car, containing a pair of older assholes, who chased the younger assholes on foot. One of the younger assholes ran into traffic and was hit and killed by a car. Now the older assholes are being charged with manslaughter, the surviving younger asshole is being treated as a victim instead of a criminal, while the dead younger asshole is being treated as a hero instead of a criminal.
Story here. ¶ 8:18 AM
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Derb's question
Derbyshire at NRO asks a genuinely HARD question.
Given that the four London suicide bombers were all raised -- in at
least one case, born and raised -- in Britain, the quintessential
liberal democracy; and given that the entire premise of current U.S.
policy is that we can end suicide bombing and other terrorism by
bringing liberal democracy to the Middle East; shouldn't we be
re-thinking our policy?
My answer, by no means valid, runs like this:
Democracy itself isn't the main variable in either case. It's just one tool, perhaps even a symbol, aimed at a larger goal. Reducing the power of the 'lost empire' motive, and distributing hope more widely, is the ultimate goal.
Consider first the difference between Old World and New. 'Born and raised' means less in the New World. In this hemisphere, alienation is more evenly distributed. Nobody has an ancestral right to titles and land, which means that outsiders aren't quite so far outside and insiders aren't guaranteed perpetual insidership. Our home-grown terrorists (so far anyway) haven't been suicidal because of this reduced gradient.
In the Arab part of the world, paranoia reigns supreme. Mohammed owned half of the known world 1000 years ago. The Crusades, and the rise of capitalism in places like Venice, led to the loss of Mohammed's empire. The Arab paranoid explanation accurately credits these two events for the loss, but misses the main point. Yes, it was indeed the Jewish bankers, but it wasn't a secret conspiracy.
Um .., Well, actually it was, and here's the secret symbol of the conspiracy: (Don't tell anyone!!!!!)
Now you know: Charging interest for loans is why Jews and Christians took over, and Mohammed lost his empire. It's not quite the whole story, of course, but it was the critical starting point for organized capitalism.
With open credit, banks want to lend money to anyone who looks like a good risk. Higher interest for higher risk. Without a modern credit system, everything depends on personal power. Under Mohammed's rules, banks are not allowed to pay or receive interest, so they rig up various under-the-table schemes, essentially bribery, and all highly dependent on personal status. In Saudi Arabia the hereditary elite controls all the money. In Saddam's Iraq, the Party elite controlled everything.
Now, as we introduce the arrangement code-worded as democracy, we are also introducing modern banking methods. We've already seen the effects of the political change, as Sunni leaders like Sadr have laid down their arms to push for political power. We have yet to see the effect of the economic changes, but if the experiment works, there will be a gradual fadeout of personal power and paranoid explanations, and a fade-in of individualistic thinking. If you fail, it's not because the Jews are conspiring against you; it's because you didn't aim properly or try hard enough. ¶ 10:25 PM
Given that the four London suicide bombers were all raised -- in at
least one case, born and raised -- in Britain, the quintessential
liberal democracy; and given that the entire premise of current U.S.
policy is that we can end suicide bombing and other terrorism by
bringing liberal democracy to the Middle East; shouldn't we be
re-thinking our policy?
My answer, by no means valid, runs like this:
Democracy itself isn't the main variable in either case. It's just one tool, perhaps even a symbol, aimed at a larger goal. Reducing the power of the 'lost empire' motive, and distributing hope more widely, is the ultimate goal.
Consider first the difference between Old World and New. 'Born and raised' means less in the New World. In this hemisphere, alienation is more evenly distributed. Nobody has an ancestral right to titles and land, which means that outsiders aren't quite so far outside and insiders aren't guaranteed perpetual insidership. Our home-grown terrorists (so far anyway) haven't been suicidal because of this reduced gradient.
In the Arab part of the world, paranoia reigns supreme. Mohammed owned half of the known world 1000 years ago. The Crusades, and the rise of capitalism in places like Venice, led to the loss of Mohammed's empire. The Arab paranoid explanation accurately credits these two events for the loss, but misses the main point. Yes, it was indeed the Jewish bankers, but it wasn't a secret conspiracy.
Um .., Well, actually it was, and here's the secret symbol of the conspiracy: (Don't tell anyone!!!!!)
Now you know: Charging interest for loans is why Jews and Christians took over, and Mohammed lost his empire. It's not quite the whole story, of course, but it was the critical starting point for organized capitalism.
With open credit, banks want to lend money to anyone who looks like a good risk. Higher interest for higher risk. Without a modern credit system, everything depends on personal power. Under Mohammed's rules, banks are not allowed to pay or receive interest, so they rig up various under-the-table schemes, essentially bribery, and all highly dependent on personal status. In Saudi Arabia the hereditary elite controls all the money. In Saddam's Iraq, the Party elite controlled everything.
Now, as we introduce the arrangement code-worded as democracy, we are also introducing modern banking methods. We've already seen the effects of the political change, as Sunni leaders like Sadr have laid down their arms to push for political power. We have yet to see the effect of the economic changes, but if the experiment works, there will be a gradual fadeout of personal power and paranoid explanations, and a fade-in of individualistic thinking. If you fail, it's not because the Jews are conspiring against you; it's because you didn't aim properly or try hard enough. ¶ 10:25 PM
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Woolsey vs the Economoids
I've mentioned the impending takeover of Unocal by the Chinese government before. Now it looks like Congress is getting down to business, hopefully with a good result.
James Woolsey, who is rarely if ever wrong, gave this strong statement to the committee:
[Crudely hand-transcribed!]
We are dealing here not in any reasonable sense with a takeover attempt by one corporation of another; we are dealing with a takeover attempt by an organ of the most powerful Communist dictatorship in the world.
It elevates form over substance in the extreme to regard this undertaking as something being done -- in any sense of the word -- by a private corporation simply for economic reasons. CNOOC has received a $7 billion loan from the Chinese state [for the takeover]; this acquisition will result in a 50% increase in offshore pumping capability for China. Now, I recognize that there is utility in encouraging China to move from its current system toward ... some aspect of economic freedom, and toward democracy and rule of law, as has happened in Taiwan, South Korea, and the Phillipines. As prosperity came upon them, they moved toward democracy.
We may hope that China turns toward democracy and the rule of law. But it may also do what dictatorships are wont to do, namely to find an external enemy against which to rally its people. Taiwan ... is the most likely way for them to go in seeking a foreign enemy.
Some would counsel that because China holds a great deal of US debt, we must be cautious. It's true that we borrow 250 billion per year to pay for our imported oil; also true that we would be most wise to turn toward domestic production, but that's another topic.
If we start down the path of saying that we cannot stand up to China in this attempt to take over a very strategic part of our economy, because they own a large part of our debt, we will already have lost. China invented strategy many thousands of years ago. For anyone who believes that this is purely a commercial undertaking, unrelated to a national strategy of domination of energy markets and of the Western Pacific, I would suggest that this view is extraordinarily naive.
Frank Gaffney appeared after Woolsey, lining out an extra dimension to the takeover. Unocal owns a mine in Central California (Molycorp) which is the only major US source of rare-earth minerals (Lanthanum, neodymium, etc.) These minerals are not household words, but they are critical parts of industrial production and specialized military equipment. This mine has been CLOSED since the mid-90s because the state-sponsored terrorist organization EPA attacked it with lawsuits. Gaffney believes that China may have steered the Clinton admin toward this closure as part of its long-term strategy.
Here's an article on MolyCorp vs EPA, mentioned by Gaffney.
Later on, the hearing heated up, as Jerry Taylor of Cato defended the economoid side with this weird argument: China is only trying to advance its own economic interests, so we shouldn't try to advance our own by stopping this acquisition. Rep. Weldon of PA gave a magnificently fiery response. I don't think I've EVER heard anything better from a Congressman!
¶ 6:36 PM
I've mentioned the impending takeover of Unocal by the Chinese government before. Now it looks like Congress is getting down to business, hopefully with a good result.
James Woolsey, who is rarely if ever wrong, gave this strong statement to the committee:
[Crudely hand-transcribed!]
We are dealing here not in any reasonable sense with a takeover attempt by one corporation of another; we are dealing with a takeover attempt by an organ of the most powerful Communist dictatorship in the world.
It elevates form over substance in the extreme to regard this undertaking as something being done -- in any sense of the word -- by a private corporation simply for economic reasons. CNOOC has received a $7 billion loan from the Chinese state [for the takeover]; this acquisition will result in a 50% increase in offshore pumping capability for China. Now, I recognize that there is utility in encouraging China to move from its current system toward ... some aspect of economic freedom, and toward democracy and rule of law, as has happened in Taiwan, South Korea, and the Phillipines. As prosperity came upon them, they moved toward democracy.
We may hope that China turns toward democracy and the rule of law. But it may also do what dictatorships are wont to do, namely to find an external enemy against which to rally its people. Taiwan ... is the most likely way for them to go in seeking a foreign enemy.
Some would counsel that because China holds a great deal of US debt, we must be cautious. It's true that we borrow 250 billion per year to pay for our imported oil; also true that we would be most wise to turn toward domestic production, but that's another topic.
If we start down the path of saying that we cannot stand up to China in this attempt to take over a very strategic part of our economy, because they own a large part of our debt, we will already have lost. China invented strategy many thousands of years ago. For anyone who believes that this is purely a commercial undertaking, unrelated to a national strategy of domination of energy markets and of the Western Pacific, I would suggest that this view is extraordinarily naive.
Frank Gaffney appeared after Woolsey, lining out an extra dimension to the takeover. Unocal owns a mine in Central California (Molycorp) which is the only major US source of rare-earth minerals (Lanthanum, neodymium, etc.) These minerals are not household words, but they are critical parts of industrial production and specialized military equipment. This mine has been CLOSED since the mid-90s because the state-sponsored terrorist organization EPA attacked it with lawsuits. Gaffney believes that China may have steered the Clinton admin toward this closure as part of its long-term strategy.
Here's an article on MolyCorp vs EPA, mentioned by Gaffney.
Later on, the hearing heated up, as Jerry Taylor of Cato defended the economoid side with this weird argument: China is only trying to advance its own economic interests, so we shouldn't try to advance our own by stopping this acquisition. Rep. Weldon of PA gave a magnificently fiery response. I don't think I've EVER heard anything better from a Congressman!
¶ 6:36 PM
