Saturday, February 28, 2009

Today Obama slapped them in the face with a chain mail gauntlet...

Obama ended his electronic fireside chat with "...they are (the Evil Ones--my parenthesis) gearing up for a fight.  And so am I." 

Oh, my.  Could it be that honesty is the best policy?  And the bleeding heart,  Goody-two Shoes leftish persuasion is going to kick over the, um, you know, all across America? 

I call to mind the lines from Ginsberg's great Smoky the Bear Sutra that go (more or less) he's gonna

Drown their butts
Crush their butts, etc., etc.

I agree with what many regard as the hysterical left blogosphere that we should never assume that Obama is always going to do the right thing, and that it is wrong to assume he is playing some kind of 11th dimensional chess whenever he takes a position we don't like or have doubts about & that everything will be okay in the end...

Still, I wonder if he hasn't been playing 11th dimensional chess all along...

He has been insistent about this transparency and openess thing that it is so easy to be cynical about, but I wonder if by insisting on it and then naming the specific lobbies that are likely to oppose his agenda if he isn't playing a new kind of hardball that his opponents will have a tough time hitting against...

He's got 13 million folks on his e-mail list who are arguably at least center-leftish, astute and quite conscious politically--that's 13 million pairs of eyes who are watching him--and also watching out for him. 

I dunno.  Just a theory. 

R.


 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Somebody tell the Social Darwinians in the Republican party

I don't trust any metaphors drawn from biology and applied to human culture, but this is interesting.  (I suppose really it's more of a game theory observation--game theory also has its limitations, but still this is interesting)
 
Survival Of The Weakest? Cyclical Competition Of Three Species Favors Weakest As Victor

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090213115127.htm
 
Come to think of it this reminds me of how Lincoln won the Republican nomination in 1860. 
 
There were two very strong contenders for the nomination and Lincoln was a distant third.  Each of the strong contenders were able to deny the nomination to the other without being able to prevail.  What Lincoln did was to go around the floor of the convention and get assurances from both factions that he would be the second choice if their guy was not able to prevail...and he did. 

R.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

A great speech by Obama

near perfect--but of course, I have a coupla quibbles.  I rather wish he hadn't use the bully pulpit to do rah rahs for charter schools & what is this thing about tax free universal savings accounts mentioned in the context of social security or health care refrom?--I'm not sure which context he was invoking...

Charter schools aren't necessarily private schools, but I do fear the charter school movement is a stalking horse for the forces that want to destroy public education. 

And I have no idea what he's talking about with the "tax-free universal savings accounts"

But it would be damned bizarre if he came out for everything I favor and against everything I dislike...


 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Slumdog Millionaire kids

story referenced here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/slumdog-millionaire-kids_n_169300.html on Huffington Post. 

I hope the kids are getting more out of being in the movie than a trip to the Oscars & Disneyland--preferably enough to get them and their families out of those slums. 

It is intolerable that anyone should have to live that way, but on the way to saving the world it is necessary to save individuals also. 

 
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Why "temporary?"

All the talking heads are talking about nationalization of the banks, but even those who think it is necessary agree that nationalization should be temporary.   But why should it be temporary?  "They" say, in effect, the government doesn't do it (run banks) good.  Really?  Why can't it?
 
E. Schumaker, of Small is Beautiful fame, wrote of his experiences on the British Coal Board, back when coal was to some extent nationalized, about how efficiency and creativity by government managers was sabotaged by political pressure from the private sector that kept raising the specter of "unfair competition" from the government.  Ha.
 
It may be that there are indeed good reasons for any such nationalization to be temporary, but in the current context a discussion about the specific merits and demerits of government ownership of the banks (or any other major feature of the economy), would be, to say the least, interesting.  Shopworn ideological generalities about "government inefficiency"--or the virtues of the "free market"--are worse than useless  They cut off real thought about the situation. 
 
On another note, there's a thing called "particpatory economics" referenced here:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
 
that I have been interested in off and on.  Economists Michel Albert and Robin Hahnel have outlined a practical vision of how to implement a form of democratic socialism.  I say "practical" advisedly.  It is practical in that it provides a specific, real world mechanism for implementing a socialist society.   The difficulty with the vision is there seems to be little room for what Trotskyists might call a "transitional program."  It seems to me it has to be implemented all at once for it to work.   They recognize this and there is a reference in the wikipedia entry to something called "paripolilty" that I have yet to check out. 
 
I would be curious to know what anybody thinks about Albert & Hahnel's ideas. 
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Sunday, February 22, 2009

I'm nervous (Update)

but less so than before...

dday on pessimist Digby's blog has weighed in on Obama's proposed budget and is not altogether unhappy.

Therefore, I am considerably relieved

 
Actual Responsibility

by dday

I'm going to get hammered over the head for this, but what the hell, here goes.

President Obama's budget has been leaked to major news organizations in time for the Sunday papers, and it seeks to close a yawning deficit over the long term through entirely unobjectionable means like ending unnecessary wars and ensuring that everyone pays their fair share for using the public commons. Also, importantly, he doesn't try to close the budget gap entirely, and he's offering an honest appraisal of the numbers instead of the stupid budget tricks that have defined the past decade.


Obama proposes to dramatically reduce those numbers by the end of his first term, cutting the deficit he inherited in half, said administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the budget has yet to be released. His budget plan would keep the deficit hovering near $1 trillion in 2010 and 2011, but shows it dropping to $533 billion in 2013 -- still high in dollar terms, but a more manageable 3 percent of the overall economy.

To get there, Obama proposes to cut spending and raise taxes. The savings would come primarily from "winding down the war" in Iraq, a senior administration official said. The budget assumes that the nation will continue to spend money on "overseas military contingency operations" throughout Obama's presidency, the official said, but that number is significantly lower than the nearly $190 billion the nation budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, primarily by making good on his promise to eliminate the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 for wealthy taxpayers, whom Obama defined during the campaign as those earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule for the 2011 tax year, when the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to more than 39 percent.

Obama also proposes to maintain the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million, instead of letting it expire next year. And he proposes "a fairly aggressive effort on tax enforcement" that would target tax havens and corporate loopholes, among other provisions, the official said.

Overall, tax collections under the plan would rise from about 16 percent of the economy this year to 19 percent in 2013, while federal spending would drop from about 26 percent of the economy, another post-war high, to 22 percent.

The other big elements of this would be to eliminate the hedge fund loophole, which would tax a hedge fund manager's income as income instead of capital gains, and to institute a cap-and-trade plan for carbon emissions, which would provide revenue to the federal government by selling carbon credits at auction. And while floating a deficit equal to about 3% of GDP in 2013, which would be remarkable given the investments being made, we would have a more efficient health care system that costs less and covers more people in return.


The budget also puts in place the building blocks of what administration officials say will be a broad restructuring of the U.S. health system, an effort aimed at covering some of the 46 million Americans who lack insurance while controlling costs and improving quality. Many lawmakers said they had expected a health care overhaul to be pushed off while Obama deals with the economic crisis, but administration officials stressed they intend to forge ahead with comprehensive reform.

"The budget will kick off or facilitate a focus on getting health care done this year," the senior official said, adding that the White House is planning a summit on health care. The event has been delayed by former senator Tom Daschle's decision to withdraw from consideration as health secretary because of tax problems, a move that left Obama without key member of his health team.

Administration officials and outside experts say the most likely path to revamping the health system is to begin with Medicare, the federal program for retirees and people with disabilities, and Medicaid, which serves the poor. Together, the two programs cover about 100 million people at a cost of $561 billion in 2007. Making policy changes in those programs -- such as rewarding physicians who computerize their medical records or paying doctors for results rather than procedures--could improve care while generating long-term savings, expert say. It also could prod private insurers to follow suit.

They are talking about reducing Medicare eligibility to age 55, and also getting rid of the grossly inefficient Medicare Advantage, which is essentially a $35 billion dollar payoff to private insurance companies.

I know people are worried about the fiscal responsibility summit. Words matter, and using the language of those who have been trying for 40 years and longer to gut the social safety net is problematic. However, I am more than willing to judge the Administration on what they do. This budget is a Democratic statement of priorities, which states pretty clearly that we need a more responsible and progressive tax system that makes sure corporations and the wealthy are paying their fair share. It strives for progress in health care and climate change and a winding down of commitments to foreign military adventures. And it ends blatant giveaways to industry.

There will be details that come out that I imagine I will not particularly like, and I'll certainly fight any off the books chicanery designed to prop up elites as well as any assaults on the social safety net in this time of economic peril. But the budget is a major document. And this one is, so far, a very respectable manifestation of liberal principles.
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

I feel nervous...

Half the lefty blogosphere is terrified that Obama's "entitlement reform" summit is going to lead/force him into gutting/cutting social security; the other half sez, oh well, it's just a ruse to get health care reform on the table...Well, I'm not terrified, but I am nervous.  

I know a few things.  Social security itself, that is, the system that makes payments to retirees and the disabled is actually in pretty good shape.  There's no need to do anything for about 40 years in that regard.  During the Reagan Administration the system was approaching financial straits, but Reagan capitulated and there was a tax hike that pretty well saved that part of the system.  There was a deal with the Devil in the details:  Social security taxes were capped for incomes somewhere in the 100's of thousands. 

When people talk about a crisis in social security funding what they are usually doing is conflating the financial difficulties of Medicaid and Medicare with social security. 

I have seen it reported by William Greider that Obama favors lifting the caps on social security taxes for the wealthy, and I think that would be a Good Thing. 

What would be a Bad Thing would be to introduce any form of privatization for the social security system.  The most benign form of privatization would be to invest a small percentage of social security taxes in securities, probably some kind of index fund,  in the hopes of supplementing income for the system.  I believe Clinton supported something along those lines at one point.  The trouble with the idea is that it is a stalking horse for eliminating the system altogether, i.e. eliminating taxes for social security altogether.  People don't need these kinds of accounts through social security.  They can already do it for themselves easily through 401(k)s, IRAs and the like.  In Good Times, one can see the appeal.   In These Times, not so much.   I have a tough time believing Obama will touch social security after seeing what happened to Bush when he hopped on that bandwagon, and especially given the current condition of most people's 401(k).

The quote below from a news story on Huffington Post below implies stuff I didn't know about.

"On Tuesday night, an address to a joint session of Congress will focus on the shared sacrifices needed to tame a national debt that is nearing $11 trillion, counting the $4.3 trillion in borrowed funds from Social Security. And on Thursday, Mr. Obama will unveil a budget blueprint that tips his hand on long-term tax, entitlement, energy and health-care policies.
 

I didn't know there was a dedicated social security fund.  I thought social security funding came out of general revenues inasmuch as social security taxes (I thought) go into general revenue.  I thought, well, maybe "funds borrowed from Social Security" is  just a way of referring to the aggregate of monies collected through social security taxes--but then it wouldn't make sense to speak of "borrowed funds" from Social Security unless there is a dedicated social security fund. 

I don't like that They have been "borrowing" from the Social Security fund and giving ammo for those who are crying wolf about the dire straits of Social Security.  Why aren't thse things clearer? (Or, why am I so ignorant?)

Full disclosure:  I received my first social security check this month.

http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Saturday, February 21, 2009

The greenness of T. Boone Pickens is suspect...

A. Siegel's article in Huffington Post tells why:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/a-siegel/axis-of-perpetuating-poll_b_168719.html

A Texas oil man & Swiftboater--why who would have suspected?
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

The Road to Reality (a refuge from politics)

It's a book by the British mathematician Roger Penrose.  Not that I've actually read it--it's really hard stuff.  I have, however, been thumbing through it.  I checked it out from the library & I think I'm going to buy it.  I plan to spend a few minutes every day trying to read it for full (well, relatively full) understanding.   (I think it will help me take my mind off Obama's potentially diastrous decision to put consideration of "entitlement reform" on the table.) The thing is, Penrose is such a lucid writer that I now have the impression I could actually understand what he's saying if I merely applied myself a little.  For example, he has a discussion of complex numbers, that is computations involving the square root of -1, that not only shows how a body can manipulate them just like ordinary algebriac equations, but also illustrates how such computations are applied in discussions of events at the level of quarks and electrons &
stuff.  Not that I really understood what he was saying, but he inspired hope that I could by a little more careful & determined reading.   In that discussion, Penrose apologizes for flinging all that math out there--he was making some kind of larger point about the relationship between reality and math.  Later on, there's much hairier looking math that he doesn't seem to apologize for, so I assume that it's not as hairy as it looks. 

Penrose is also interesting from a philosophical point of view.  He is an avowed mathematical Platonist who believes that mathematical reality is independent of, and somehow is antecedent to, what we normally think of as physical reality.  In fact, judging from a couple of diagrams later in the book, he is also a Platonic Platonist, who believes that ideals like Truth and Beauty are also prior to, and independent of, any particular instantiation in physical reality.  But I will have to read and see. 

I was really kind of hoping he would prove sympathetic to my own prejudices against black holes and the Big Bang Cosmology, but I'm not sensing that he wants to go there.  One alternative to the Big Bang theory is plasma cosmology.  It is strongly dissed by most physicists and cosmologists but has some proponents, like Nobel Laureate Alfven and Hans Arp, astronomer at the Max Planck Institute, who have strong credentials.  Plasma cosmology emphases the importance of electrical currents in interstellar space as opposed to gravity.   Mainstream physicists readily acknowledge that the stars are balls of plasma, but attribute the energy they emit to fusion processes brought on by the compressive effects of gravity.  Plasma cosmologists argue that the energy generated by stars is actually due to electrical currents circulating in space that energize the plasma that is the stars in much the same way that a current makes a neon bulb glow...the currents
also generate powerful magnetic fields that generate the twists and spirals of interstellar gas in the universe much the way they can in laboratories on earth...I read in Science Daily News a while back that astronomers have observed spirals of interstellar dust formed by magnetic forces that have a curious resemblance to DNA.  Somebody  speculated that perhaps plasma spirals were the templates for DNA...that's a bit much, even for me.    

Also, I happen to know that Penrose (along with Stuart Hameroff) has an interesting idea about the origin of consciousness in quantum events that take place in the microtubes of the brain, but that's another story. 
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Test case

This is intolerable:

Taliban in Pakistan Closes Schools for Girls

www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/17/pakistan.taliban/index....
sent by Betty since 1 day 2 hours 7 minutes, published about 11 hours 21 minutes
Pakistan has given the nod to Taliban rule in Pakistan's Swat Valley. The strict intepretation of religious law forbids girls to attend school, so schools are destroyed and oppression of women and girls return.

The oppression of women is a form of caste that simply should not be tolerated--caste being defined as a group that is oppressed based on biological characteristics. 

The application of force and violence against the Taliban has to be judicious and restrained & combined with diplomatic action and development aid wherever possible and effective, but I hope there is a concerted effort by the international community to destroy the Taliban and their ilk politically and socially. 

 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Getting cured--must read article from Sharon Begley in Newsweek

The article is excerpted below.  As an information omnivore, I regularly check the online Science Daily News.  There I'm always reading about some miracle cure discovered in animal studies--something that cures rodents of what ails them or makes them semi-immortal.  Then it seems there's nothing more about it.  The article below goes some way in explaining why.  It turns out that it is not simply a matter of stuff working in rats but not in humans.  It has to do with (surprise) money.  
 
Also see Dean Baker's article at the Center for Economic and Policy Research:
 
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/intellectual_property_2004_09.pdf

(And when I was messing around with penny stocks, I did a little research into biotech stocks & one author made an observation that seems intuitively true.  Big Pharma is not particularly interested in cures.  They are interested in palliatives.  They do research that will, for example, help control your diabetes, manage your diabetes, make your diabetes more comfortable, but they would really prefer that long term cash cow to the short term profit surge that would be entailed by an actual cure.)


Published Nov 1, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Nov 10, 2008


Sharon Begley

Where Are the Cures?

Scientists call the gulf between a biomedical discovery and new treatment 'the valley of death.'

t has been years since Hans Keirstead worked his biological magic, injecting stem cells into rats with severed spinal cords and thus making them walk almost normally. But the real miracle—since other experiments, too, have cured paralysis in lab animals—is that Geron Corp. plans to test the technique in people next year. Between Keirstead's experiment and Geron's trial lie these obstacles: Keirstead, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, had to invent instruments to squirt the stem cells into spinal cords ("what do we academics know about developing medical devices?" he asked me), find someone to try the technique in monkeys ("I know two researchers who handle monkeys; you have to get in line"), ramp up production of the stem cells ("it meant going from pipettes to this massive hydraulic setup") and … well, more industrial-strength biology that he wasn't trained in, that the government rarely funds and that brings exactly zero glory
to a university scientist.
 
 "We hacked through the jungle and paved the road," Keirstead said. "But how many others are willing to do that?"

Going by how few discoveries in basic biomedical research get turned into treatments and cures, the answer is very, very few. The nation's biomedical funding and training system are set up to do one thing, and they do it superlatively: make discoveries.
 
These barriers to "translational" research (studies that move basic discoveries from bench to bedside) have become so daunting that scientists have a phrase for the chasm between a basic scientific discovery and a new treatment. "It's called the valley of death," says Greg Simon, president of FasterCures, a center set up by the (Michael) Milken Institute in 2003 to achieve what its name says. The valley of death is why many promising discoveries—genes linked to cancer and Parkinson's disease; biochemical pathways that ravage neurons in Lou Gehrig's disease—never move forward.

The next administration and Congress have a chance to change that, radically revamping the nation's biomedical research system by creating what proponents Richard Boxer, a urologist at the University of Miami, and Lou Weisbach, a Chicago entrepreneur, call a "center for cures" at NIHsake.

Biomedical scientists I spoke to are wary of using NIH money for a new center for They worry that it would divert dwindling funds from the basic research that is their pride and joy and, indeed, the basis for those hoped-for cures. Given current fiscal realities, scientists are right to be worried. But while basic research is necessary for finding new treatments, it is not sufficient. (While the NIH budget was doubling, the number of new-drug approvals fell from 53 in 1996 to 18 in 2006.) When I asked Kierstead if he ever wondered how many promising leads are gathering dust between the covers of research journals because no one is willing or able to push them forward, he said, "I don't wonder. I know it's the case." Why? Because "curing disease is a byproduct of the [NIH] system and not a goal," says FasterCures' Simon.
 
Some disease foundations have paved the way, turning themselves into mini-centers for cures. The pioneering Myelin Repair Foundation, which funds research on treatments for multiple sclerosis, actively manages the five scientists at five universities whom founder Scott Johnson hand-picked, requiring them to share data almost as fast as they collect it, mandating collaboration and pushing discoveries through the valley of death. For instance, a test-tube finding is quickly tested in a mouse model; contractors are hired to develop ways to scale up a discovery of how to turn stem cells into myelin-making cells that could help MS patients.

There is lots of talk these days about increasing the nation's spending on infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, to lift the economy out of its doldrums. Me, I'd be willing to put up with potholes in exchange for a new administration spending serious money to take the discoveries taxpayers have paid for and turn them into cures.


 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

On being the basketball team that wins 100-0.

Although I hate to come out and say it, I agree with the article linked below from Huffington Post.  It is good to have an intelligent, Loyal Opposition in a Congress or Parliament.  Not like the Stupid and arguably Disloyal one we have in the Congressional Republicans (and the California legislature). 

(On a somewhat unrelated note, there's been a lot of foaming at the mouth about Hugo Chavez in Venezuela seeking to end his term limits--by lawful means, I might add--in the U.S. press, including columnists David Appel & Marc Cooper in Huffington Post, suggesting that he intends to set himself up as Dictator-for-Life.   I suspect he could do that now by extralegal means if he wanted to.  Part of his problem is that his Opposition is in as much disarray as the Republican party, with no basis for unity except their opposition to Chavez.  Like the Republicans, they can obstruct but can't construct--so Chavez is using his popularity with the people to do a constitutional end run around them.   The replies to Appel in the comments section of his article are particularly cogent.   Obama may have to take it to the people like Chavez--and is doing it already to some extent--but I digress).  

It is interesting that in Britain, for example, it is the Conservatives who are proposing Draconian caps on executive pay. 

I suppose in my U.S. utopia there would be a right wing party, consisting of what are now liberal Democrats--people who want to keep a well-regulated capitaist system with a social safety net, and a left wing party, consisting of people who would like to introduce thorough-going socialism through parliamentary means.  (The latter set of people are almost politically invisible--except maybe for Bernie Sanders and it's a bit of a stretch to claim him.) 
 
The Democrats were in power for enough of the 20th century to become shot through with enough misdemeanor corruption to enable the Gingrich Revolution of the 90's.  Of course, the Republicans quickly matched the Democrats for corruption and then left the Democrats far behind by undertaking felonious corruption, pecuniary and political,  on a breathtaking scale. 

Still, within the current parameters of political feasibility, it would be nice to win a few games 100-0 (see metaphor in the article linked below, "In Praise of New Republican Leadership" by Paul Jenkins
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/in-praise-of-new-republic_b_167299.html


 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Re: Maureen Dowd is a predatory owl (update--a correction)

Thanks.  You're right of course.  I even saw the movie with Emma Thompson, but nevertheless managed to blur Emma with Pride and Prejudice.

 

Emma got named Woodhull by my unconscious because I had been reading about Cornelius Vanderbilt and Victoria Woodhull
 

http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

 

Maureen Dowd is a predatory owl,

who can hear a field mouse rustling in the grass 100's of yards away...that is a field mouse (and here I wax metaphorical de trop) of Inconsequentiality, Insignificance or Petty Irrelevancy.  

She swoops down and chides Obama for a bit of his snark directed at Joe Biden, snark that Dowd regards as unmannerly,  and compares Obama to Emma Woodhull in Pride and Prejudice who rudely belittles a poor relation, one Miss Bates,  at one of them upper class Brit picnics.  I don't presume to know Biden's feelings about the matter, but Biden does not seem quite as hapless as Miss Bates.  

Obama was questioned by Fox News, no less, about Biden's remark there was still a 30% chance of failure for the Administration's immediate plans for the economy.  Obama laughed the comment off with (words to the effect), well, you know Joe, he's always shooting off his mouth about something or other & I don't know what 30% he was talking about any way...

Well, this little mouse of an incident, given especially that the question came from Fox News, could easily have turned into an elephantine story about Democrat Disharmony and Disarray, if Obama had not defanged it (ah, a mixed metaphor) with a little joshin'. 

Perhaps I shouldn't read so much James Wolcott.  Or any Maureen Dowd.
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Friday, February 13, 2009

Not just some bad apples...

Some bad f*cking trees...

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Unredacted_documents_reveal_prisoners_tortured_to_0212.html

Of course, most people are already aware of the Bush Administration's record on torture. 

To me it was a real puzzle as to why the Bush Administration adopted those policies, knowing as they did (or should have known), that not only is "enhanced interrogation" illegal and immoral, it is also useless and ineffective, the TV show '24' (cited as "evidence" by some on the Right) notwithstanding. 

As a lay person, I am fairly well read, although not as much in history as I would like.  That said, I don't know of a single documented instance where a "ticking bomb" catastrophe was averted by somebody resorting to torture.  Perhaps there is one and I just don't know about it.  But it seems like our friends on the Right would be throwing it up in everybody's face if there was one. 

But it seems reality provides us with few (if any) situations where thought experiments like the "ticking bomb" scenario can be tested.  I think that's why '24' gets cited as evidence.  
 
Now In Austin, somebody also tried to use a online review of the movie 'Taken' in a backhanded way to imply justification for the Bush Administration...that's not to say, I didn't enjoy the movie in a primitive, vengeful kind of way, which led me to think--
 
Given that governments, generals, street gangs, mafiosos of various kinds,  are hardly squeamish about the application of force and violence when felt necessity dictates it (and often when it doesn't), who can really believe that an official who really, really has ironclad evidence of a (really specific) ticking bomb that desperately needs to be uncovered would fail to resort to torture if that seemed to be the only avenue to stop it--regardless of any laws or conventions that might be on the books.  And who can believe the official would be prosecuted if he/she did in fact keep the bomb from going off?   The point is, prior validation of torture as an acceptable policy is beside the point in any situation where it could be proved conclusively after the fact that torture was necessary and effective to avoid massive catastrophe.
 
So why was the Bush Administration trying to enshrine torture as policy?  I think it has to do with the same mindset evoked by movies like 'Taken' 
 
Republicans and conservatives generally tend to believe the world is a highly dangerous place, and that the only real safety lies in having the biggest stick and being the meanest SOB in the valley.  All else is mere window dressing & fluff.   George Will* and the usual run of talking heads on Fox News & their ilk hew to a view of U.S. foreign policy that the U.S. should be perceived as somewhat crazy and dangerously unpredictable. 
 
I submit Cheney, the neocons, et alia, weren't interested in developing information by torturing people.  They were serving notice that Americans are crazy, dangerous people who will do ANYTHING when they feel threatened--or even if they don't.  Even absent validation of torture as policy, given the invasion of Iraq I'll bet the world didn't need any additional evidence...
 
(In fact somebody commented on an earlier post--I thought I knew who, but I may be mistaken--cited me as an example of a dangerous American attitude because I was venting about the Taliban and Al Queda...
 
*I don't watch Fox News any more except for occasional comedic distraction, but it's interesting that I don't recall George Will being on Fox News much--perhaps it's too lowbrow for a great newspaper scholar like him...
 
Well, there are lots of things wrong with a maddog foreign policy.  Maybe too obvious to comment on, but maybe later.
 


 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Ah, the joys of privatization...

(From AP story on Huffington Post):

Judges accused of taking payoffs to jail kids WILKES-BARRE, Pa. – For years, the juvenile court system in Wilkes-Barre operated like a conveyor belt: Youngsters were brought before judges without a lawyer, given hearings that lasted only a minute or two, and then sent off to juvenile prison for months for minor offenses.
The explanation, prosecutors say, was corruption on the bench.

In one of the most shocking cases of courtroom graft on record, two Pennsylvania judges have been charged with taking millions of dollars in kickbacks to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers.

 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

So--the Sussex name makes the news

10-Year-Old Sussex Spaniel Wins Westminster Dog Show


And, yes, I watched the show with with relatively little shame.   But looking at that pore, ol' dog, I couldn't help but think the sympathy fix was in...

Oh, well.   


http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

A-Rod?

Who gives a sh*t?  It's only an effing game.  Madoff?  A lot more to get cheesed at, sure. 

But our whole society is a casino with a crooked wheel that lets the marks win just enough to keep them from tearing the place down.

Yes, it could be worse, say, like in the old days in Haiti, with the Ton Ton Macoute.  In fact, much of history was and is implemented by creatures similar to the Ton Ton Macoutes. 

Why can't we merely form Rockdale cooperatives and all get along? 

A purely rhetorical question.

R.
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Re: American bloodlust and Iraq

"If Iraq manages to hold together in some minimal way as a fairly secular state after the U.S. leaves, it will be treated as a vindication of Bush Administration's invasion."

Well, let's forget the vague "treated as". Will it actually be a vindication of the invasion? If not, why not?

Doug

2009/2/8 Roy Griffin <roygg9@yahoo.com>

As I said, the UN strike force idea is a fantasy, but were there in place a concerted plan by the more powerful and more enlightened (& I mean that in the sense of the Englightenment) members of the UN to engage in systematic and well prioritized efforts to redeem shitholes like Haiti and the Sudan, and yes, maybe local interventions in backwaters and the ghettoes of the U.S...or France...or anywhere...I think it might be worth supporting, even it meant the use of some force & violence applied along the lines of "just war" theory...the foregoing idea could only be feasible in the context of a world greatly reduced in concern about national sovereignty--or the appearance of it.  That's one of those things where appearance and reality are pretty much the same.

On a somewhat unrelated note, from the point of view of domestic U.S. politics, what's going to happen with Iraq is this:

If Iraq manages to hold together in some minimal way as a fairly secular state after the U.S. leaves, it will be treated as a vindication of Bush Administration's invasion.  If Iraq falls apart after the U.S. leaves, there will be a "stab in the back" theory blaming the Democrats for the failure.  The Democrats should be prepared to meet the argument head on.   I doubt if they will be.

I sometimes wonder if the Democrats capable of coherent & strategic political thinking.  The Republicans certainly are, even though the content of their actual policies suck. 

R.
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/




American bloodlust and Iraq

As I said, the UN strike force idea is a fantasy, but were there in place a concerted plan by the more powerful and more enlightened (& I mean that in the sense of the Englightenment) members of the UN to engage in systematic and well prioritized efforts to redeem shitholes like Haiti and the Sudan, and yes, maybe local interventions in backwaters and the ghettoes of the U.S...or France...or anywhere...I think it might be worth supporting, even it meant the use of some force & violence applied along the lines of "just war" theory...the foregoing idea could only be feasible in the context of a world greatly reduced in concern about national sovereignty--or the appearance of it.  That's one of those things where appearance and reality are pretty much the same.

On a somewhat unrelated note, from the point of view of domestic U.S. politics, what's going to happen with Iraq is this:

If Iraq manages to hold together in some minimal way as a fairly secular state after the U.S. leaves, it will be treated as a vindication of Bush Administration's invasion.  If Iraq falls apart after the U.S. leaves, there will be a "stab in the back" theory blaming the Democrats for the failure.  The Democrats should be prepared to meet the argument head on.   I doubt if they will be.

I sometimes wonder if the Democrats capable of coherent & strategic political thinking.  The Republicans certainly are, even though the content of their actual policies suck. 

R.
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Slumdog Millionaire

I shall now proceed to tell you how much I liked the movie and then hem and haw about it.

In the early scenes about Jamal's childhood, I was nearly sobbing with rage.  It made me yearn for some kind of UN strike force that would go in mow down the slumlords, child slavers, indifferent capitalists, corrupt police & government officials, etc. (Yes, I'm well acquainted with the paradoxes, impossibilities & moral quandaries of such an idea--it's just a fantasy).  But I liked just about everything about the movie and loved much of it. 

I don't know what the screenwriter's intent was, but it seemed to me also a good expression of how the Islamic faith gets lived out, at least in that particular historical context.  I don't mean the Islam as preached by the local imams, but Islam as it is lived out culturally by people who most of the time are only nominally Muslims--just like the bulk of Christians &,  say, Buddhists, are only nominally Christians and Buddhists most of the time.  And that brings me to the hemming and hawing...

There's nothing in the Koran that unequivocally enjoins classic holy war, honor killings, female circumcision, intolerance & passages that may seem to, especially as regards holy war, are offset by other passages.  Jesus reportedly said "I come to bring not peace but a sword."  That has been invoked by Christians when they found it expedient to wage wars or engage in violence, but there's little doubt that the Semon on the Mount demands that that particular remark of Jesus requires that it be treated symbolically rather than literally.  And whenever Christians don't have their bloodlust up , that's how they do interpret it. 

 (Much of what we Westerners object to in Islam has to to do with the local and (often) tribal cultural matrix in which it is embedded that actually pre-existed the arrival of Islam.  In Saudi Arabia, there was no tradition of pictorial art when Islam arose.  Consequently, Arabian art is confined to mosiacs and "arabesques"  In Iran and Indonesia there was already a naturalistic pictorial tradition so the Koranic stricture against likenesses of God was taken to mean only as "don't try to draw God" and their pictorial traditions continued.)

But the hemming and hawing concerns this:   There is a fatalism in the movie that works well vis a vis the wonderful love story, but to me could be enervating as far as the pursuit of social justice, not only because of the implicit appeal to resignation, but also because of a certain mystical individualism. 

I dunno.  Michael Walzer has argued that the Calvinists, who were nothing if not fatalists with their doctrine of hard predestination, were also the spiritual ancestors of the vanguard party of professional revolutionaries a la Lenin--don't remember if he discusses Blanqui or not.  I wonder if Blanqui came out of a Huegenot background.

But the fatalism I saw in the movie is something I associate with Islam.  But maybe that's all wet.   There is a saying, "Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel"  I wonder if it's in the Koran. 

R.

 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

My two senators, Cornyn and Hutchinson

are worthless--& Cornyn is actually vile. 

I've just read Krugman's take on the inadequacies of the proposed stimulus plan & I think now would be the time for everybody who has a potentially responsive Senator & representative to urge them not only to pass this piss-poor stimulus plan (as a niggling start), but to urge their Democratic Senators, if they have any, to do away with the effing filibuster.  I know that in the past it has occasionally been used to good effect by the Democrats to block an especially obnoxious Supreme Court appointment, but by and large, the Democrats do not use the filibuster effectively, and the Republicans do.  If and when the Republicans regain the majority and get Caligua appointed to the Supreme Court, the Democrats can take it to the masses with at least as much effect as they have wielded the filibuster in years past...The Democrats have (and have long had) the bulk of public opinion on their side with respect to the issues.  If they would start
behaving like a mass party, maybe THEY could put together that Rovian semi-permanent majority...

Obama's supporters, if he can mobilize them, may be that mass party.  

I get his emails.  I'm going to do stuff.  I gave money for Howard Dean and Obama & actually did stuff for Howard Dean.  Now I'm going to do stuff for Obama. 

R.
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Saturday, February 7, 2009

On the Enigma of ESP

I read Diane Powell's book, the Enigma of ESP, or the ESP Enigma--something like that--and frankly, I was a little disappointed.  I didn't find anything new in it, except for a interesting metaphor for the mind-body problem--that is, the mental and the physical being like a Mobius strip--and I'm not sure how usefully explanatory that is. 

On a philosophical level, as far as I am concerned, the philosopher David Chalmers has PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt that mental process can never be be reduced to mere neurological process.  On the other hand, the rough correlations between brain process and mental activity,  even if they don't prove cause-effect, are indisputable and suggestive--even when there's the suggestion that the cause runs from mind to brain. 
 
An anesthesiologist named Stuart Hameroff has proposed that consciousness is seated in the microtubles of the brain--(whatever they are, they are not neurons), and that consciousness arises as a result of quantum activity in said microtubules.  He invokes the notion of nonlocal quantum entanglement to explain the whole range of subtle psi phenomena.  Hameroff's ideas carry a great deal of weight for me because he is supported by the British mathematician Roger Penrose, who is, as they say in California,  One Real Smart Dude.

Hameroff also explicitly invokes Alfred North Whitehead's notions of panpsychism, which to me is philosophically convincing, but the very nature of which is something that perhaps can never be established by empirical scientific methods*

In all fairness,  Powell discusses Hameroff's ideas and several others of interest, and it is always encouraging to find someone from the relatively hard sciences, a psychiatrist and neurologist, no less, who is willing to go outside the box on these matters.  

But Hameroff's ideas, however interesting, are still subject to Chalmer's critique of physicalist reductionism.

*Unless it is possible to establish valid criteria for evaluating mental phenomena as empirical--whatever the hell that means. 

R.
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Just this once, Digby--please be wrong

"Update: Ronald Brownstein tells us (on Hardball)that he always felt that Obama's weakness was that he didn't have a fiscal responsibility element of his platform. Because, you know, you have to be willing to cut taxes for millionaires or else you aren't fiscally responsible.

He also pointed out that in April 2001, the senate pared back Bush's tax cuts but he got some of them all back in conference so Obama could get some of the money put back into the bill before the end.

Does anyone believe that this congress will be able to do that --- even though the Dems have 18 more senators and dozens more congressmen than the Republicans had in 2001? I don't."

(Me writing now).  How many of these effing Blue Dogs are there any way?   Does Senator Reid belong to phylum chordata?  Is Senator Nelson fit for anything--especially survival?  These questions keep me awake to the point I have to soothe myself with scenarios of boiling cauldrons &  Rush Limbaugh &  Mitch Mcconell & John Boehner & David Brooks & yes, Chris Matthews...

R.

 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

6000 Cool People

Clifford Pickover, polymath extraordinaire (gawd, how I writhe with hatred & jealousy) has a wonder website called "Reality Carnival"  

Actually, he has several, including this one:

http://sixthousand.blogspot.com/

Perhaps at my age I shouldn't notice, but the majority of the cool people on his '6000 Cool People' are incredibly brainy women who are also--not altogether unattractive.


 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Withdrawal of Daschle and Killefer

Daschle's withdrawal as HHS secretary nominee & Killefer's as "Performance Czar"--whatever that is--is probably just as well.  This is probably not the time to have a tin ear about the PR impact of being an apparent (or real) tax scofflaw.  Daschle supposedly had a reputation, at least with Republicans, as being a soft-spoken but hard-nosed minority leader in the Senate.  I can't recall any instances of that hard-nosed stuff. 

I hope that Howard Dean has got his, um, stuff together.  He is the guy I would like to see as head of HHS.  Not that there's ever much justice in politics, but there's hardly anyone more deserving...
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/