I went to the woods...: 04/01/2004

I never realized that universal health care was as practical as this makes it sound (though I need to check into their math a bit more)

"It's not that Americans don't want to cover the 41 million uninsured. And the cost, pegged by Kaiser Commission on Medicaid & the Uninsured at less than $69 billion a year, isn't insurmountable, adding just 6% to annual health spending.

It's just that no consensus exists -- in the public, among politicians, or in the health industries -- about how best to get the job done. And because the vast majority of voters have health insurance (85% of the population is insured, but 92% of those who participated in the 2000 election were covered), political leaders have little incentive to overcome that impasse. "

"I don't think they need to apologize. In lieu of an apology we need more truth-telling [from the Bush Administration] -- and part of the truth would be to admit that the Administration isn't composed of gods. It's composed of human beings who [apparently] made mistakes in their interpretation of intelligence...and acted on the basis of that intelligence."

from Daryl Koehn on the ethics of war. It's a nice quick read (and doesn't try to overreach). But this statement is what hit home with me.

This is also mentioned by Christopher Layne in The American Conservative, arguing that

"the Bush administration should "stop digging," admit that its Iraq policy is "in shambles" and bring the troops home"

Here's an article for all thinking about the social effects of video games.

Paul Krugman needs to get a grip. It's very true that the situation is anything but hunky dory over in Iraq at the moment; to deny otherwise is either foolhardy or just plain foolish. And there is certainly an argument to be that there are some things the administration could have done better (particularly during the "planning" of the war...if such a thing ever existed) in its conduct, both on and off the playing field. However, to say that

"If America's leaders hadn't made so many bad decisions, they might have had a chance to shape Iraq to their liking. But that window closed many months ago."

just misses the boat. To act like we could've just walked in and transformed the country into another Timbuktoo overnight a few months ago (if we "hadn't made so many bad decisions") is just silly. Everyone, not just the administration, was just as bumfuzzled "many months ago" regarding what to do in Iraq. The last year, atleast what I've seen, has had a strong amount of complaints leading the arguments (many of which are viable), but no alternate plan leading to Ja'nna'h has been presented from what I've seen. For the moment I'll leave this discussion (for now) with a quote from Thomas Friedman that (IMHO) largely describes people's feelings regarding the Middle East.

"I'm fed up with the Middle East, or more accurately, I'm fed up with the stalemate in the Middle East."

See his article for his opinion on the whole mess.

For anyone interested in a slightly broader context of Levant, you've got to read this quick interview with Bernard Lewis. I do think that he confuses the idea of Westernization with that technological progress a bit and I don't necessarily agree with some of his broader conclusions, but whatever you think about him, you have to have some level of respect for the guy. He knows what he's talking about and his ideas are vibrant (though I've been on a Nietzsche kick lately and might be overestimating the simplistic beauty of philology). The interview gives a nice introduction to his ideas on analysis of the politics (if there are any) of the region and should be interesting for anyone trying to understand the goings-on a bit more.

The BBC reports that the State Department released its annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" for 2003 report. According to State Department figures:

-2002 saw 199 attacks compared with 355 the year before - a 44% decrease
-725 people were killed - down from 3,295 in 2001
-Attacks on US interests were down 65%- from 219 to 77 - the main reason was fewer of oil pipeline bombings in Colombia

For anyone interested in a larger scope of terrorist attacks, see this chronology of significant terrorist attacks from 1961-2003

Freeman Dyson's review of Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos" was facinating...not because of the scientific problems that came out within it, but due to his thoughts on a sort of reductio ad absurdum within science. He comments that Brian Greene leaves a definite impression that it is just not right for their to be a big world and a small world (one operating off of general relativity and one from quantum mechanics). He repeats a couple of times that being a conservative, he doesn't see this as a detraction from science. The article is definitely interesting, and his point on quantum gravity is important to note (even if you disagree with his conclusion).

I do think, however, that he takes the whole idea too far. Regarding quantum gravity, he mentions that since there is no conceivable practical experiment for the existence of gravitons, then the theory must not have any physical meaning. In itself, this is a fine stopping point, but I think that Dyson wants us to go further and say that there will never be a conceivable practical experiment (which is a different ballgame altogether). I can understand that he is a conservative (self-proclaimed in the article, anyway) and does not want to say that the duality of our current system is wrong. That's fine...but the connections that allow us to further understand science are part of that reductio ad absurdum that I mentioned earlier. Just because we don't see something now is no reason to stop. Just because we dont' understand a particular topic doesn't mean that we never will. He brings up the example of either, but I would postulate that scientists at that time couldn't think of a practical experiment to test their theories on the light either. I would agree with him that we're probably not as close to the truth as Brian Greene might think, but I still feel bad for Dyson; he strikes me as a disillusioned scientist. And that's just depressing.

Also, his arugment during the debate with Greene that Chemistry, Biology, etc cannot be reduced to Physics is taking too big of a leap. Now, computational chemistry is still operating off of approximations of theories and cannot be said to be a predictor of truth within itself. And this is within a field that we supposedly understand. I disagree wtih Greene in that, atleast for now, even if we would discover this theory that would combine everything, approximation must still supercede calculation within science. We just don't have the computers that can make those leaps in logic yet. But I also disagree wtih Dyson's assessment, in that if we did find these equations, although there would be new advancements within Chemistry, Biology, etc, they would at that time become advancements in the understanding of the application of this theory of everything. In other words, the new jumpof Chemistry would just show us how we were misapplying the theory of everything beforehand.

So yeah, we need to be realists too and understand our current limits. But this doesn't mean that we can't at the same time optimistically reach past them with our imagination. It's the one thing that has allowed us to make the necessary jumps in logic that give our reductio ad absurdum process meaning.

For those of you who know absolutely nothing about Greek culture, here's a 20 point list of things (which is far from exhaustive, by the way) that were passed down from Greece.

Are conspiracy theories really that much easier to believe? Serdar Turgut writes

"The Americans want to have a firm foothold in Cyprus, because from there it wants to control its Greater Middle Eastern Initiative, which is seen by optimistic intellectuals as a ‘plan to bring democracy to the region,’ but is actually a plan to form a new world by wrecking balances in the region. The world’s most secret intelligence system, ECHELON, will be coordinated from Cyprus."

What in the world? What would America (or anyone but sadistic jerks) have to gain from "wrecking balances in the region"? I'm sure America absolutely loves having troops get killed over there for the excess of this rather odd "balance" of which he speaks. And why would anyone choose Cyprus with its nice little split to operate this "most secret" way to control electronic signals? Evidently, this is that magic spot on the earth where these signals can be influenced (but no where else, mind you). Yeah, I'm sure the bogey-man will come out soon if we don't watch it.

He says earlier that people most optimistic intellectuals won't like this piece because they don't like thinking about strategic interests or national security. I think it's just because they're intellectuals.

For a quick Hoeffel view of the Specter vs Toomey debate, check out this link. It's all about who ya know, right?

Lawrence Mishel discusses a couple of the problems with President Bush's attempt for reelection on the "everything is getting better" type campaign. Essentially, it points out that although the President's ads do have some good information on the positive sides of the economy, it really does so while ignoring the crap behind it.

Now, to some extent, this is to be expected. Just as John Kerry cannot claim, without some pretty freaky foreknowledge, that he will be responsible for job creation if he is elected, President Bush should not have to take all the flak for the economy going bad (and neither can Bill Clinton for that matter). Now, this is not to absolve all Presidents of their policy affects on statistics. However, it is to say that economic cycles tend to be stupidly complicated, and that people need to think about other factors before they vote (though this is probably asking for too much, as Ray Fair is still pretty consistent in his predictions).

Thomas Friedman also backs up this last point (not necessarily my fear, though) that

"judging from many polls, it seems that Mr. Bush is being rewarded for the economy's tentative recovery more than he is being punished for Iraq's troubling slide."

RCP reaffirms the polling data: "... Even after oversampling Democrats (35%) and Independents (36%) and undersampling Republicans (29%), CBS/NYT got the following result: Bush up 2 points on Kerry (43-41) in the three-way race among registered voters. I'm pretty sure that's not what they expected." For those of you who are wondering how Kerry would do in a 2-way, the CBS News/NYT poll has Bush up by .5% instead.

Yesterday, Rep McDermott made a point of not saying the words "under God" as he led the House in the recitation of the Pledge of allegiance. I understand that he's trying to make some political hay out of this (as well as making a personal point, let's not forget), but the House has already ruled on this issue, as the Washington Times point out.

"The House has overwhelmingly approved two resolutions expressing outrage at the June 2002 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it is unconstitutional to have schoolchildren recite the Pledge in class because it includes the words "under God."
Mr. McDermott was one of seven Democrats who voted against a March 2003 House resolution — approved 400-7 — that condemned the 9th Circuit decision as inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment. The House passed a similar resolution, 416-2 in June 2002, immediately after the court's decision, and Mr. McDermott joined 10 Democrats in voting "present." "

Even if he disagrees with the resolutions, and he definitely has the public right to say so, it's time he shuts up about it. He tried, he lost, better luck next time.

The RCP commentary (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html#4_27_04_1149) and the NY Post editorial (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/23309.htm) bring up some valid questionable points in Kerry's own description of the medal incident. I just can't understand why Kerry has not managed to lay this matter to rest by now. It's just not that complicated of a situation; why does it have to be so hard? Honestly, I'm not interested in what he threw at that moment at all...but why oh why are there differing quotes at all? Did his memory improve (or degrade) during this time? or did he just screw up? And if so, why can't he merely say so. It would certainly give him a better track record of acknowledging facts than President Bush has had and it would cease to be the confusing issue (the last thing I think Americans want at the moment is one more ambiguous issue bearing the scent of the White House to be left out of). Earlier today, I wrote a paper about the problems of trust in Middle Eastern politics. I'm not sure we're as advanced as we might like to think.

I don't know what the political ramifications are of admitting one's own faults, but I've gotta admit that it makes me feel a little safer. Here's a quote from Mr Ignatius at the WaPo.

"My own mistake was thinking more about the justice of overthrowing Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime than about the difficulty of building a new postwar Iraq. I still think the war was a just cause, but I worry that its costs may one day outweigh its benefits. I don't regret my support for toppling Hussein, but I wish I had followed those red flags and examined more carefully how America could win the peace, after it won the war."

I don't know what the political ramifications are of admitting one's own faults, but I've gotta admit that it makes me feel a little safer. Here's a quote from Mr Ignatius at the WaPo.
"My own mistake was thinking more about the justice of overthrowing Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime than about the difficulty of building a new postwar Iraq. I still think the war was a just cause, but I worry that its costs may one day outweigh its benefits. I don't regret my support for toppling Hussein, but I wish I had followed those red flags and examined more carefully how America could win the peace, after it won the war."

What survives for Nietzsche in today's society? A mass of information, more than can be handled by most, flowing around us everyday. To act without pity, we must act with passion when moved. But how can we do this when our world has expanded far beyond our grasp? How must we act to affirm ourselves while not losing ourselves in the swirling miasma of media? Aye, this is the rub.

Instead of bending prostrate to the flush of emotions brought before us on the television screen hoping to guilt us into the wasteful (to Nietzsche, anyway) tears of hypocrisy that drives tragedy, it is instead our responsibility to attempt to change only that which is within our field of action. Only the local world (which, by the way, has expanded to the limits of our desire with electronic communication) can be within our scope of caring (noting the difference between this and pity). This eliminates masturbative learning while not losing our human connections with human society.

It's odd, but only a "naive" self-control will lead to our hopes, our dreams, and our continuing search for a life...for fulfillment of passion (then again, maybe these are just idealistic thoughts from an old man).

Welcome to Nick's big happy new blog!

I went to the woods...

Friday, April 30, 2004

Thursday, April 29, 2004

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Tuesday, April 27, 2004

About Me

Previous Posts

Archives