A recent article about the security situation in Iraq. Money quote:
Muqtada al-Sadr, a prominent Iraqi Shia leader, has blamed the recent surge of violence on US plans to withdraw its troops from Iraqi streets.
Pretty ridiculous when one considers that before the surge, al-Sadr on many occasions blamed the violence on the American occupation.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Friday, June 05, 2009
The best plan for victory
...ideally shouldn't bank on one's enemy doing something really stupid. Such as, for example, trying to conquer Pakistan. Especially so when the Pakistani side of the border is where said enemy's supplies, reinforcements, and safe havens are.
Defeating the Taliban without the serious help of the Pakistanis would be extremely difficult. Thankfully, the Taliban seem to have done us a huge favor here. It won't be as easy fighting Nato in the West when the Pakistani army is coming simultaneously from the East.
Defeating the Taliban without the serious help of the Pakistanis would be extremely difficult. Thankfully, the Taliban seem to have done us a huge favor here. It won't be as easy fighting Nato in the West when the Pakistani army is coming simultaneously from the East.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
religious terrorism in Kansas
Murder?.
If there is even the slightest doubt: now you know why Bin Laden does it. Once personal religious beliefs trump the law (both secular and religious: thou shalt not kill), a person becomes a terrorist.
If there is even the slightest doubt: now you know why Bin Laden does it. Once personal religious beliefs trump the law (both secular and religious: thou shalt not kill), a person becomes a terrorist.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Geopolitics at its finest
I'm about to embark on an interesting application of Occam's razor.
If recent news headlines are any indication, President Obama and Israeli PM Netanyahu are at odds over the middle east peace process.
I am quite certain that Obama is not foolish enough to think that he can single handedly reverse decades of US support for Israel (nor do I think he would want to, even if he could). At the same time, I am also quite certain that Netanyahu, an intelligent man himself, realizes that it would be extremely unwise to irritate the man that will be leading the US for probably the next 8 years.
Clearly, neither has anything to gain from animosity towards the other. Furthermore, upon closer consideration it actually becomes apparent that both men have a lot to gain from feigning differences in policy. When the news headlines read that Obama and Netanyahu disagree, it bolsters Obama's support from the left (which he has been somewhat losing, although admittedly to no consequence) and certainly gives him more credibility in the eyes of Muslims. At the same time, it benefits Netanyahu to stay true to his electoral promises, appeal to the Israeli right wing, and to necessarily start any peace process from a negotiating position that is positioned squarely on his side of the board. In other words, by refusing to accept Palestinian statehood from the get go, Netanyahu can turn his acceptance into that eventuality into a negotiating concession from Palestinians.
Meanwhile, Obama would be baiting right-wing critics through this whole process. They will accuse him of undermining Israel, and siding with Muslims. And then he will blind-side them with a peace deal, making the critics out to be the fools.
Occam's razor is a principle that states that the simplest explanation is the one most likely to be true. Are we to believe that two very intelligent political masters just wandered blindly into their dealings with arguably their most important counterpart in the world? Or that they meticulously prepared and calculated a dance that will necessarily lead to their mutual desired outcome? The simplest explanation is the latter!
If recent news headlines are any indication, President Obama and Israeli PM Netanyahu are at odds over the middle east peace process.
I am quite certain that Obama is not foolish enough to think that he can single handedly reverse decades of US support for Israel (nor do I think he would want to, even if he could). At the same time, I am also quite certain that Netanyahu, an intelligent man himself, realizes that it would be extremely unwise to irritate the man that will be leading the US for probably the next 8 years.
Clearly, neither has anything to gain from animosity towards the other. Furthermore, upon closer consideration it actually becomes apparent that both men have a lot to gain from feigning differences in policy. When the news headlines read that Obama and Netanyahu disagree, it bolsters Obama's support from the left (which he has been somewhat losing, although admittedly to no consequence) and certainly gives him more credibility in the eyes of Muslims. At the same time, it benefits Netanyahu to stay true to his electoral promises, appeal to the Israeli right wing, and to necessarily start any peace process from a negotiating position that is positioned squarely on his side of the board. In other words, by refusing to accept Palestinian statehood from the get go, Netanyahu can turn his acceptance into that eventuality into a negotiating concession from Palestinians.
Meanwhile, Obama would be baiting right-wing critics through this whole process. They will accuse him of undermining Israel, and siding with Muslims. And then he will blind-side them with a peace deal, making the critics out to be the fools.
Occam's razor is a principle that states that the simplest explanation is the one most likely to be true. Are we to believe that two very intelligent political masters just wandered blindly into their dealings with arguably their most important counterpart in the world? Or that they meticulously prepared and calculated a dance that will necessarily lead to their mutual desired outcome? The simplest explanation is the latter!
Friday, May 15, 2009
Obama, Notre Dame, and Abortion
Another update, a pertinent quote:
"A very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions!" - Nietzsche
***** Update *****
Cardial Francis George, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, claims the following:
"It is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation (to Obama)."
What does it mean to be a Catholic? Something like this?
"Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion. The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well."
By the way, that girl was 9 years old. There you go Notre Dame. Take your theological cues from Archbishop Sobrinho.
Good Catholics should recognize that their leaders are not divinely inspired, and that they need to be closely monitored. When those leaders misspeak, act politically, or have flawed ideas, it is up to Catholics everywhere to correct them. When good Catholics don't speak out, when they just assume their leadership couldn't possibly go astray, terrible things happen.
***** End Update *****
Obama's visit to the University of Notre Dame has riled up the endless controversy about abortion. I would like to take a moment to reiterate my own position:
As a member of the Regressive Party, I am against abortion, but for killing babies.
"A very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions!" - Nietzsche
***** Update *****
Cardial Francis George, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, claims the following:
"It is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation (to Obama)."
What does it mean to be a Catholic? Something like this?
"Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion. The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well."
By the way, that girl was 9 years old. There you go Notre Dame. Take your theological cues from Archbishop Sobrinho.
Good Catholics should recognize that their leaders are not divinely inspired, and that they need to be closely monitored. When those leaders misspeak, act politically, or have flawed ideas, it is up to Catholics everywhere to correct them. When good Catholics don't speak out, when they just assume their leadership couldn't possibly go astray, terrible things happen.
***** End Update *****
Obama's visit to the University of Notre Dame has riled up the endless controversy about abortion. I would like to take a moment to reiterate my own position:
As a member of the Regressive Party, I am against abortion, but for killing babies.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Quote for the day
"My guess is that criminal laws against marijuana use have become culturally untenable. At this point, if you want to maintain criminal laws against more dangerous drugs, you're better off conceding the legality of marijuana, lest the public lose respect for drug laws in general."
This is an extremely important point that people frequently miss. When children are told that little white lie, that all drugs are dangerous, they will find out the truth someday. Then they will wonder whether the whole thing is a lie. You can almost see the thought process:
"I was told that marijuana was dangerous. I tried it, and now I know it isn't very harmful. I wonder if the same applies to cocaine and heroin?"
Also, I know quite a few people who smoke marijuana on a regular basis. I could make a phone call and get marijuana in about 30 minutes if I wanted. Here is the kicker. If I wanted some cocaine or heroin, I could get it in about an hour. How? Because I'd call the person who could get me marijuana, and they could call their dealer who could almost certainly find them other drugs. In other words, marijuana is a gateway drug precisely because it is illegal. If I was given a challenge to find cocaine or heroin, with the stipulation that I couldn't use a pot-smoking intermediary, I wouldn't know where to begin.
This is an extremely important point that people frequently miss. When children are told that little white lie, that all drugs are dangerous, they will find out the truth someday. Then they will wonder whether the whole thing is a lie. You can almost see the thought process:
"I was told that marijuana was dangerous. I tried it, and now I know it isn't very harmful. I wonder if the same applies to cocaine and heroin?"
Also, I know quite a few people who smoke marijuana on a regular basis. I could make a phone call and get marijuana in about 30 minutes if I wanted. Here is the kicker. If I wanted some cocaine or heroin, I could get it in about an hour. How? Because I'd call the person who could get me marijuana, and they could call their dealer who could almost certainly find them other drugs. In other words, marijuana is a gateway drug precisely because it is illegal. If I was given a challenge to find cocaine or heroin, with the stipulation that I couldn't use a pot-smoking intermediary, I wouldn't know where to begin.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Objective Media
Update: I do realize that "blaming Bush" won't forever be a reason to ignore the GOP. When will I take the right seriously again? I'm not sure how to answer that, but I do know what will make me continue to ignore the right: Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Michael Steel, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and "Tea Party Protests". While the left wing also has its fringe extremists, the Democrats are not dominated by them.
-----------------------------
I was folding clothes tonight and so watched a little bit of cable news. I ended up flipping between two shows that might as well be mirror images. MSNBC's Countdown, with Keith Olbermann, features plenty of Bush bashing and Obama praising. Fox News has the OReilly Factor, which true to the network motto was going to extraordinary lengths to make Obama look bad. The thought occurred to me that a reasonable, objective person might almost be tempted to think that the current setup is fair. After all, the GOP has their channel - Fox News. Nobody is deceived by the "Fair and Balanced" slogan; Fox News was the last administration's Pravda. Meanwhile, the Democrats have their stations too - CNN and MSNBC. However, I actually don't think the current status quo is reasonable in the slightest.
Presumably (and whether or not this happens in reality is obviously a subject of considerable debate) the purpose of the media is to find out the objective truth, insofar as it is visible, and report on it. Furthermore, it is absurd to think that the careers of political leaders are entirely subjective. There is of course some subjectivity. Democrats will be tempted to see their leaders as great, Republicans will disagree, and vice versa. Bill Clinton is a striking example, adored by Democrats but generally not well liked among Republicans; Reagan being an opposite example. As I said, though, things are not entirely subjective. At some point, there is truth as to whether or not a political career was a success. I don't know of any reasonable Democrats who would call Reagan a failure. Its also relatively difficult to call Bill Clinton a failure (although one can attribute the successes in the 90s to other factors).
Here is the clincher, and the relevance to current issues. The Presidency of George W. Bush was an objective failure. A response will inevitably be made about Iraq, but to call Iraq a success is to completely ignore the original intentions, plans, and purposes that Bush had in mind when he invaded, not to mention the precarious nature of the fledgling democracy at the present time. Bush was a failure, in all but the most partisan of minds: so doesn't it make sense that the media is coming after him? If the purpose of the MSM is to report the truth, then when the media slammed Bush all of those years, it was doing its job - reporting the facts, not acting out of some sort of vindictive liberal bias.
Keep in mind, I am not saying that the media does NOT have a slight liberal bias. Overall, it probably does. But when the president was such a dismal failure for 8 years, instead of screaming liberal bias, conservatives should be seriously introspecting the party's decisions and positions and changing things accordingly. They've done nothing like that of course for the last 8 years, which is why the party is in an intellectually bankrupt, tantrum throwing, leaderless funk. On the other side of the coin, many major news networks have been friendly to Obama. Rightfully so; Barack Obama has barely been in office 100 days. That is not a liberal bias. That is called giving the winner of our democratic election the benefit of the doubt; perfectly appropriate. Interestingly enough, Fox News and a host of supporting conservative "intellectuals" were after Obama from day 1, and did not give him a fair chance. That is conservative bias. Towards the end of his term, many in the media wouldn't give Bush his due when he did manage to do things right; that was liberal bias.
At the end of the day, people should remember this. If the media was anti-Bush 99% of the time, and Bush failed 90% of the time, the problem isn't liberal bias.
-----------------------------
I was folding clothes tonight and so watched a little bit of cable news. I ended up flipping between two shows that might as well be mirror images. MSNBC's Countdown, with Keith Olbermann, features plenty of Bush bashing and Obama praising. Fox News has the OReilly Factor, which true to the network motto was going to extraordinary lengths to make Obama look bad. The thought occurred to me that a reasonable, objective person might almost be tempted to think that the current setup is fair. After all, the GOP has their channel - Fox News. Nobody is deceived by the "Fair and Balanced" slogan; Fox News was the last administration's Pravda. Meanwhile, the Democrats have their stations too - CNN and MSNBC. However, I actually don't think the current status quo is reasonable in the slightest.
Presumably (and whether or not this happens in reality is obviously a subject of considerable debate) the purpose of the media is to find out the objective truth, insofar as it is visible, and report on it. Furthermore, it is absurd to think that the careers of political leaders are entirely subjective. There is of course some subjectivity. Democrats will be tempted to see their leaders as great, Republicans will disagree, and vice versa. Bill Clinton is a striking example, adored by Democrats but generally not well liked among Republicans; Reagan being an opposite example. As I said, though, things are not entirely subjective. At some point, there is truth as to whether or not a political career was a success. I don't know of any reasonable Democrats who would call Reagan a failure. Its also relatively difficult to call Bill Clinton a failure (although one can attribute the successes in the 90s to other factors).
Here is the clincher, and the relevance to current issues. The Presidency of George W. Bush was an objective failure. A response will inevitably be made about Iraq, but to call Iraq a success is to completely ignore the original intentions, plans, and purposes that Bush had in mind when he invaded, not to mention the precarious nature of the fledgling democracy at the present time. Bush was a failure, in all but the most partisan of minds: so doesn't it make sense that the media is coming after him? If the purpose of the MSM is to report the truth, then when the media slammed Bush all of those years, it was doing its job - reporting the facts, not acting out of some sort of vindictive liberal bias.
Keep in mind, I am not saying that the media does NOT have a slight liberal bias. Overall, it probably does. But when the president was such a dismal failure for 8 years, instead of screaming liberal bias, conservatives should be seriously introspecting the party's decisions and positions and changing things accordingly. They've done nothing like that of course for the last 8 years, which is why the party is in an intellectually bankrupt, tantrum throwing, leaderless funk. On the other side of the coin, many major news networks have been friendly to Obama. Rightfully so; Barack Obama has barely been in office 100 days. That is not a liberal bias. That is called giving the winner of our democratic election the benefit of the doubt; perfectly appropriate. Interestingly enough, Fox News and a host of supporting conservative "intellectuals" were after Obama from day 1, and did not give him a fair chance. That is conservative bias. Towards the end of his term, many in the media wouldn't give Bush his due when he did manage to do things right; that was liberal bias.
At the end of the day, people should remember this. If the media was anti-Bush 99% of the time, and Bush failed 90% of the time, the problem isn't liberal bias.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Do you want to know why some people don't believe in evolution?
Update: came across this video which seems very relevant to this post. It is a quick (ten minute) video that discusses whether or not people are actually open minded.
----------------
Here is a short piece that explains why bad arguments persist.
...there’s a certain class of rhetoric I’m going to call the “one way hash” argument. Most modern cryptographic systems in wide use are based on a certain mathematical asymmetry: You can multiply a couple of large prime numbers much (much, much, much, much) more quickly than you can factor the product back into primes. Certain bad arguments work the same way—skim online debates between biologists and earnest ID afficionados armed with talking points if you want a few examples:
The talking point on one side is just complex enough that it’s both intelligible—even somewhat intuitive—to the layman and sounds as though it might qualify as some kind of insight. (If it seems too obvious, perhaps paradoxically, we’ll tend to assume everyone on the other side thought of it themselves and had some good reason to reject it.) The rebuttal, by contrast, may require explaining a whole series of preliminary concepts before it’s really possible to explain why the talking point is wrong. So the setup is “snappy, intuitively appealing argument without obvious problems” vs. “rebuttal I probably don’t have time to read, let alone analyze closely.”
A classic example of this theory in practice is the absurd 'watchmaker' argument. It goes as thus: a person stumbles across a watch, a fantastically complex device. Obviously, there was a creator of the watch; the pieces couldn't have accidentally happened together by chance. To a layperson, that sounds intuitive. Now any biologist will tell you that evolution doesn't work that way, but explaining precisely why to a layperson is going to take multiple steps and they'll probably have ceased paying attention by that point. And thus bad arguments persist, and there are people who don't believe in evolution. Going further, creationists can be neatly placed in one of three categories:
1. People who simply do not have the mental capacity to comprehend the theory of evolution. This would include small children and people with mental disorders.
2. People who are insufficiently educated about the concepts involved, or just don't care all that much. This is by far the largest percentage. They may be creationists because they were raised by creationists, or work with creationists, or because their friends are creationists. These people may also erroneously believe that they are forced to choose between God and evolution...in truth, evolution is easily reconciled with religious belief.
The curious thing is that you would have expected this group of people to have gradually diminished, just like I'm quite sure that many people still believed the world was flat hundreds of years ago. And yet, they persist. This is explained by a force that is opposing the spread of knowledge in this particular area, a force composed of people that are placed in my final category...
3. People that are willfully ignorant, irrational, and / or malicious. Some people have simply made up their minds, and no amount of evidence and reason could ever sway them otherwise. And there are others, about whom I have written written before, who deny the theory of evolution in order to create a false controversy and generate a false enemy. It boils down to power and influence.
I would also like to point out that I am absolutist about virtually nothing, save evolution. There are incredibly smart people who believe in god and can use logical argument to support their position...likewise, there are atheists who can do the opposite. Reasonable people can disagree about abortion rights, and there are powerful arguments on both sides. Reasonable people can disagree about global warming and what we should do about it.
Alternatively, there are no reasonable people that are actively arguing against evolution. Not once in my entire life have I read a reasonable, logical, and honest argument against evolution by someone who actually understands evolution. The people that attempt to make them are either uninformed or deliberately disingenuous. Denying evolution is like denying the Holocaust, except that there exists far more evidence for evolution than there is for the Holocaust.
----------------
Here is a short piece that explains why bad arguments persist.
...there’s a certain class of rhetoric I’m going to call the “one way hash” argument. Most modern cryptographic systems in wide use are based on a certain mathematical asymmetry: You can multiply a couple of large prime numbers much (much, much, much, much) more quickly than you can factor the product back into primes. Certain bad arguments work the same way—skim online debates between biologists and earnest ID afficionados armed with talking points if you want a few examples:
The talking point on one side is just complex enough that it’s both intelligible—even somewhat intuitive—to the layman and sounds as though it might qualify as some kind of insight. (If it seems too obvious, perhaps paradoxically, we’ll tend to assume everyone on the other side thought of it themselves and had some good reason to reject it.) The rebuttal, by contrast, may require explaining a whole series of preliminary concepts before it’s really possible to explain why the talking point is wrong. So the setup is “snappy, intuitively appealing argument without obvious problems” vs. “rebuttal I probably don’t have time to read, let alone analyze closely.”
A classic example of this theory in practice is the absurd 'watchmaker' argument. It goes as thus: a person stumbles across a watch, a fantastically complex device. Obviously, there was a creator of the watch; the pieces couldn't have accidentally happened together by chance. To a layperson, that sounds intuitive. Now any biologist will tell you that evolution doesn't work that way, but explaining precisely why to a layperson is going to take multiple steps and they'll probably have ceased paying attention by that point. And thus bad arguments persist, and there are people who don't believe in evolution. Going further, creationists can be neatly placed in one of three categories:
1. People who simply do not have the mental capacity to comprehend the theory of evolution. This would include small children and people with mental disorders.
2. People who are insufficiently educated about the concepts involved, or just don't care all that much. This is by far the largest percentage. They may be creationists because they were raised by creationists, or work with creationists, or because their friends are creationists. These people may also erroneously believe that they are forced to choose between God and evolution...in truth, evolution is easily reconciled with religious belief.
The curious thing is that you would have expected this group of people to have gradually diminished, just like I'm quite sure that many people still believed the world was flat hundreds of years ago. And yet, they persist. This is explained by a force that is opposing the spread of knowledge in this particular area, a force composed of people that are placed in my final category...
3. People that are willfully ignorant, irrational, and / or malicious. Some people have simply made up their minds, and no amount of evidence and reason could ever sway them otherwise. And there are others, about whom I have written written before, who deny the theory of evolution in order to create a false controversy and generate a false enemy. It boils down to power and influence.
I would also like to point out that I am absolutist about virtually nothing, save evolution. There are incredibly smart people who believe in god and can use logical argument to support their position...likewise, there are atheists who can do the opposite. Reasonable people can disagree about abortion rights, and there are powerful arguments on both sides. Reasonable people can disagree about global warming and what we should do about it.
Alternatively, there are no reasonable people that are actively arguing against evolution. Not once in my entire life have I read a reasonable, logical, and honest argument against evolution by someone who actually understands evolution. The people that attempt to make them are either uninformed or deliberately disingenuous. Denying evolution is like denying the Holocaust, except that there exists far more evidence for evolution than there is for the Holocaust.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Glenn Beck is NUTS!
Obama = fascism?
He is so scared for the future of our country!
The fact that this man has his own television show on a major news network has got to be one of the 7 signs of the impending apocalypse.
He is so scared for the future of our country!
The fact that this man has his own television show on a major news network has got to be one of the 7 signs of the impending apocalypse.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Papal Fail
Update 3/18/09: thanks to President Obama, our nation finally has some of its dignity back. We now officially endorse the U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.
While Jesus definitely would not have been ok with incarcerating, torturing, and executing homosexuals, this move is sure to anger "Christians" worldwide.
-------------------------------------------------------
Benedict has been an extremely disappointing pope thus far. Here are reasons why:
1. Benedict voted against a UN resolution that would have called for member countries to decriminalize homosexuality. This bill does not try to legalize gay marriage or anything like that. It simply asserts that we shouldn't treat homosexuals like criminals. We shouldn't throw homosexuals in jail, execute them, torture them, or anything like that. Sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it? Apparently not to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, the Taliban, and the Vatican.
2. Attempting to reinstate Holocaust deniers into the Catholic Church.
3. He quoted a centuries-old Crusader who described Islam as an abomination, but then wondered why a clash of civilizations continues to brew.
4. The newest one, and the greatest offense in my opinion. Regarding HIV transmission in Africa, Benedict said this: "you can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem."
Condoms obviously do reduce HIV transmission if used properly. One of the challenges facing public health agencies is education of the populace to use condoms consistently and effectively. Benedict has done a great job to undermine that education campaign by his ignorant and reckless words.
Meanwhile, abstinence-only education as touted by the Catholic Church will continue to be completely ineffective. No scientific study exists that can prove that abstinence-only education prevents people from having sexual intercourse. Funding that sort of education will only help the Church feel good about itself, but it won't actually help any people. This behavior is entirely consistent with the recent history of the church sweeping certain problems under the rug, of course. Protection of innocents is always secondary to politics. Always.
The one thing that has surprised me about Benedict, the politician, is that he mildly agrees with the theory of evolution. I predict that he rescinds his position on evolution in the next few years. That view just doesn't fit well with the rest of the ones he has. Its too logical and evidence-based.
While Jesus definitely would not have been ok with incarcerating, torturing, and executing homosexuals, this move is sure to anger "Christians" worldwide.
-------------------------------------------------------
Benedict has been an extremely disappointing pope thus far. Here are reasons why:
1. Benedict voted against a UN resolution that would have called for member countries to decriminalize homosexuality. This bill does not try to legalize gay marriage or anything like that. It simply asserts that we shouldn't treat homosexuals like criminals. We shouldn't throw homosexuals in jail, execute them, torture them, or anything like that. Sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it? Apparently not to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, the Taliban, and the Vatican.
2. Attempting to reinstate Holocaust deniers into the Catholic Church.
3. He quoted a centuries-old Crusader who described Islam as an abomination, but then wondered why a clash of civilizations continues to brew.
4. The newest one, and the greatest offense in my opinion. Regarding HIV transmission in Africa, Benedict said this: "you can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem."
Condoms obviously do reduce HIV transmission if used properly. One of the challenges facing public health agencies is education of the populace to use condoms consistently and effectively. Benedict has done a great job to undermine that education campaign by his ignorant and reckless words.
Meanwhile, abstinence-only education as touted by the Catholic Church will continue to be completely ineffective. No scientific study exists that can prove that abstinence-only education prevents people from having sexual intercourse. Funding that sort of education will only help the Church feel good about itself, but it won't actually help any people. This behavior is entirely consistent with the recent history of the church sweeping certain problems under the rug, of course. Protection of innocents is always secondary to politics. Always.
The one thing that has surprised me about Benedict, the politician, is that he mildly agrees with the theory of evolution. I predict that he rescinds his position on evolution in the next few years. That view just doesn't fit well with the rest of the ones he has. Its too logical and evidence-based.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Rush.
I've been highly critical of the Democrats in the past for appearing to be a bunch of spineless cowards who suffer from a nasty case of group-think. I am starting to think that maybe it is just something that happens to the party that is not in power. How many Republicans have tried to stand up to Rush Limbaugh? Each time, they come crawling back on their hands and knees, begging forgiveness like a worm. How embarrassing. Meanwhile, there are no new messages coming from the GOP. Just the same old messages, only this time shouted, by what appear to be more angry and intolerant masses of people.
Limbaugh's sudden elevation has been an interesting phenomenon. Evidence is beginning to surface that it is actually a political strategy, hatched in the upper eschelons of the Obama administration, with Rahm Emanuel (Obama's Chief of Staff). Barack Obama was able to win the general election because he appealed to moderates and independents. This is the group of voters, which includes yours truly, that the GOP needs to coax back if they are ever to regain power. So the plan is simple. Rush Limbaugh is extremely unpopular with centrist voters, so the Democrats deliberately elevated Limbaugh to be the face of the Republican Party.
The GOP has walked right into the trap. The fact that some politicians have tried to stand up to Rush, but were quickly put back in line, makes the party look weak and confirms peoples' suspicions that Rush controls the party. Limbaugh-in-charge strengthens the hand of the reactionary, anti-intellectual, gay bashing, evangelical, anti-evolution wing of the party. This was the sect embodied by Sarah Palin, not John McCain, and spoken for by evil men (Karl Rove), stupid men (Joe the Plumber), obnoxious she-men (Ann Coulter), and serially incorrect men (Bill Kristol). It was these people, not John McCain, that centrist voters categorically rejected in the elections of 2006 and 2008.
I can assure any conservatives that are reading this that centrist voters will not be moving back to the GOP until this wing of the Republican Party has been sidelined by a newer generation of cerebral, reasonable, respectful leaders. If someone in the GOP grows some balls and starts standing up to these fools soon, there may be time to salvage the party's reputation in time for a run at the 2012 election (David Petraeus/Mitch Daniels anyone?). If not, its going to be a long and well deserved vacation in the political wilderness.
As an American I don't particularly like to see the further disintegration of the GOP because I think a viable opposition party will help check the Dems' bad tendencies. That being said, it is striking how one man was able to completely change the Democratic Party. Obama and his team's political skills are beyond exceptional; the GOP continues to underestimate what they are up against. One day, its leaders will wake up to the fact that the opposition is no longer led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
*** Update ***
Obama currently running with 61-24 approval ratings for Independents. Meanwhile, even "moderate" GOP "intellectuals" have such an anti-Obama slant that they have even attempted to blame the faltering economy on Barack Obama. The absurdity of that is almost overwhelming.
Limbaugh's sudden elevation has been an interesting phenomenon. Evidence is beginning to surface that it is actually a political strategy, hatched in the upper eschelons of the Obama administration, with Rahm Emanuel (Obama's Chief of Staff). Barack Obama was able to win the general election because he appealed to moderates and independents. This is the group of voters, which includes yours truly, that the GOP needs to coax back if they are ever to regain power. So the plan is simple. Rush Limbaugh is extremely unpopular with centrist voters, so the Democrats deliberately elevated Limbaugh to be the face of the Republican Party.
The GOP has walked right into the trap. The fact that some politicians have tried to stand up to Rush, but were quickly put back in line, makes the party look weak and confirms peoples' suspicions that Rush controls the party. Limbaugh-in-charge strengthens the hand of the reactionary, anti-intellectual, gay bashing, evangelical, anti-evolution wing of the party. This was the sect embodied by Sarah Palin, not John McCain, and spoken for by evil men (Karl Rove), stupid men (Joe the Plumber), obnoxious she-men (Ann Coulter), and serially incorrect men (Bill Kristol). It was these people, not John McCain, that centrist voters categorically rejected in the elections of 2006 and 2008.
I can assure any conservatives that are reading this that centrist voters will not be moving back to the GOP until this wing of the Republican Party has been sidelined by a newer generation of cerebral, reasonable, respectful leaders. If someone in the GOP grows some balls and starts standing up to these fools soon, there may be time to salvage the party's reputation in time for a run at the 2012 election (David Petraeus/Mitch Daniels anyone?). If not, its going to be a long and well deserved vacation in the political wilderness.
As an American I don't particularly like to see the further disintegration of the GOP because I think a viable opposition party will help check the Dems' bad tendencies. That being said, it is striking how one man was able to completely change the Democratic Party. Obama and his team's political skills are beyond exceptional; the GOP continues to underestimate what they are up against. One day, its leaders will wake up to the fact that the opposition is no longer led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
*** Update ***
Obama currently running with 61-24 approval ratings for Independents. Meanwhile, even "moderate" GOP "intellectuals" have such an anti-Obama slant that they have even attempted to blame the faltering economy on Barack Obama. The absurdity of that is almost overwhelming.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
I love how the GOP is suddenly so concerned
about fiscal discipline. Where was this sentiment for the last 8 years? What a bunch of frauds.
Friday, January 16, 2009
A contribution to the violence
In geopolitics and history, truth is a matter of perception, which is itself subject to biases. So what happens when those making judgments, the international community, are pulling for one side in a conflict? Objectivity flies out the window, and in its place is an artificial bar being set for perception of victory.
In the conflict with Israel in the summer of 2006, Hezbollah lost 50% of its fighting men. There was billions of dollars in damage to Lebanese infrastructure, and over a thousand dead civilians. Two years later, Hezbollah is going to great lengths to assure Israel that it does not intend to start another fight - an odd thing for a victor to do. And yet, Hezbollah "won" the war against Israel in 2006. The bar of victory set by the international community was merely: survival. Hezbollah did accomplish as much.
Fair enough. However, just because the rules of the game are being changed does not mean the players will no longer want to win. Israel and Hamas have insisted on fighting, and each will attempt to reach the criteria that have been arbitrarily set as being required for victory. Hamas needs to survive, and survival depends on deterring Israeli attack. Thus Hamas will hide among civilians as much as it can, hoping to avoid Israeli firepower. We are seeing a great many civilian casualties as a result. Israel on the other hand needs to completely and systematically crush the entire network of Hamas to be recognized as victorious by the international community. Accomplishing such a lofty objective would necessarily require a ground invasion, and would inevitably result in a lot of casualties among innocents.
We in the international community have changed the rules in this conflict; we cannot be surprised to see the combatants playing by them. The Israeli onslaught has been so exceptionally vicious (or "disproportionate") because we've set the bar of victory so high that anything less would inevitably result in an Israeli defeat.
P.S. This has nothing to do with whether or not Israel *should* be doing what it is doing. A military response to provocation by Hamas may be morally justified, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is wise. The Soviet Union 'provoked' the US during the Cold War (and vice versa). Pakistani militants certainly have provoked India lately, but should India think lightly of attacking an already unstable nuclear-armed country of 180 million people? Of course not. The question we need to be asking is whether or not this offensive is good for Israel's long-term security objectives. Unless there is something big that the Israelis know that I don't, I think the answer will prove to be no. Although, my opinion may be biased by the fact that I think Ehud Olmert is stupid and incompetent.
In the conflict with Israel in the summer of 2006, Hezbollah lost 50% of its fighting men. There was billions of dollars in damage to Lebanese infrastructure, and over a thousand dead civilians. Two years later, Hezbollah is going to great lengths to assure Israel that it does not intend to start another fight - an odd thing for a victor to do. And yet, Hezbollah "won" the war against Israel in 2006. The bar of victory set by the international community was merely: survival. Hezbollah did accomplish as much.
Fair enough. However, just because the rules of the game are being changed does not mean the players will no longer want to win. Israel and Hamas have insisted on fighting, and each will attempt to reach the criteria that have been arbitrarily set as being required for victory. Hamas needs to survive, and survival depends on deterring Israeli attack. Thus Hamas will hide among civilians as much as it can, hoping to avoid Israeli firepower. We are seeing a great many civilian casualties as a result. Israel on the other hand needs to completely and systematically crush the entire network of Hamas to be recognized as victorious by the international community. Accomplishing such a lofty objective would necessarily require a ground invasion, and would inevitably result in a lot of casualties among innocents.
We in the international community have changed the rules in this conflict; we cannot be surprised to see the combatants playing by them. The Israeli onslaught has been so exceptionally vicious (or "disproportionate") because we've set the bar of victory so high that anything less would inevitably result in an Israeli defeat.
P.S. This has nothing to do with whether or not Israel *should* be doing what it is doing. A military response to provocation by Hamas may be morally justified, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is wise. The Soviet Union 'provoked' the US during the Cold War (and vice versa). Pakistani militants certainly have provoked India lately, but should India think lightly of attacking an already unstable nuclear-armed country of 180 million people? Of course not. The question we need to be asking is whether or not this offensive is good for Israel's long-term security objectives. Unless there is something big that the Israelis know that I don't, I think the answer will prove to be no. Although, my opinion may be biased by the fact that I think Ehud Olmert is stupid and incompetent.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
What did I think two years ago?
In the summer of 2006, Israel went to war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. This event was shortly after the Indian train bombings that killed so many. Here was what I was thinking then.
Almost three years later we see a similar situation. India was just attacked by Pakistani-based terrorists and again their response was reserved. Israel was attacked with rockets by a non-state actor (Hamas instead of Hezbollah) and again they have escalated the situation.
One interesting event happened today, though. Someone, a few rogue men in Lebanon perhaps, launched rockets at Israel from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah went to extra effort to assure the Israelis that it was not them who shot at Israel. Seems odd for the party that "won" in 2006 to sound so conciliatory. At any rate, Hezbollah has rearmed and has more rockets now in southern Lebanon than they did before. The international community demanded a cease-fire then, but the problem festers to this day.
I am not sure what the Israeli agenda is right now, nor whether or not they will accomplish it. My feelings are different than they were in 2006. Then, I thought the Israeli action was foolish, because Hezbollah did not want war but Israel over-reacted and forced them into one. It would have been like the US going to war with the Soviets over a small cold war skirmish - not worth it. The situation today is completely different. Hamas wants war, as do the people who elected them. The Israelis want war too. So fine, let them have it. Solving their problems through violence is a novel approach that hasn't been tried before, after all. /sarcasm
----------------------- Update -----------------
I really hope the Israelis have an important strategic objective in mind. Something that isn't readily obvious to the amateur observer. Otherwise they're going to look bad when this is over. Their current leadership doesn't have my confidence, for the record. They screwed up in 2006 and the smart money says they're screwing up now. Who knows, though. Maybe they know something we don't.
Almost three years later we see a similar situation. India was just attacked by Pakistani-based terrorists and again their response was reserved. Israel was attacked with rockets by a non-state actor (Hamas instead of Hezbollah) and again they have escalated the situation.
One interesting event happened today, though. Someone, a few rogue men in Lebanon perhaps, launched rockets at Israel from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah went to extra effort to assure the Israelis that it was not them who shot at Israel. Seems odd for the party that "won" in 2006 to sound so conciliatory. At any rate, Hezbollah has rearmed and has more rockets now in southern Lebanon than they did before. The international community demanded a cease-fire then, but the problem festers to this day.
I am not sure what the Israeli agenda is right now, nor whether or not they will accomplish it. My feelings are different than they were in 2006. Then, I thought the Israeli action was foolish, because Hezbollah did not want war but Israel over-reacted and forced them into one. It would have been like the US going to war with the Soviets over a small cold war skirmish - not worth it. The situation today is completely different. Hamas wants war, as do the people who elected them. The Israelis want war too. So fine, let them have it. Solving their problems through violence is a novel approach that hasn't been tried before, after all. /sarcasm
----------------------- Update -----------------
I really hope the Israelis have an important strategic objective in mind. Something that isn't readily obvious to the amateur observer. Otherwise they're going to look bad when this is over. Their current leadership doesn't have my confidence, for the record. They screwed up in 2006 and the smart money says they're screwing up now. Who knows, though. Maybe they know something we don't.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Israel and Obama
Anyone wondering why the Israelis are going all-out right now: think about it. Obama is going to be inaugurated in a couple of weeks. It is unimaginable to think that the Israelis have not OK'd this operation in Gaza with the President-elect. I guarantee Obama's message to the Israelis was this: do what you will while Bush is still in office, but this shit better be wrapped up by the time I'm inaugurated.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Yes, this is the institution that should lead world affairs
UN split on homosexual decriminalization
Keep in mind, this isn't a debate over gay marriage or civil unions. This bill simply would have asserted that one should not be punished for being a homosexual. Being hung in Iran, or stoned to death in Saudi Arabia, for the crime of being a homosexual.
Let us not forget that, 140 years ago, half of the states of this nation fought to defend slavery.
And heres the kicker: the US didn't sign the bill either. Our excuse was a technicality, but it sucked all the same. Apparently the US isn't the institution that should lead world affairs, either (and we certainly are not under Bush; hence my vote for Obama*).
If one was serious about wanting to win the war on terrorism, they'd see the folly of this. The best way to undermine the radical extremism that is endemic in many of these nations is to promote reform from within. We should be siding with the disenfranchised, not supporting the bullies.
*Obama has already thrown gays under the bus. They make a great sacrificial lamb, don't they? This does not actually surprise me all that much, though. Obama isn't the left winger that his base hopes and the right fears. I've always thought that he is a centrist who is masquerading as a leftist. His post election actions have confirmed my suspicion, to the dismay of the left-wingers.
That doesn't mean I approve of stoking social conservatives with an anti-gay preacher, but I obviously approve of the centrist cabinet picks, Gates for sec def, pardoning Lieberman, et cetera. Bill Clinton threw homosexuals under the bus too. Seems to be standard operating procedure, doesn't it?
Keep in mind, this isn't a debate over gay marriage or civil unions. This bill simply would have asserted that one should not be punished for being a homosexual. Being hung in Iran, or stoned to death in Saudi Arabia, for the crime of being a homosexual.
Let us not forget that, 140 years ago, half of the states of this nation fought to defend slavery.
And heres the kicker: the US didn't sign the bill either. Our excuse was a technicality, but it sucked all the same. Apparently the US isn't the institution that should lead world affairs, either (and we certainly are not under Bush; hence my vote for Obama*).
If one was serious about wanting to win the war on terrorism, they'd see the folly of this. The best way to undermine the radical extremism that is endemic in many of these nations is to promote reform from within. We should be siding with the disenfranchised, not supporting the bullies.
*Obama has already thrown gays under the bus. They make a great sacrificial lamb, don't they? This does not actually surprise me all that much, though. Obama isn't the left winger that his base hopes and the right fears. I've always thought that he is a centrist who is masquerading as a leftist. His post election actions have confirmed my suspicion, to the dismay of the left-wingers.
That doesn't mean I approve of stoking social conservatives with an anti-gay preacher, but I obviously approve of the centrist cabinet picks, Gates for sec def, pardoning Lieberman, et cetera. Bill Clinton threw homosexuals under the bus too. Seems to be standard operating procedure, doesn't it?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Isn't it frustrating when the scientific facts don't support the political agenda?
One might reflexively assume that this article is a snipe at the right, but in fact they would be wrong. Interesting news about the terrible global warming we've been experiencing lately. We've been told lately that this last year was the hottest on record; that the situation is crucial. Turns out, the bureaucracy that came up with those numbers is wrong. Interestingly, that bureaucracy is headed by Al Gore's friend.
I've written about the global warming situation before; specifically, I gave ten reasons why I don't care. I guess we can file this latest news under point 6 in my diatribe. Actually, I think the more interesting thing is the recent decline in sun spots that will correspond with decreases in solar output. Historically, such decreases in activity were followed by ice ages. Wouldn't it be ironic if man-made global warming was staving off a new ice age?
I've always thought that Al Gore was a bit of a self-serving fraud. Its hard not to be suspicious of someone who speaks so strongly of knowing the truth about something as unpredictable as climatology. As I've pointed out in the past: weathermen cannot accurately predict the weather 48 hours in advance. And we are to believe they know what will happen ten, one hundred years from now?
Let me clarify. It is not foolish to think that massive production of greenhouse gases by humans would cause increased temperatures (it would be absurd to believe otherwise; to deny thermodynamics). And, it may be prudent to limit pollution as much as reasonably possible. What is foolish, however, is to believe with such conviction that immediate catastrophe will result if we don't stop global warming now.
I've written about the global warming situation before; specifically, I gave ten reasons why I don't care. I guess we can file this latest news under point 6 in my diatribe. Actually, I think the more interesting thing is the recent decline in sun spots that will correspond with decreases in solar output. Historically, such decreases in activity were followed by ice ages. Wouldn't it be ironic if man-made global warming was staving off a new ice age?
I've always thought that Al Gore was a bit of a self-serving fraud. Its hard not to be suspicious of someone who speaks so strongly of knowing the truth about something as unpredictable as climatology. As I've pointed out in the past: weathermen cannot accurately predict the weather 48 hours in advance. And we are to believe they know what will happen ten, one hundred years from now?
Let me clarify. It is not foolish to think that massive production of greenhouse gases by humans would cause increased temperatures (it would be absurd to believe otherwise; to deny thermodynamics). And, it may be prudent to limit pollution as much as reasonably possible. What is foolish, however, is to believe with such conviction that immediate catastrophe will result if we don't stop global warming now.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Thanks, Sarah
The US Secret Service blames Sarah Palin for a dramatic increase in death threats against Obama. The increase coincided exactly when Palin started her nastiest line of attack in the 2008 Campaign. She would question Obama's patriotism, or say "we don't know who the real Barack Obama is". A subtle suggestion that he is somehow evil, or a traitor.
We saw her say these things, and her crowd would whip up into a hateful frenzied mob. We heard shouts of "hes a terrorist" and "kill him", and we saw her say nothing. We saw no condemnation of these events from the right. No repudiation of such hate from Palin's base, the evangelicals and "values voters" (Jesus apparently hates liberals). The silence was, and continues to be, deafening.
Ironic that I'm writing this on the seventieth anniversary of the Kristallnacht. That was another time in history when hateful people on the fringes of a movement said and did things while their more moderate colleagues watched in silence. When "good" men and women did nothing, said nothing.
We saw her say these things, and her crowd would whip up into a hateful frenzied mob. We heard shouts of "hes a terrorist" and "kill him", and we saw her say nothing. We saw no condemnation of these events from the right. No repudiation of such hate from Palin's base, the evangelicals and "values voters" (Jesus apparently hates liberals). The silence was, and continues to be, deafening.
Ironic that I'm writing this on the seventieth anniversary of the Kristallnacht. That was another time in history when hateful people on the fringes of a movement said and did things while their more moderate colleagues watched in silence. When "good" men and women did nothing, said nothing.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
To drive this point home
Appalachia, the stronghold of Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primaries:
Meanwhile, the Daily Kos reports that only 22% of the counties in the nation voted *more* Republican.
Next election, I won't bother with reading about the candidates. I'll just look to see who the people in Appalachia are supporting, and do the opposite.
Meanwhile, the Daily Kos reports that only 22% of the counties in the nation voted *more* Republican.
Next election, I won't bother with reading about the candidates. I'll just look to see who the people in Appalachia are supporting, and do the opposite.
The future of the GOP
Win back the youth vote:
"This picture from Andrew Gelman is striking. It suggests that the real difference between the past two elections and this one was the youth vote. In this election, the young left the Republican party in droves.
Why? I am not enough of a political scientist to be sure, but conversations I have had with some Harvard undergrads recently have led me to a conjecture: It was largely noneconomic issues. These particular students told me they preferred the lower tax, more limited government, freer trade views of McCain, but they were voting for Obama on the basis of foreign policy and especially social issues like abortion. The choice of a social conservative like Palin as veep really turned them off McCain.
So what does the Republican Party need to do to get the youth vote back? If the Harvard students are typical (and perhaps they are not, as Harvard students are hardly a random sample), the party needs to scale back its social conservatism. Put simply, it needs to become a party for moderate and mainstream libertarians. The actual Libertarian Party is far too extreme in its views to attract these students. And it is too much of a strange fringe group. These students are, after all, part of the establishment. But a reformed Republican Party could, I think, win them back.
Can the Republican Party move move in this direction without losing much of its base? I have no idea, but that seems to be the challenge ahead."
"This picture from Andrew Gelman is striking. It suggests that the real difference between the past two elections and this one was the youth vote. In this election, the young left the Republican party in droves.
Why? I am not enough of a political scientist to be sure, but conversations I have had with some Harvard undergrads recently have led me to a conjecture: It was largely noneconomic issues. These particular students told me they preferred the lower tax, more limited government, freer trade views of McCain, but they were voting for Obama on the basis of foreign policy and especially social issues like abortion. The choice of a social conservative like Palin as veep really turned them off McCain.
So what does the Republican Party need to do to get the youth vote back? If the Harvard students are typical (and perhaps they are not, as Harvard students are hardly a random sample), the party needs to scale back its social conservatism. Put simply, it needs to become a party for moderate and mainstream libertarians. The actual Libertarian Party is far too extreme in its views to attract these students. And it is too much of a strange fringe group. These students are, after all, part of the establishment. But a reformed Republican Party could, I think, win them back.
Can the Republican Party move move in this direction without losing much of its base? I have no idea, but that seems to be the challenge ahead."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)