Where I get to decide what's interesting.
Three songs:
1) "Forgot About Dre." So fuck ya'll all of ya'll \ If ya'll don't like me blow me \ Ya'll are gonna keep fuckin around wit me \ And turn me back to the old me. Never underestimate Eminem. Never forget about Dre, ever.
2) Hoobastank - The Reason. This song is about me, as far as I can tell.
3) The Calling - Where Ever You Will Go. So today I figured out what this song is about. The singer is talking about if he were to die, how the love of his life would feel and how he would still follow her to the ends of the earth and beyond.
Dr. Dre - Forgot About Dre (feat. Eminem)
[Dr Dre]
Ya'll know me still the same ol' G
But I been low key
Hated on by most these niggas
Wit no cheese, no deals and no G's, no wheels and no keys
No boats, no snowmobiles and no ski's
Mad at me cause
I can finally afford to provide my family wit groceries
Got a crib wit a studio and it's all full of tracks
To add to the wall full of plaques
Hangin up in the office in back of my house like trophies
But ya'll think I'm gonna let my dough freeze
Ho Please
You better bow down on both knees
Who you think taught you to smoke trees
Who you think brought you the o' G's
Eazy-E's Ice Cube's and D.O.C's and Snoop D O double G's
And a group that said muthafuck the police
Gave you a tape full of dope beats
To bump when stroll through in you hood
And when your album sales wasn't doin too good
Who's the doc that he told you to go see
Ya'll better listen up closely
All you niggas that said that I turned pop
Or the Firm flop
ya'll are the reason Dre ain't been getting no sleep
So fuck ya'll all of ya'll
If ya'll don't like me blow me
Ya'll are gonna keep fuckin around wit me
And turn me back to the old me
[chorus x2 - Eminem]
Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say
But nothin comes out when they move they lips
Just a buncha gibberish
And muthafuckas act like they forgot about Dre
[Eminem]
So what do you say to somebody you hate
Or anybody tryna bring trouble your way
Wanna resolve things in a bloodier way
Just study your tape of NWA.
One day I was walkin by
Wit a walkmen on
When I caught a guy givin me an awkward eye
And strangled him off in the parkin lot wit his Karl Kani
I don't give a fuck if it's dark or not
I'm harder than me tryna park a Dodge
But I'm drunk as fuck
Right next to a humungous truck in a two car garage
Hoppin out wit two broken legs tryna walk it off
Fuck you too bitch call the cops
I'ma kill you and them loud ass muthafuckin barkin dogs
And when the cops came through
Me and Dre stood next to a burnt down house
Wit a can full of gas and a hand full of matches
And still weren't found out
From here on out it's the Chronic 2
Startin today and tomorrows the new
And I'm still loco enough
To choke you to death wit a Charleston chew
[Record scratch]
Slim shady hotter then a set of twin babies
In a Mercedes Benz wit the windows up
And the temp goes up to the mid 80's
Callin men ladies
Sorry Doc but I been crazy
There is no way that you can save me
It's ok go with him Hailey
[chorus x2]
[Dr Dre]
If it was up to me
You muthafuckas would stop comin up to me
Wit your hands out lookin up to me
Like you want somethin free
When my last cd was out you wasn't bumpin me
But now that I got this little company
Everybody wanna come to me like it was some disease
But you won't get a crumb from me
Cause I'm from the streets of Compton
I told em all
All them little gangstas
Who you think helped mold 'em all
Now you wanna run around and talk about guns
Like I ain't got none
What you think I sold 'em all
Cause I stay well off
Now all I get is hate mail all day sayin Dre fell off
What cause I been in the lab wit a pen and a pad
Tryna get this damn label off
I ain't havin that
This is the millenium of Aftermath
It ain't gonna be nothin after that
So give me one more platinum plaque and fuck rap
You can have it back
So where's all the mad rappers at
It's like a jungle in this habitat
But all you savage cats
Knew that I was strapped wit gats
When you were cuddled wit cabbage patch
[Chorus x3]
Hoobastank - The Reason
I'm not a perfect person
As many things I wish I didn't do
But I continue learning
I never meant to do those things to you
And so I have to say before I go
That I just want you to know
I've found a reason for me
To change who I used to be
A reason to start over new
and the reason is you
I'm sorry that I hurt you
It's something I must live with everyday
And all the pain I put you through
I wish that I could take it all away
And be the one who catches all your tears
Thats why i need you to hear
I've found a resaon for me
To change who I used to be
A reason to start over new
and the reason is You [x4]
I'm not a perfect person
I never meant to do those things to you
And so I have to say before I go
That I just want you to know
I've found a reason for me
To change who I used to be
A reason to start over new
and the reason is you
I've found a reason to show
A side of me you didn't know
A reason for all that I do
And the reason is you
The Calling - Where Ever You Will Go
So lately, been wondering
Who will be there to take my place
When I'm gone you'll need love to light the shadows on your face
If a great wave shall fall and fall upon us all
Then between the sand and stone, could you make it on your own
If I could, then I would,
I'll go wherever you will go
Way up high or down low, I'll go wherever you will go
And maybe, I'll find out
A way to make it back someday
To watch you, to guide you, through the darkest of your days
If a great wave shall fall and fall upon us all
Then I hope there's someone out there
Who can bring me back to you
Chorus
Run away with my heart
Run away with my hope
Run away with my love
I know now, just quite how,
My life and love may still go on
In your heart, in your mind, I'll stay with you for all of time
Here are some definitions from dictionary.com for the world unilateral:
There are seven definitions there, and they have a pretty consistent them. They basically all relate to only one side. I particularly like number 2, Performed or undertaken by only one side: unilateral disarmament.
Why do I care what unilateral means, you might ask? I feel I am continually bombarded with things in the news or from people I know explicitly saying or otherwise implying that the US acted unilaterally in attacking Iraq. Clearly this is not correct. Let's start by taking unilateral in a very technical sense and expand it from there. Was the US attack unilateral in a technical sense? No. South Korean soldiers and specialists are helping with the war in and subsequent reconstruction of Iraq. Does South Korea not count as a country? Last time I checked it was a real country. Already this is sufficient to prove that what the US did was not "unilateral." Let's continue to make the definition of unilateral less and less precise, though, and see if we can somehow make the word apply to what the US did.
What if the people who throw the word unilateral around really mean very few countries supported the US or that the countries that supported the US aren't important. Let's take the 2nd possibility first. Maybe they mean the countries that supported the US aren't significant. Perhaps they're just small countries which don't matter. This whole idea is pretty weak, because the UN itself is an organization which gives a disproportionately large voice to countries with small economies, small populations, and small military importance. Even if we accept the premise that some countries are somehow less important than others, let's look at the countries that did support the US position and see if we can pass them off as insignificant.
More to come.
From MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer (3/15/04)
Speaking to a meeting of the 263,000-member International Association of Firefighters, which has endorsed Kerry, the Democrat faulted Bush for using the threat of terrorism as "a political prop" to advance his re-election campaign without ensuring a safer nation.
"America doesn't need leaders who play politics with 9-11 or see the war on terror as just another campaign issue," Kerry said. "Our nation's safety is too important."
The senator complained that Bush resisted creation of the Department of Homeland Security and has failed to provide firefighters and other first responders with enough financial resources.
"When it comes to protecting America from terrorism, this administration is big on bluster and short on action," said Kerry. "As we saw again last week in Spain — real action is what is needed."
*****
In Spain, Al Qaeda blew up some trains, which resulted in the population blaming their president for getting them involved in Iraq. In the claim of responsibility, Al Qaeda said they blew up the trains because Spain helped the US in Iraq. It is commonly believed Aznar would have won re-election if not for these bombings which happened a few days before the election. So, Al Qaeda's action caused a real change in Spain. So what is Senator Kerry's point, exactly?
Whereas Senator Kerry frequently criticizes the President about the war on terror making public speeches, the President tries to avert terrorism and bring down the terrorist networks. Agree or disagree with it, but the President talks about his strategy for improving the world. Who's using it as a campaign issue? Sen. Kerry is doing it at least as much as anyone else on the planet. President Bush is the only person in the campaign who has ever really fought the war on terror. Senator Kerry opposed much of what was done.
Failed to provide first responders with resources??? Kerry voted against money for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, who get shot at by Al Qaeda people every day.
He criticizes the President for not getting money to the firefighters, then he criticizes the President for not originally supporting the part of the government responsible for doing so. He wants more resources to be spent on firefighters, but he criticizes the size of the budget deficit. What is his point? Does he have any point except, "whatever President Bush does is bad?"
Also, for all those people who continually claim the war in Iraq was somehow unjustified: forget the fact that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a genocidal mania, started wars with his neighbors, has tried to build and used WMD in the past, tried to assassinate the former US president, offers rewards to Palestinian suicide bombers' families, etc... Forget all those reasons. Al Qaeda clearly thinks that the war in Iraq hurt it - that's why it tries to get people elected in Spain who will pull Spanish troops out of Iraq. So once again, why was it bad to invade Iraq? Al Qaeda even admits they don't like it; it was bad for them. They want US troops out of there. But so does Senator Kerry. He didn't want to pay for the money to keep them there or to rebuild Iraq. He is apparently happy that political change has happened in Spain, and he appears to be indicating that the "action" that occurred in Spain was good.
I find contemporary politics to be so base and dirty. It makes me feel sick.
In Heat, Al Pacino says, "I say what I mean, and I mean what I say." These are profound words. I am good at saying what I mean. I have not, historically, been good at meaning what I say, but I'm getting better.
I'm going to write about responsibility.
There are way too many people in the world who are selfish and just do whatever satisfies them at the moment. Let's say I agree to go somewhere with a friend, then another opportunity that I want to participate in even more comes along. Since I already committed to the first one, I should stick with the first one. Or at the very least I should call up my friend and tell them, "man I really want to go to this other thing." If it's your friend they're going to understand, anyway, and encourage you to take the 2nd opportunity. That's how it should work.
What most people seem to do, though, is agree to go out with the friend, then wait as long as possible to see if Event B is on. If so, they cancel at the last minute with a lame excuse or just don't show up at all. This is bad. By doing this, a person is saying they are more important than their friend. They would rather ruin their friend's plans for the night, at the last minute, than possibly have to settle for their 2nd choice activity on a Saturday night. This is selfishness. It's also a lack of responsibility.
Lots of people do this, but I have noticed the problem more with women than men, especially pretty, popular women. I think they rarely face any consequences for doing this. I am part of the problem, too. If a hot girl cancels a date with me at the last minute, then wants to go out another day, I'm still going to go out with her, even if her reason for canceling was lame. I'm going to try to stop letting girls I like get away with so much. All it does is give them a skewed idea of what it means to be a good and decent person. Guys will always be there for them no matter how crappy they treat them sometimes. Guys, stop being such tools.
Like I said, I'm going to try to be different. I'm not going to take any crap from spoiled brat girls. If I miss out on my chances with one of them, so be it. I don't want a girl that treats people like that, and somebody has got to treat them fairly instead of giving them whatever they want because they're good looking.
From the December 6th-12th Economist: "Of the 800,000 people reckoned by the Urban Institute to be homeless on any one day in America, more than 71,000 are thought to be in the Bay Area, and of these 7,000 live on the streets in San Francisco. But local counters think their city's figure could be twice that amount."
I think I define arrogance in a little different way than a lot of other people do. I'll give you an example: Let's say John is talking about something that matters to Sally. Maybe in this case it's European culture. John is expressing a pretty strong opinion. Maybe John is saying that anti-Semitism is on the rise in France and Belgium. He's trying to explain this, citing various sources that support it and talking about how he notices it in Le Monde and perhaps he's also coming across pretty strongly in his feelings that this anti-Semitism is a very negative thing and a bad sign for France and Belgium. Even though Sally doesn't say she disagrees with him, John keeps pressing the issue because he doesn't really feel like what he's saying is resonating with Sally.
Now, let's say that Sally listens patiently, not really agreeing with John. In fact let's say she disagrees. But she doesn't say very much about what she thinks, and it isn't really clear that she disagrees. Even though she doesn't say it directly, John can tell from her expressions and body language that Sally isn't feeling him. After the conversation she goes away thinking John is a little loony and that he really doesn't understand what's going on with the Jews in Western Europe at all. Because she thinks John is just an overly argumentative and aggressive zealot, she decides it's not worth her time to give it a second thought. She feels like there is some tension now between John and herself, because he seemed frustrated with her. She thinks this is dumb and decides she doesn't want to get into conversations with John about serious topics anymore, unless they already agree in the first place.
Now in stark contrast to Sally lies John's next victim, Chris. Like Sally, Chris disagrees with John. Unlike Sally, he lets his feelings be known. He says John's ideas are totally wrong and that John doesn't understand the culture in France. He explains how John is misinterpreting the articles in Le Monde. John still thinks he's right. Chris knows John is wrong. The argument rages on for four hours, with each participant steadily losing patience with the other. Finally, fed up with the whole encounter, Chris tells John, "you're just never going to get it. You just don't know enough about the world. If you knew what I knew, you would understand."
Who's more arrogant? Sally or Chris?
There is no way I could say what I want to say better than Dr. Jung did in Psychology and Religion,
"It is normal for a man to resist his anima because she represents, as I said before, the unconscious with all those tendencies and contents hitherto excluded from conscious life. They were excluded for a number of real and apparent reasons. Some are suppressed and some are repressed. As a rule those tendencies that represent the amount of antisocial elements in man's psychical structure--what I call the "statistical criminal" in everybody--are suppressed, that is, consciously and deliberately disposed of. But tendencies that are merely repressed are usually only doubtful in character. They are not indubitably antisocial, but are rather unconventional and socially awkward. The reason why one represses them is equally doubtful. Some people repress them from sheer cowardice, others from a merely conventional morality, and others again from the motive of respectability. Repression is a sort of half-conscious and half-hearted letting go of things, a dropping of hot cakes or a reviling of grapes which hang too high, or a looking the other way in order not to become conscious of one's desires. Freud has discovered repression as one of the main mechanisms in the making of a neurosis. Suppression amounts to a conscious moral choice, but repression is a rather immoral "penchant" for getting rid of disagreeable decisions. Suppression may cause worry, conflict and suffering, but never causes a neurosis of one of the usual patterns. Neurosis is a substitute for legitimate suffering.
If one excludes the "statistical criminal," there remains the vast domain of inferior qualities and of primitive tendencies which belong to the psychical structure of a man who is less ideal and more primitive than we should like to be. We have certain ideas as to how a civilized or educated or moral being should live and we occasionally do our best to fulfill these ambitious expectations. But as nature has not bestowed the same blessings upon each of her children, some are more, and others less, gifted. Thus there are people who can just afford to live properly and respectably, that is, no manifest flaw is discoverable. They either commit minor sins, if they sin at all, or their sins are concealed even to their consciousness. One is rather lenient with sinners unconscious of their sins. Although the law occasionally punishes unconsciousness, the practice of confession in the church is concerned only with deeds which you yourself connect with a feeling of sinfulness. But nature is not at all lenient with unconscious sinners. She punishes them just as severely as if they have committed a conscious offense. Thus we find, as the pious old Drummond once observed, that it is highly moral people, unaware of their other side, who develop peculiar irritability and hellish moods which make them insupportable to their relatives. The fame of saintliness may be far reaching, but to live with a saint might cause an inferiority complex or even a wild outburst of immorality in individuals less morally gifted. Morality seems to be a gift like intelligence. You cannot pump it into a system where it is not indigenous, though you may spoil it.
Unfortunately there is no doubt about the fact that man is, as a whole, less good that he imagines himself or wants to be. Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. If an inferiority is conscious, one always has a chance to correct it. Furthermore, it is constantly in contact with other interests, so that it is steadily subjected to modifications. But if it is repressed and isolated from consciousness, it never gets corrected. It is, moreover, liable to burst forth in a moment of unawareness. At all events, it forms a conscious snag, blocking the most well-meant attempts."
Jung points out the role of confession in partly bringing to the conscious mind those unconscious sins, but shows the limitations of confession, as well. I have been intending to write about the church pedophilia problem for over a year, but couldn't figure out what I wanted to say. I didn't think of this entry in those terms until just now. The idea of the outburst of immorality in the face of an inferiority complex about those with more moral gifts is interesting. The infallible Jesus is the embodiment of this morally gifted consciousness. Might it not be hard to feel inferior as one nears Christ? Is that why so many shy away nowadays?
I get bothered when something seems straightforward or obvious or other people seem to get it, but I don't understand. The Golden Rule always caused this problem for me. For the remainder of this rant, the Golden Rule shall be defined (paraphrased) as follows: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The problem I had with this was that it seemed very selfish. It basically assumes that other people want to be treated the way you do. Why would you assume that in someone else's position, they would want to be treated the way you would? That would, of course, often be true. JFK invoked the Golden Rule when talking about racism in the US. It makes sense in that you should treat people with respect, as you would want to be treated. However, what about the differences between males and females in a relationship? Maybe you have angered your girlfriend, and you realize it, so you put yourself in her shoes and say, "I would like to be given some space because I'm angry." Perhaps, however, your girlfriend would like to be reminded that you care about her. These might, in practice, be opposites. So the Golden Rule seems to really fail the well-intentioned boyfriend in this case. I began to contemplate a replacement.
Eventually I evolved the following: "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them." I started asking people (specifically Catherine and Alex) if there was a way that my "platinum rule" wasn't purely superior to the Golden Rule. I didn't mean to brag and say, "mine's better." I meant that it was Pareto-optimal. It seemed to be better in some ways without being worse in any way. The Platinum Rule is the same as the Golden Rule except that it doesn't presume everyone wants to be treated exactly the way you do. Catherine confirmed for me that the Golden Rule, as traditionally understood, does have a very selfish and arrogant undertone to it. If you are unsure exactly what either "selfish" or "arrogant" mean, please look them up. There are a lot of misunderstood subtleties to these words' definitions. I began to convince myself that the Platinum Rule was indeed superior to the Golden Rule. I went further in my mind and wondered if the Golden Rule's prevalence and widespread acceptance was evidence of how selfish and arrogant society has become. Or worse yet, could it be one of the causes of that selfishness and lack of perspective?
Then Alex made a very good point. Other people don't know how they want to be treated. Furthermore, can you know for sure how another person wants to be treated? You can know what they tell you, but for a variety of reasons this may not be accurate. If a person says they want to be left to die because they're a drain on society, perhaps you should do what they ask. Perhaps, however, you should save them because your morality demands it and because you know that they are trying to make a sacrifice for you which you do not accept. Both are compelling philosophies, and I can't say one is purely superior to the other. However, one springs from the Platinum Rule and the other from the Golden Rule. They are now not just different, they conflict.
In fact the two philosophies I have described (badly) above are very fundamental pieces of philosophy. One is a very objectivist, existential understanding of people in which individuals have true free will, make decisions, and should ultimately be honored by giving respect to their decisions. In a more social, humanist, romantic philosophy, the importance of life and compassion outweigh spoken words or single decisions. Another fundamental human question this raises is the importance and power of the subconscious. Is it more important to honor what a person consciously demands or what they subconsciously desire?
After talking to Alex I was no longer sure if either rule made much sense. I also wondered if the choice of one over the other was an artifact of particular religious philosophy from the past. I decided to follow this line of reasoning further. What if you can't tell how another person wants to be treated? Then one way to treat them would be to guess how they want to be treated. The way you would want to be treated in their situation (to whatever extent you understand it) is a good guess. This is a return to the Golden Rule, i.e. that you would treat people however you would want to be treated. The Platinum Rule suggests a) you would treat people however you would want to be treated in their place, as their true desires are unknowable, if you don't believe you can understand them. If you do believe you can understand another's subconscious desires, b) you would treat them however you imperfectly interpreted their latent desires. Now the Platinum Rule had become either a) identical to the Golden or b) presumptuous and arrogant in the same ways that I had found in the Golden Rule.
I was not satisfied with this very conditional rule, as it had too many assumptions. So I decided to throw out the assumption that you couldn't tell how people want to be treated. What if you can tell how people truly want to be treated better than they themselves understand (at least in some situations)? If this is so, then the Platinum Rule again seems superior. So I began imagining an example. If I didn't know my secret, latent, but legitimate desires but Alex did, how should he treat me? Should he honor those subconscious desires he understood in me? Or should he treat me the way I ask him to? Or should he treat me the way he would want to be treated? Then I realized that in my particular case, there may be no difference. I would want Alex to treat me however he best understood I wanted to be treated. That combines the first two possibilities. What if that's how he wanted to be treated as well? In that case, all three methods yield the same solution. So for me, personally, there is no practical difference between the Golden and Platinum rules assuming a) I want to be treated in a way that's consistent with other people's best understanding of how I "truly" want to be treated and b) they feel the same way. These may seem like very specific assumptions, but they are, in essence, a restatement of the Golden Rule. Essentially I am saying, "if people treat other people the way they, themselves, actually want to be treated (whether or not they understand it themselves)" then they will be treating others the way those others desire as well.
It seems to me that if we believe in a powerful but understandable subconscious, the Golden and Platinum Rules become one-in-the-same. This is fairly elegant. If we believe the subconscious is unimportant or non-existent, the Golden Rule becomes nothing more than a selfish assertion that one's own values are higher than another's. Interestingly, if we take the Golden Rule as given (if we assume it's truth), then a person who doubts the relevance or accessibility of the subconscious is inherently selfish. They assume their conscious mind is smart enough to understand how others wish to be treated. Not listening to what other people say, in a Golden (or Platinum) World, may be the highest form of respect for them. Haven't you ever lied to someone about what you wanted?
Catherine Dao, Alex Choi, and God contributed to this report.
I hate the mass media. I always qualify this by saying: a) they're not biased as much as profit-oriented (well some are really biased, but that's just because their readership is). b) Salon.com is a breath of fresh air, but it's business model is unworkable in present form. The media has largely lost sight of what the war on terror is. Every day in dozens of countries around the world, there are government accountants and police officers scrutinizing records looking for strange transactions. There are airport screeners searching people's shoes. There are Pakistani presidents trying to determine how to best get rid of terrorists without inspiring new ones.
So I was going to chide random passers-by for not remembering 9/11 or ever understanding it in the first place today after I read the headlines which claimed that the White House is all confused and that infighting is dominating Iraq policy. Iraq is unquestionably a better place now than it was before. Even if 10 soldiers get killed in ambushes every day, it's well worth protecting the hundreds or thousands of innocent people that would have been senselessly tortured and killed this year. Also, what if the secret ambitions of reconstituting biological weapons programs had been realized? They've found reference strains of stuff, used for research on bioweapons. They've found programs to conceal information from inspectors. They've found pieces of a gas centrifuge used for enriching uranium that was hidden away and never declared to the inspectors. What more do you want, really? Whether they had and destroyed or had and hid actual stockpiles of weapons is less relevant. We don't care whether they had 3,000 liters of anthrax or if they might have 1 liter tomorrow. 1 liter in the hands of the terrorists is all the world needs to descend into a hellish abyss.
Ansar-al-Islam hangs out in Iraq. The same reporters that say no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda has been found also always mention that Ansar-al-Islam is a terrorist group connected to Al-Qaeda. Iraqi agents tried to assassinate a former US president. Saddam Hussein and his sons systematically rape, torture, and kill people in droves.
WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR POINT? Would you rather he was still around? Would you rather have waited 5 years? Would you rather the terrorists harassing US soldiers in Iraq were in Israel blowing up bus stops or in Philadelphia trying to figure out how to weaponize anthrax? They could always ask Iraqi scientists. The Iraqis have done it before. Rather than get those people into our custody and find out what they know, let's leave them in the heart of a hostile regime that is constantly looking for ways to hurt the US and make money under the table, in violation of the UN sanctions. Remember when Iraq kicked out the weapons inspectors in 1998? Remember how everyone lost the momentum and nothing was ever really done about it beyond some cursory and meaningless bombing which Iraq was undoubtedly prepared for anyway? Would you rather have Iran think it can secretly defy the IAEA, treaties it has signed, and the whole world in general while it tries to develop nuclear weapons? Do you think all this scrutiny and attention would be paid Iran's alleged weapons program right now if it weren't for the war in Iraq? It's so terrible of us to have attacked a country in part as a demonstration to others. It's so terrible that we had to remove Saddam Hussein from power and let Iraqi girls go to school.
My favorite idiotic argument is the one from the European naysayers that goes something like this: "We should have exhausted all diplomatic means." The problem with that argument is that nobody was doing jack shit until the US started putting its troops into the Persian Gulf region. What was France going to do about Iraq? France was happy to let Saddam Hussein stay there and have his sons rape and kill people when they failed to score a goal in the Olympics or because he wanted to sleep with their 13-year old daughter, or because they knew too much about secret programs and might have spilled it to the inspectors. ALL THOSE THINGS HAPPENED. IT ISN'T MAKE BELIEVE. They were so happy that French companies even helped Iraq undermine the sanctions. France let its companies start purchasing post-sanctions oil rights. Its government knew they were doing that. If that doesn't undermine sanctions, I don't know what does.
It takes time to rebuild a country. Name one occupation, in the history of the world, that has gone better than this one. The media has absolutely failed to notice that, because they are ignorant. They are also biased and reckless in their assertions. What is the media expecting in 6 months? It took the US longer than 6 months to write a constitution. It took the US longer than 6 months to hold elections. Electricity is about back to prewar levels. Oil production soon will be. Commerce is happening. Schools are open. Police are being trained. And we're getting all this done without any financial help from anybody. Now the Senators are arguing about $87 billion for Iraq and Afghan reconstruction and the war on terror? Are they on crack? Do they remember 9/11? Do they think we could clean up terrorist breeding grounds by dropping informational leaflets and telling everyone we praised Allah, too? What was their theory about why Saddam Hussein allegedly had tons of chemical weapons but then couldn't seem to remember where they had gone?
That doesn't make any damn sense. Think about this in a big picture way. Think about the long term. I'm not saying the occupation is going perfectly. It could be better. But how much better could it really be just 6 months into it? What should we really be doing differently?
There were certain places where we had NO ability to see what terrorists were doing day-to-day. There were places where dangerous weapons and know-how were concentrated. There were places where a brutal and oppressive regime made frustrated people believe the US was the cause of their troubles. There were places where the government offered cash rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. There were places where the lack of resolve and efficacy of the United Nations was put on display for the world to see. There still are places like that. Iraq was one of those places. I, for one, am glad that it is changing.
A vote for Bustamante is a vote for the status quo, crappy CA politics as usual, and a very bad idea. If you don't believe in recalls, fine, vote against the recall. If you don't believe Arnold will really shake things up, fine, vote for Ueberroth. What would EVER compel a person to vote for Bustamante is beyond me. Do any of you even know *anything* about him except that he used the n-word a while back?
Here's an article that details his affiliation with a racist, seperatist group. Trust me on this-- he's as bad as Gray Davis. The only reasons to vote for Bustamante are if you're a republican, you think that whoever is in the governor's office is doomed to fail in the next few years, and you would like that failing governor to fail as badly as possible.
"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time." -T.S. Eliot
Random rants and whatnot:
Why are we only friends when your boyfriend is out of town?
How come girls' hair never goes away? I have been telling the story that one of Heidi's hairs made it from the BPR house to the PPA house to my place in Hayward somehow (I think in a book). Well now I'm about to leave the place in Hayward and move to Emeryville and I just found another of Heidi's hairs while cleaning out the corners of my room. I wonder if one will make it to Emeryville. Maybe it's trying to get home to Heidi and just wants to keep moving, like the One Ring. Right after finding this most recent of Heidi's hairs, I found one of X's, too. Hers probably didn't travel from place to place (although it could have). Will one of hers make it to Emeryville? Will she ever set foot in our new apartment in Building 8 of Emery Bay Apartments (the building in which I've been told Julie used to live)? I wonder if one of my hairs still hides in X's bed. She's moved since I last slept in it. Would she even know it was mine? My hair is so much less distinctive than hers. You would think her bed might want to hold on to my hair since I drove the U-haul used to move the bed into her apartment and put it back together. I had to jump start it (with the help of a nice passer-by when its battery died) and I had to smell the gas tank to figure out if it was diesel. I drove that rickety thing into and out of San Francisco and helped her pull it in and out of various garages that I can't believe it fit (or didn't fit) in. Little things like this are quickly forgotten by everyone but me. So I bet her bed has forgotten its first patron. But things often don't come out the way they seem like they should.
People are too superficial.
I hope that Arnold Schwarzenegger's candidacy in this recall election modernizes the republican party (at least in CA) with respect to social issues.
Old friends make better friends. New friends can't be good friends until they're not new friends anymore.
Conspiracy theorists piss me off. I like the movie Conspiracy Theory; I like spy movies; the idea of breaking up a conspiracy appeals to me. However, most things are not the results of conspiracies. The U.S. is not in Iraq just to steal their oil. The tax cuts are not just ways to help Bush's rich cronies. I can explain this further, but it's not worth the time. Only lazy people think things in the world are that simple. It's not just that they're out to get you. That's a lazy way to look at the world. It takes hard work and courage to see it for the complicated jumble that it is and try to sort it out, knowing that you might not be satisfied by the answers you find (or don't find).
No matter how cool you were when you were a 16 year old girl, the 18, 19, and 20+ year old guys that liked you weren't really cool, mature guys that could tell how amazingly mature you were. Either a) they were taking advantage of you or b) they were totally immature themselves. I know because I watched these guys date my female friends back when I was 16 and because I'm almost 23 now and I can barely imagine going out with a girl who's still in college. You know what the best part is? If I were dating some girl who was still in college right now, she might read this and think I was taking advantage of her. Then I would tell her that she wasn't the same; she was different than the other girls I was talking about -- and she would believe me. I only wish she would believe me because it was true, but actually I would just be able to fool her because she has 0 ability to see herself from outside and her ego is like a perfumed supernova.
I saw a bumper sticker today that said:
War has never solved anything
This is an interesting, arrogant, and incorrect theory. While I will agree that there are unjust wars, or that there are just wars which do not solve anything, that's a lot different than saying that war has never solved anything. Didn't the Thirty Years War secure the right of protestant churches to exist? Didn't war waged by the Greeks prevent Athens from falling to the Persians? Didn't it solve the problem of losing Athens to Persia?
There are some great examples from modern times. The Revolutionary War solved some problems for the fledgling United States, and helped forge the most successful democracy in history. The Civil War ended slavery. World War II ended the subjugation of East Asia by the Japanese and the domination of Europe by the Nazis. Saying war has never solved anything is tantamount to saying the world would be better off if there were still concentration camps today. Do you think that Germany was going to be stopped any other way? Perhaps the allies could simply have appeased them. Maybe then they wouldn't have committed terrible crimes against humanity and rewarded their appeasers with a blitzkrieg conquest.
Assuming there is some obvious, simplistic answer like, "war is always bad" is akin to saying, "I know better than all of you. The answer is simple. You people in power are just too [fill in the blank] to get it." If you learn history and accept the complexities of real life and that there are not easy answers to all the world's problems, then you can begin to respect diverse viewpoints on an issue and understand how the world really works.
Control is the antithesis of passion. Sometimes in order to truly be in control one must know how to lose it. I offer a couple metaphors:
Boxing. In boxing, you rarely win by blindly slugging as hard as you can. Someone who can sit back and patiently wait for the right time to strike usually does better. However, when it is the right time to strike, you must strike with as much zeal as possible. To do this is to yield some control to the other person. Knowing precisely when to give up the control and let the raw energy preside over your actions is one of the keys to boxing.
Public Speaking. Public speaking is very difficult because there are two things one must do to be a good public speaker that are sometimes incompatible. First, you must be genuine. A person must speak with a certain comfortable vigor to gain the listener’s trust. When we’re talking about our regular feelings in everyday life, we believe in what we’re saying and it shows. However, the way we speak in everyday life often does make good public speaking. In public speaking the speaker must maintain a high level of awareness of the audience’s mood. Also, the speaker must break certain habitual human tendencies, like wringing one’s hands, fixating upon one target with his/her eyes, using slang or jargon, etc… A good public speaker understands the imperatives of speaking to a large crowd and shields them from "improper" human tendencies, but also maintains an intimate connection with the audience.
I want to talk about taxes a little. As always, I'm very disappointed with the media's treatment of the tax cuts that have just been signed into law. My problem with their reporting is that they go for the sensational headlines without even making sure that what they say makes sense.
"These are tax cuts for the rich." Of course they are. All tax cuts are for the rich. Rich people pay all the federal income tax. I can't remember where the statistic was, but I read that in 2002 the top 10% of income earners paid something like 50% of the federal taxes. So, if you take the top 50% of income earners, they pay MOST of the tax. But that isn't my problem with the way they discuss it.
Imagine a hypothetical tax breakdown like this (only talking about federal income taxes here):
| Before tax cut | After tax cut | ||
| Tax Paid | Tax Paid | Savings | |
| Family Earning $350,000 / yr | $120,000 | $90,000 | $30,000 |
| Family Earning $21,000 / yr | $2,000 | $1,000 | $1,000 |
So in this case, the tax cut for the "rich" family was 3000% of what it was for the poor family. Of the $31,000 saved in taxes in this 2-family country, $30,000, or roughly 97% went to the rich family. BUT... there is another important thing to consider. Think about the proportion of the tax burden carried by each family. At first, the rich family paid $120,000 of $122,000 in taxes, or 98.4% of the taxes paid. After the tax cut, the rich family pays $90,000 out of $91,000 or 98.9%. So even though the rich person's taxes went down by 30 times as much as poor person's, and even though they are collecting an awesome 97% of the total tax cut, the % of the total tax burden they are now responsible for has gone up.
There is a term used to describe a tax structure which is weighted toward the rich paying more taxes. The term is progressive. A progressive tax structure is one like the one we have now, where the % of income paid as tax is higher for the people who earn more money. When looking at a tax cut, if you want to determine how the tax situation after the tax cut will compare to the situation before the tax cut, you must look at the % of the tax burden faced by groups of people, not the relative amounts of tax relief they will get. In the example above, the tax cut makes the structure more progressive. The poor family got a 50% tax cut but the rich one got a 25% tax cut. Of all the taxes paid, the rich now pay even closer to all of them. I don't know the exact numbers for the 2003 U.S. tax cut, but I read that it is actually slightly progressive by my definition. Rich people will face a slightly higher percentage of the tax burden after the tax cut than before. That means it's not a "tax cut for rich people." It is essentially a tax cut that leaves the status quo unchanged. The status quo is that rich people pay most of the taxes. After the tax cut that will still be true (and perhaps even more true). Because the child tax credits are fixed amounts for all families ($400 per child regardless of income) they actually help poor people MUCH more and reduce the federal tax liability of many families to nearly $0.
So here's the point of all of this. I'm all for a progressive tax structure. Poor people who don't earn much and can't pay much in taxes shouldn't have to. The problem is that so much of what is said about these tax cuts is political rhetoric that assumes the public is stupid. If a senator is interested in helping the poor, they should reduce gasoline taxes, car taxes, sales taxes, etc... Many of these taxes are levied by states and therefore the ability of a U.S. Senator to lower them is minimal. My point, though, is don't fall for the political rhetoric. Democrats in the U.S. senate know that this tax cut isn't particularly geared toward the rich - not any more than the status quo at least, but they say it anyway to garner support and to cut down the republicans who are perceived as being the champions of the cuts.
For those of you out there that want to ease the burden on the working poor in this country, don't waste time with federal income taxes. Poor people barely pay any tax to the feds, anyway. Go fight to get the CA car tax lowered. $100 in car tax to a poor person or $0.30 a gallon to a guy earning $1,000 a month is A LOT. Those are the taxes that poor people care about.
So the night after that last dream, I had another dream that I remember. I won't go into specifics, but Bill and Hillary Clinton were there as the former President and First Lady. Two dreams with presidents on consecutive nights has to be some kind of record I don't want to hold.
A poem and a dream I had saturday night:
The risk was mine to accept,
Willingly I opened the aortal dam,
Each beat in the intricate dance,
Pounding and mesmerizing me into temporary oblivion.
Causes tumult.
Am I overextended again?
Every time I think of you a war is loosed upon my very
soul.
I love you but I must not forget I care.
An equal and opposite reaction for every time I decry.
But yet constantly truth I deny,
So that I may make true what I hold so dear,
So that I may not hurt you again my dear.
When, 6 or 60 months hence,
I catch a whiff of perfume and fall into another conscious stupor,
I will remember this time for only a second,
And that second will be my life,
And I will have fond memories,
The truth has not yet forgotten itself to me.
I loathe myself and all my love for you,
It wearies you and it sickens me,
After a careful incision,
I would feast on the pulpy tissue,
I am a monster when I am myself.
I hide so that I may be myself in the shadows,
There, in the netherworld, no one asks questions.
I am in a place that only I know,
Fighting demons that haunt only me.
In the netherworld no one asks questions.
There you can be whoever you are afraid to be.
Isn’t it funny that we hide so we may be ourselves?
When I lived in the real world, and I didn’t hide, I was a liar.
The fact that I would never act on my perversions does not mean I am not
perverse.
And so I drift there every eve. And so I learn little by little what it is like.
Let me tell you about my netherworld.
In my world there is always suffering.
Everyone bears a little burden. Each
person carries a great, heavy bag. In
each bag are hundreds of little bags. And
each small bag has 1 memory in it. Lots
of memories look like mud in my dreams, and a few look like reddish stone.
When I fell into the netherworld I was not afraid.
I was in the middle of a great red fiery hell, but I was alert, and I saw
that on one else was. It is much
scarier to be alone in a forest than to walk through a prison yard as a nameless
prisoner. In this hell there are
many people, but no two people ever walk close together.
Nothing in my being makes me want to approach them or even to watch them
carefully enough. Perhaps I do not
want to know what happened to them; why they no longer care that they are doomed
to a firey inferno.
Taking stock of my surroundings, I hurry quickly on my way.
Hell is not endless drudgery as so many portray it.
After all, someone in the real world can crush rocks all day long and
enjoy their job. I think I would have
rather enjoyed mining. There
must be a great sense of accomplishment in extracting gold from something as dense
and impregnable as stone. It’s
more than I can say about my old job.
I run quickly because I know I am in hell and something bad is going to happen. Soon I see two of my friends. They are close friends but they certainly belong in hell. This is reassuring. Maybe I belong in hell, too. It’s comforting to know you are where you are needed most. We are all walking against the flow of traffic. There are a lot of people now, walking or running the other way. Soon we pass the president. His bodyguards are near him, but not too near. I have a great feeling of pride when I see him. He carries our flag. Alex, Sawan, and I turn around. We know now we must fight whatever is coming. As we advance, we begin to see our enemies swarm in front of us. Ever the battle strategist, I quickly assess the battlefield. We intend to join the fray at a critical point and help hold the line. Then we will counterattack. But just as we’re running to the lines, one of the enemy runs past me. He is trying to outflank us. I slash at him as he runs by but miss. I turn back to Alex and say, “Count them as they get behind us. We must not forget them.”
“Alright,” he answers. He understands the need to keep one’s enemies where one can see them.
“Once more unto the breach!” I lead the charge.
From Henry V I learned that a soldier will not follow orders that he does
not think his king would follow in his stead.
That is a valuable lesson. Alex
and even Sawan follow me into battle. As
we run, I see our lines collapsing. Our
soldiers vanish. I think about how
far ahead of me the president was. By
now that part of the line would be broken.
There is no time to save him. We
must retreat.
“Run!” I say in a hoarse whisper. Sawan is gone. Alex
carries a football and I a bat. We
run down some stairs. He is in
front now, as he was behind me before. He
who lags into battle leads the retreat. He
who fights and runs away lives to fight another day. As we go down some stone steps I realize we are out of sight.
For how long? Eight seconds
– maybe ten. Alex is nearing the
bottom of the stairs. There we must
turn right or left. Left leads to a
dark door into a stone building. It
may be a dead end. We must keep
running as there are too many of them. Right
appears to lead nowhere. We could
take a chance on the right side, and find a place to hide.
They would think it a dead end and surely turn left.
“You pick!” I yell. He
doesn’t want to pick. As I pass
him the passage seems to widen. He
is far from me even as he prepares to fall in as close behind as he can.
I pass him and turn to the left. We
must keep running and wait for our chance. If we can just lose them and hide. For a minute or two minutes.
Then we can regroup. We can
fight dirty. We can use guerilla
tactics. But right now we must run.
I wake up in a sweat.
It’s not a heavy sweat, and I am not gasping, for I have not had a
nightmare. Awake now on Saturday
morning at 6:45, I know I will get no more sleep tonight.
I think quickly of all the things that are wrong, but I don’t let any
one linger long enough to materialize. There
will be time enough today for a million worries and guilts.
If I can make it to lunch without eating, maybe I will lose a pound
today. Maybe I don’t care about
that, anymore.
As I spring out of bed I am proud of my military prowess. I marvel at my arrogance. I knew that if I could only buy myself a little time, the routing of this large army that had just destroyed my commander-in-chief and some of my friends would crumble before me. I am supreme in my arrogance, and in my command of my own armies. I ready them for the day that lies ahead. This day will be filled with toil, television, insecurity, and longing. All day long I will strive to avoid being sent to the place I love most. Even tonight, as I prepare for bed, a brave soldier will write this story to forestall the inevitable butterflies that only attack me when I am horizontal. Having finished my story, I will face them now in the hell that I dream of.
The Truth
You can hide it like a signature
or birthmark but it's always there
in the greasy light of your dreams,
the knots your body makes at night,
the sad innuendos of your eyes,
whispering insidious asides in every
room you cannot remain inside. It's
there in the unquiet ideas that drag
and plead one lonely argument at a time,
and those who own a little are contrite
and fearful of those who own too much,
but owning none takes up your life.
It cannot be replaced with a house or car,
a husband or wife, but can be ignored,
denied, and betrayed, until the last day,
when you pass yourself on the street
and recognize the agreeable life you
were afraid to lead, and turn away.
by Philip Schultz
It seems that everyone is missing what I consider to be a really big picture element of what's going on. By removing Saddam Hussein and replacing his regime with a more Western-friendly one, we are helping to decouple the falsely linked Israel-Palestine issue and the general Arab resentment/jealousy toward the U.S. I say falsely not in the sense that they aren't linked, they most certainly are, but falsely in the sense that they don't really represent the same conflicts or disagreements of ideology.
The fact that Saddam monetarily rewards the families of suicide bombers in Israel shows how hard he tries to link these issues. Do you think he cares about the plight of the Palestinians? NO WAY. He doesn't even like the Kuwaitis, Iranians, or Saudis. He doesn't even like half the people in his own country. Like Bin Laden, Saddam ALWAYS claims that the conflict in Iraq has something to do with U.S. support for Israel. They don't say this because they believe it, they say it because it engenders lots of sympathy in the Arab world. Unfortunately, Arabs in the Middle East who have limited or no access to objective information eat this stuff up. It feeds perfectly into their other concerns in life. Maybe there are no jobs in Egypt, but there seem to be jobs in the U.S. And the U.S. sells helicopters to Israel. And the U.S. attacks Iraq. And all Americans think all Middle Easterners are terrorists. When a person in Cairo starts thinking all this, what happens? They can potentially generate an extremely negative view of the U.S. Does the U.S. only support Israel? No. In fact, the U.S. supports the creation of a state of Palestine. Does the U.S. attack Iraq because it likes killing Muslims? No. Saddam Hussein has killed many, many times more practitioners of Islam in Iraq than the U.S. has. Why are there no jobs in the Middle East? Because the GDP of all 22 Arab countries combined is roughly equal to that of Spain. Because all the money that does come in goes to a handful of oil sheiks. Because the Middle Eastern governments are, for the most part, repressive and authoritarian. They are primarily concerned with pacifying their populations and staying in power. Economic growth is secondary for them; useful only insofar as it is a tool to stay in or wield power. A monarchy like Saudi Arabia's realizes how much more complex the issues are than "the US hates Islam." Yet they still allow their own people to blame the US or Europe because otherwise the blame would land closer to home.
On the surface it seems like attacking Iraq is playing right into these concerns. This is one of the few insightful or interesting points I have heard the antiwar protesters make. I think it is a valid point. In the short run, attacking Iraq probably "confirms" what lots of people in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, or wherever else, think. In the long run, however, the creation of a secular government in Iraq which can prosper economically, providing growth to an economy stagnant for 20 years and totally dependent on food aid from other countries, will help to dispel the myth that to protect themselves the Arab countries must insulate themselves from the West. The slow but steady restoration of stability to the region will free up immense resources and create many trade opportunities in Iran, Kuwait, Turkey, and Iraq's other neighbors. One could argue that the short-run costs may be too dire, but even before we attacked Iraq a young, bitter Egyptian named Mohammed Atta led 18 other hijackers in an attack designed by Bin Laden to draw the U.S. into a "war against Islam."
So are we giving Bin Laden exactly what he wanted by attacking Iraq? Not exactly. Bin Laden's anti-Americanism was allegedly molded during the first gulf war, and we may well create a few more determined terrorists in this second one. As bad as that could be, the alternative is to sit back and watch while Saddam Hussein tries to drive all the people of Iraq and its neighbors to the same level of extremism. Most people in most Middle Eastern countries today are very reasonable. The Islamist extremists represent only a powerful fringe element. The real problem is that much of their extremism is diverted away from the governments in the Middle East (its rightful targets in many respects). To see this process in gruesome detail, look no further than CNN. In order to "motivate" men to fight the advancing coalition forces, the Iraqi army and paramilitaries are doing things like threatening to execute their children. Saddam Hussein will stop at nothing to fuel the conflict and frame it in terms of Judeo-Christian superpower aggression against the Islamic world.
The religious zealotry and fervor that makes people strap bombs to their chests and blow up school buses or skyscrapers comes much later. Taking a generation or more, this change will be nebulous and hard to predict. If the preconditions are right (stability, secular government, access to information), eventually the majority of people in the Middle East will realize that they need to take it upon themselves to discourage terrorists and naive anti-Americanists, because the actions of those people will be holding the majority back.
Let's talk strategy and PsyOps. From day 1 the media has been doing a pretty mediocre job reporting on this war. They don't seem to have any clue how war works or what to expect. For example, when the decapitation strike occurred, they were totally unsure whether the "war" had begun or not. They had heard about this "Shock and Awe" strategy, but had not come up with a plan for how to report on the war if it had a rolling start. Don't forget a rolling start is still what the media was predicting just a couple months before. The media, with all their embedded journalists, is also getting stuff wrong in the field. They erroneously reported a column of 1000 vehicles (which would be an entire division of the Republican Guard) was headed south to attack U.S. forces. It turned out to be a much smaller group of lightly armored vehicles. Nearly the entire force was obliterated from the air and by artillery before reaching the U.S. front line.
Furthermore, and this is what's been pissing the president off, the media keeps acting like a) this war is going badly or b) the U.S. was unprepared for what's going on. I flatly disagree. There have been about 50 troops killed in a week of nasty, semi-urban, guerilla fighting in a sandstorm. That's not very many. War is always uncertain. The first gulf war lasted about 2 months (and was one of the fastest, cleanest wars ever). This war may still be over that fast, or it may not. The media also frequently reports that we haven't seen the mass surrenders that we expected, but I don't even agree with that. In the first Gulf War, Iraqi troops were as far from home as Kuwait. When they surrendered it was en masse. The U.S. leaflets being dropped now explain to Iraqis that all they have to do is put down their weapons and go home. Many thousands of them have done this.
Taking over a city in house-to-house fighting is hard as hell, but it's being accomplished quickly in places like Nasiriya. Think of the difficulties like this: Let's say you're in a Marine Expeditionary Force trying to control or pacify a city. You have been told to take extreme care not to kill Iraqi civilians. Upon arriving in a town you see lots of people cheering. Little do you know that out of the 40 people cheering, 10 are actually Fedayeen Saddam paramilitary organizers. As your convoy rolls through and you toss some of your MRE's to the Iraqis who are cheering, these 10 guys whip out their AK-47's and RPG launchers. You and the other soldiers manage to kill 8 of the 10 before they get a shot off. One of the guys with an AK-47 accidentally mows down 4 of the Iraqi peasants running away toward the other side of the road as he shoots at your Humvee. Unfortunately, of the two guys that managed to fire, one aimed a rocket propelled grenade at the ground a few feet from your vehicle. When it explodes the shrapnel kills one solder, two Iraqis nearby, and wounds several more. Now imagine this scenario played out, in different forms, everywhere you go. How could we possibly expect there won't be any casualties? I think 50 casualties in one week of war should be viewed as a success and a testament to the efficacy of the forces and the battle plan.
Civilian casualties: Even the Iraqis, who have every reason to exaggerate the number of civialians killed, and are themselves responsible for many of these deaths, are only reporting about 350 civilians killed. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that's right. That's less than are killed in attacks on single Kurdish towns by Saddam's forces. That's *far* less than were killed in single mustard-gas shellings of Iranian troops in the Iran-Iraq war that lasted for 8 years. That's still less than the number of Kuwaiti POWs that were never found after the first Gulf War. Saddam had 15,000 fake Coalition uniforms made, presumably so "American" and "British" troops could be shown slaughtering Iraqi civilians.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz explains the way in which the U.S. military did miscalculate. "We probably did underestimate the willingness of this regime to commit war crimes," he said. "I don't think we anticipated so many people who would pretend to surrender and then shoot. I don't think we anticipated the number of execution squads within Basra." Wolfowitz is right. The military planning was right. The horror that is Saddam Hussein's regime was the thing they underestimated.
This brings me to my point. Even though these paramilitary groups and guerilla tactics have met with some limited success, that success is a two-edged sword for the Iraqi leaders. If they succeed in coercing people to continue fighting by executing their families, they may be able to hold out an extra three weeks, but they will also solidify the hatred that the Iraqis feel toward them. Right now Saddam's people, implanted throughout Southern Iraq, are being as brutal and coercive as they can to drag the battles on in places like Umm Qasr, Nasiriya, and Basra. Meanwhile in Baghdad, Saddam is hoping that before U.S. troops can get to him the American public will have lost its stomach for the war because of mounting casualties. Ironically, Saddam is relying on the American media and American public being stupid. The more we understand his tactics, the more it makes us realize he is a bully who will stop at nothing (including killing his own people) to remain in power, and the more reason we have to get rid of him.
I'll get back to religion shortly. Catherine has been doing a fine job of exploring that area lately and I just feel I have to continue to serve as a secondary war correspondant a little longer.
I was reading war protest websites, because unlike the protesters I like to understand all sides of what's going on. I came across this on "United for Peace": "...tens of thousands of people will lie down on Boston's main street in symbolic solidarity with the people now being killed by the American war in Iraq."
The protestors want to express their support for people being killed like the Fedayeen Saddam? The Fedayeen Saddam recently tied up a "protester" in Iraq after cutting out his tongue and let him bleed to death. Yeah... let's express solidarity with that, and in expressing solidarity somehow cathartically dispel all this heinous shit.
The covenant of works preceded that of grace. Adam was on probation in Eden, fucked up, and broke the covenant. But the covenant is as absolute as it is conditional, and god offered the covenant of grace in place of the covenant of works. Man *fell*. He did not live up to his end of the covenant of works. The covenant of grace is the lifeline that a father offers a son. He wants him to be independent, and judges him by his actions. If the son fails, the unconditional love of the father is always waiting to save the son from another fall. The catch is, after that, *you have to go back to trying to be a good person*. You can't just sit around and think that by believing in God alone are you satisfying the covenant. If you believe that (as so many do) you are taking advantage of and using religion to cover up for your human weakness. Are you afraid to be judged by your actions again? Will you ever grow up enough to be scrutinized? Must you always retreat to the fatherly and loving embrace of God instead of trying again to stand on your own? What is there to fear? You have already seen that the covenant of grace is absolute. Why not leave the nest again?
Grace alone, faith alone, scripture alone, Christ alone, and to God alone the glory. Not only must protestants must be pretty lonely sometimes, but sometimes they are pretty selfish, too.
Don't you see what's going on? Blix was about to release a pretty scathing report that Iraq was not cooperating, so they "agree" to destroy one illegal kind of missile that they weren't supposed to have anyway. That's not cooperation. It's a tactical retreat. Saddam is saying (as he always has), "I will always do the minimum amount required to keep everyone else off guard and divided." He's been doing this for 12 years. Remember in 1998 when he kicked the weapons inspectors out? Remember 1991 when he invaded Kuwait? Remember that Iraq is still lying and hiding weapons? If I steal something from you, and then give 50% of it back, that's not a concession; it wasn't mine to begin with. Iraq will not be cooperating until they have done all that has now been required of them for 12 years.
What is this crap about other countries needing more time for inspections? They had 4 years to push for anything they wanted between 1998 and 2002. They did nothing. Now the US, after almost 5 years, has decided to enforce the UN resolutions. What exactly is France mad about again? France and Germany's whole plan, of beefing up inspections and stuff, would never be happening if the US weren't pushing for something to happen. If they cared about disarming Iraq, they would have been saying this all along. They don't care about the people of Iraq and they don't care about the threats that Saddam poses. "We've been waiting for Saddam Hussein to disarm for 4,222 days. I don't call that rushing," Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman told reporters at NATO headquarters in Brussels. (2-26-03)
Understanding French politics is hard. Here's an interesting article about Chirac's position.
Sports statistics are addictive. Have you ever watched SportsCenter regularly? Once you get about 4 or 5 days in row, you can't stop watching it. Sometimes I crave it. Sometimes I watch 3 full cycles, noticing the slight variations in the commentator's jokes each time. I do have a little problem with some of the stats they give, though. I'm not just talking about SportsCenter here. It's a much more common problem during the in-game commentary.
Sometimes the statistics-gimp they keep in the back will find some gem like, "Cal is 14-5 when they lead at halftime." The implication, as I understand it, is that "when Cal is ahead at halftime, they're likely to win." Of course they are! Last night I heard, "Cal is 13-0 when out rebounding their opponents." Duh! Rebounds are a good thing. When you get more of them you're likely to win. What would be a really interesting statistic is how much Cal deviates from the average. For example, if the commentator said, "Cal has won 74% of the games in which they've led at half time, as compared to the NCAA average of 65%." What if the NCAA average were 80%? Then the simple statistic would be totally misleading. It makes it sound like if Cal is ahead at half time they do a good job, when in reality they're worse in that situation than other teams are.
I'm going to take a shot at explaining this Saudi Arabia situation. I can't stand hearing it misunderstood on TV anymore.
I was just watching Crossfire, which has become a farce, and just when I couldn't stand James Carville or Bob Novak anymore, they brought in two guests. One guest was Cliff May, from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. He was useless and annoying. They also had James Zogby, who is the president of the Arab American Institute. Though sometimes too leftist for me, Zogby was dead-on in his analysis of the current story about the Saudi princess supporting terrorism. She doesn't! Furthermore, there is no story here. The media has gotten the story wrong, misjudged the importance of it, and in so doing, has unwittingly helped Bin Laden's cause. Osama Bin Laden's goals in attacking the WTC and the Pentagon were to destroy the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the U.S., and generally increase conflict between the Islamic World and the West. Open war between the Arab world and the western powers has been his stated aim since before the USS Cole bombing. The positive relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia dates back several decades. While they don't always see eye to eye, it is clear that Saudi Arabia is an ally of the U.S. If they don't always show it, it's because there are people in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabian citizens, who are very anti-U.S. Saudi Arabia doesn't like to infuriate these people by talking about how much they are going to help the U.S. in military endeavors - nor should they. Bin Laden was a Saudi, and allegedly began to foment his anti-American group in part because he resented U.S. basing in the Middle East, as well as U.S. participation in the Gulf War.
I won't deny that Saudi Arabia could do more in the war on terrorism or to help deal with Saddam Hussein. I do think it's important to understand how things stand, though. In the end, Saudi Arabia will quietly allow the U.S. to use its bases there and will help find terrorists. The only legitimate criticism of Saudi Arabia, which is hiding between the lines of all the news stories, is simply that they are too tolerant with anti-Western extremists within their borders. One would suspect that they are this way because if they push too hard against their own domestic extremists, that extremist terrorism will be directed at Riyadh. This is probably true. But that is a far different criticism that the one Sen. Shelby and others are making. Even if Saudi Arabia does, to some extent, pacify their Islamist contingency with anti-American rhetoric, that is a far cry from intentionally supporting 9/11 terrorists.
My advice to all the reporters out there is to start paying attention to what the white house, the FBI, the CIA, and the Saudi government are saying over and over. There is no evidence that any Saudis supported the 9/11 terrorists, and even if it were true, there is no evidence that the government in Riyadh had any part in it. Saudi Arabia is an important ally in the war on terrorism and any conflict with Iraq. Why would we piss them off with baseless accusations? It's stupid. Saying the Saudi princess gave some money to a charity which gave some money to two men that may have met two of the hijackers is as circuitous an argument that Riyadh supports terrorism as saying that when we helped Bin Laden fight the Soviets we were intentionally supporting the strike on the World Trade Center. That is ludicrous. It's not news.
This week's entry is about the nature of employment and the job
market. I strongly recommend this
book for anyone interested in this subject.
I heard somewhere that 80% of jobs are obtained in a less-than-purely-objective
way. In my personal experience that has been true. In the interviews
I went through (which were many), the employers seemed to have given up on
really getting a good handle on what a person was like. They seemed more
interested in what proof you could offer that you would be a good employee.
When I used to hire people, I used my intuition as proof. Their
experiences and resumes and whatnot helped me form an impression of them, but
ultimately I didn't choose by assigning arbitrary values to a resume, an
interview, etc... and summing them up in my head, which is what I felt many of
the interviewers were doing. When I look at the people from Cal that got
the coveted I-banking or consulting jobs, I am baffled. They are people I
know - that I had classes with. When I compare them to my friends that
didn't get the same positions, I can't figure out what the deciding factor must
have been. The only things that seem to consistently matter are GPA and
prestigious internships. They're not the only factors, but they're the
only ones where I see a definite correlation to job offers. I think that
the reason 80% of jobs are obtained on the basis of personal recommendation and
other factors is a testament to how poorly many of these interviewers are doing
in evaluating prospective employees. I think, to a large extent, they are
not looking for people that they think are capable and motivated, but rather for
people who have experiences that equate to some sort of formulaic achievement
and motivation. I was a little short on these things, and I think it hurt
me in the interviews, especially with the economy as tough as it was and the
small number of openings, particularly in finance, consulting, and the high-tech
industry.
Having said all this, I think an optimal position is one where the applicant
combines innate ability with recorded achievements. But months of
applications have also taught me how tough the economy is. I have a couple
of recommendations. Being honest is great, but companies are often not
honest with employees. They want you to make a big commitment, and they
expect people to give it to them 100%, even if they can't make the same
commitment to you. Many of the employees say they will commit for 3 years,
and leave. Unfortunately, honesty seems to be lost on many of them.
As a result, employers simply see any hesitation or wavering to commit as a sign
that you're even more likely to leave than the people who don't say that. I'm
not suggesting you should be dishonest. I'm simply suggesting that you
tell them you want to make a long-term commitment, regardless of whether or not
you can really commit to it, because that's what they expect to hear, and they
have already factored-in the possibility of you leaving to go back to school or
for a better job or whatever.
Another piece of advice I have is to get a job before too long, even if it's not
what you want. I totally agree one has every right to be picky, but from a
practical standpoint, not having a job is rough on one mentally. If you
should have to search for 6 months, and can handle that without any source of
income or satisfaction from a day-to-day commitment to work, more power to you.
It's been really tough on me, mentally. I see how hard it's been on some
of my peers, too. There is this very trying mental component to
unemployment for some people. Taking a job, even if it's not what you
want, is only admitting defeat or lowering your expectations if you stay there,
or stop aspiring to something better. I didn't realize that until I was in
the thick of it. It is just a means to an end, even if that end is mental
health. I know that there are companies out there that might frown on
someone who graduated from Cal and then sold computers at Office Depot.
That's another example of how they use incorrect or inconclusive criteria in
hiring, but I think many companies are above that and know better than to judge
someone like that. Finally, I feel that I have learned a lot about the
nature of work by having jobs like the one at Office Depot. If I were ever
in charge of a retail operation, I would have more appreciation and
understanding of what retail employees do. That was another unexpected
benefit of getting *a* job, even if it wasn't exactly what I was looking for.
Several people have asked me recently what exactly I think is going on with the Iraq situation right now. It is a confusing time in the sense that we are gearing up for war but also talking about UN resolutions that seek to avoid armed conflict. Here is my analysis. Iraq is a big problem (see below). Because openly pursuing regime change there seems unpalatable to many foreign leaders, the US is focusing on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). They are prohibited from possessing such weapons under the UN rules and the deal made at the end of the Gulf War. One little known (and frequently accepted) theory is that a tacit agreement was made between the coalition forces and Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War. The deal was that as long as Iraq didn't use its chemical or biological weapons, Saddam Hussein would not a primary target during the war (would be allowed to stay in power). Saddam did not use such weapons against coalition forces or Israel, although he has used them on people within Iraq and possibly on people in Iran in the past. There was an excellent article in the New Yorker several months ago detailing just how devastating the effects of those weapons were on Kurdish communities in Iraq. Furthermore, Iraq is one of many countries that supports terrorist activities against U.S., Israeli, and other targets.
In retrospect, not taking the opportunity to remove Hussein from power may have been a long-term tactical mistake on the part of the U.S. Recognizing that, it is clear that the US was pursuing an even harsher resolution which would have truly put Saddam to the test. Under the original draft, he would have to comply with strict rules about his weapons, or automatically face military action by the UN members should he be found in material breach of the agreement. Under that resolution, Saddam would have had two choices: 1) to change the philosophy of his regime from secrecy to transparency with respect to military ambitions or 2) to attempt to preserve his regime by defeating whichever UN member nations might attempt to enforce the resolution (i.e. the U.S.)
Other countries in the world did not support such a harsh resolution. Theories about why they didn't vary widely, and no one theory describes every country. Three important possibilities (which are probably all true to some degree) are: 1) Arab states fear the political backlash in their own countries of supporting the U.S. in a conflict against a Muslim country; 2) Countries all around the world see this as a continuation or expansion of U.S. power, which some of them generally oppose; 3) Other countries simply believe the "problem" can be solved without armed conflict. Hopefully this is true. It often seems unlikely.
An article in a more recent New Yorker (2 weeks ago?) by a psychiatrist that studies Saddam Hussein suggested that his psyche will never allow his vice-like grip on power to weaken if he can avoid it. I think this sentiment is shared by many. If that is true, then Iraq's recent acceptance of the new UN resolution is likely little more than a stall tactic or a tactical retreat. Viewed in this light, one must hope that the resolution is strong enough and the international community will be punitive enough in any response to a material breach thereof that Saddam's capacity to utilize WMD is indeed diminished by their acceptance.
Don't hold your breath. They will probably cooperate for a while, then try to weasel their way out of the deal, hoping to splinter the international consensus that exists against them right now. Last time the inspectors went there (right after the Gulf War), Iraq more or less cooperated for a few years, before expelling the inspectors. That was four years ago. They haven't been back since, and in that time, Iraq has undoubtedly continued their pursuit of WMD. Lest you think that's not a big deal, some of the inspectors estimated that they were within a year of producing a nuclear weapon last time they went there. They dismantled much of the apparatus Iraq had at the time, but they have had four years to rebuild it.
Here is a poem I wrote recently:
To Remember
Impending adulthood gives way to impending adolescence,Here is an article about Organic Food. It talks about what the term does and doesn't mean, and to what extent "organic" food is "better" or "worse" in different ways. The article basically confirms what I felt, which is that (up until next month) organic doesn't have a fixed definition. It will be good when it is better defined and there are the two terms: "organic" and "100% organic." It basically says you are more likely to get certain bacterial diseases, especially from meat products, by eating organic foods. On the other hand, you ingest less pesticides. No one has ever proven that the pesticides are bad for you in such small quantities, but they're probably not good for you. Many people buy organic food citing "health" advantages. There are positives and negatives, health-wise, to organic food.
The more interesting part of the article is the part that talks
about how many people think organic food tastes better. The article
supports this, but it gives a reason. Organic foods are grown in smaller
batches, shipped less far, and shipped more carefully. Because they are
often local products, they aren't bred for durability, firmness, etc...
They can often be allowed to ripen longer than other things, because they don't
have to be shipped as far. So, basically, the article says yes
organic foods taste better, not because you can taste pesticides (they are
tasteless and in such small concentration anyway) but because they are grown
locally, in smaller quantities, and they are allowed to ripen longer.
Essentially they are "higher quality." Of course, if you go to
Andronico's or Berkeley Bowl, you find "higher quality"
traditional (non-organic) foods as well. They are also grown in smaller
batches and bred for taste instead of durability.
There is a big overlap between "organic" and "quality," but I think it's accurate to say that organic foods are often expensive and high quality, and traditional foods are sometimes expensive and of high quality. The fact that they're organic may or may not have anything to do with it. In the case of vegetables, what makes them taste good is using manure fertilizer and composts. These are more expensive than chemical treatments. But there's no reason a producer couldn't use both. With respect to meats, it seems clear that "organic" products are probably more dangerous. It's a trade-off between potentially harmful bacteria and viruses (pathogens) on the organic side (like e. coli) and medicines/chemicals/hormones on the traditional side. When the new laws are in place to define organic food, hopefully things like organic meat and eggs will be safer, because there will be more rigid controls on just how those products are produced. They will still likely carry a modestly increased risk of harmful bacteria or viruses, though.
Today's entry was originally going to be about the relationship between French and German politics and the Iraq situation. Reading between today's headlines it looks like Russia is going to go along with the NATO countries and support military action against Iraq, should it come to that (and it probably will). With Russia on the bandwagon, it shouldn't matter too much what Germany does or whether Schroeder's coalition holds together. Therefore Germany has probably sacrificed its relationship with the US needlessly, as Iraq is likely going to be attacked anyway. Schroeder was so desperate to win he played to pure, ridiculous German nationalism and mistrust of American hegemony, elevating it above his country's real security, economic, and political interests.
I think the most important country in the Middle East / Central Asia region for the next 20 years could and should be Turkey. There was a rerun of a great program on one of the PBS stations today called "Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg" about the transformation of Turkey into a modern state. I don't want to make this a Turkish history lesson, so suffice it to say that since the time of Ataturk's revolution and the Young Turks in the early decades of the 20th Century, Turkey has been a secular, Muslim state, and it has been mostly pro-Western, even joining Nato after World War II. Turkish troops fought in the Korean War and Turkish troops are making ready to deploy as peacekeepers and specialists in Afghanistan.
Turkey offers an amazing possibility for the West and for the Near East. If Turkey, 20 years from now, has succeeded economically along secular, pro-Western lines, it will serve as a shining beacon in the Near East and will go a long way toward silencing Anti-Western shouts in the Arab world. It will prove that a Muslim country can have a secular, democratic government. If, however, the Turkish experiment ultimately fails, it will play perfectly into the hands of the reactionary zealots in the Middle East.
So here's my plan. We remove Saddam Hussein from power. We make a big commitment to rebuilding Iraq. Part of that commitment could be shouldered by the Turkish, who would receive lots of Iraqi business in exchange. They are in an obvious place through which to ship oil and other products, to produce products for export to Iraq, and from which to export entrepreneurs to a newly capitalist Iraq. By helping their economy we will speed their acceptance into the EU. With Turkey in the EU, successful as a country full of Muslims in a Western market system and with a democratic government, other Arabs will have to take notice. Ultimately, the decoupling of the Iraq-Palestine issues and the "proof-of-concept" of markets and democracy in Turkey should expedite institutional reform amongst Palestinians. Such institutional reform seems to be a prerequisite for peace in the Middle East. It all starts with Iraq. Saddam Hussein had or has the 4th largest army in the world, and is a humongous source of tension in the Middle East. He threatens his neighbors, his own people, and the rest of the world. He must go, and he must go soon. Then the hard work of rebuilding Iraq can begin.
I really like to play pool. It's a fun game. It's the kind of game you play at night, hanging out with friends, drinking a beer. It's also a fun game to bet money on. But how many people really know all the rules? Not too many. Even I forget them sometimes. If I try hard, I can accurately remember the 8-ball and 9-ball rules. I have a pet peeve, though. Well, actually, I have about 800,000 pet peeves. This is the only one related to pool, though. My pet peeve is people who think that when you play, if you make a shot in a way you didn't mean to, you are somehow obligated to take the ball out or otherwise penalize yourself. Now I'm not talking about calling the 8-ball. If you're playing a game where you have to call a pocket, there are defined penalties for pocketing the ball in the wrong one. That's fine. I'm talking about a regular game, for $5, with some guy at the pool hall.
The game takes care of this problem by itself! First of all, you're supposed to learn the angles. If you choose to shoot the ball in such a way that it might go in the corner pocket, but it might miss and go in a different pocket, FINE! That's part of the game. You chose to shoot it that way. That's your reward. That reward is offset by the risk of scratching, or pocketing the wrong ball, or whatever. That's why most of the time you don't even want to hit the ball hard enough that it could go in the wrong pocket. But if you choose to do that, you deserve to reap the rewards.
There's another even more important reason why real players play by the real rules, and let any ball legally sunk stay sunk. Part of pool is defense. It's placing the ball in a spot that makes it hard on your opponent. If I accidentally play a great safety, leaving the cue ball in a difficult position for my opponent, do I go and move it because I didn't mean to leave it there? Of course not.
If I'm playing basketball, and throw up a brick that takes a weird high bounce off the rim and goes in, do I take it back because I didn't call "brick and then bounce up and in?" Of course not. Clearly, another of my pet peeves is people who think you have to call "bank" when you use the backboard. Also dumb.
I guess that's enough pet peeves for today. Later.
I can believe the president wants the words, "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance. I can believe Republicans, who tend to pander to the religious right want the words in. I can believe the normally more conservative Fox News people are all lining up to denounce this decision as "political correctness run amok." I can't believe that all the senators, all the media (which normally exhibits a liberal bias), and all sorts of intelligent people everywhere don't find this unconstitutional. We are essentially forcing children, in public schools, to pledge allegiance to a country that supposedly has some sort of mandate from an entity known as God. They can choose not to say it at all, but why can't a child choose to pledge allegiance to his country without being forced to commit to a particular religious point of view? I have heard two main lines of argumentation for leaving the words in. One is, "Where will it end? God Bless America? US currency?" The other is, "The Declaration of Independence and other things also mention God."
Did you know that the words, "under God" weren't originally part of the pledge? They were added in the 1950's. At least part of the rationale for adding them was to draw a contrast between a religiously tolerant USA and the explicitly anti-religion communism of the Soviet Union. At the time, when a much higher proportion of people in the US believed in the same God, it might not have been as offensive. In modern times, it is clear that we do not need to include God. The 9th Circuit said it well. How is "under God" different from "under Vishnu" or "under no god." And if it's not different, why don't we make one of those the official pledge of allegiance?
If the argument is that we don't need to ban the pledge, because you're already not required to say it, fine. I'll admit that might, legally, make sense. But to be outraged that someone wants to pursue separation of church and state? That's ridiculous. To think of this as political correctness run amok is to miss the point of the whole separation.
The pledge is not the same as the money. You don't have to say "In god I trust" when you hand over a $5 to the McDonald's girl. I agree, it's kind of ridiculous to go changing everything, but the pledge is said by impressionable schoolchildren. Caroline pointed out to me that teachers have to say it. Also, in a de facto sense, kids are pressured into saying it, and thereby into associating God with the US.
Next point - the Declaration of Independence mentions God in order to illustrate that certain rights are endowed to humans not by other humans but by a higher power. This power is referred to as God or the Creator. When they say Creator, they could have put God, but they instead put something more vague. Read the Declaration. You'll see what I mean. Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence isn't part of our modern government. It's just a document by some people saying they didn't want to be ruled by the British government anymore.
As my dad pointed out, it's pretty obvious that "under God" doesn't belong, but it's also pretty obvious that the country is not ready to take it out. So staying their own decision was probably a good move. People can get used to the idea that the words are outdated, but we don't have to have a constitutional amendment specifically allowing them, which would, of course, be ludicrous.
I'm back on the topic of automatic stabilizers again. I'm obsessed with automatic stabilizers, I suppose. It's just that I watch the "fine-tuning" going on in Japan right now have almost no effect, and it makes me think that the automatic stabilizers work better. If set up properly, they respond quickly and proportionately, and don't have to be bartered against subsidies or tax cuts in congress. Today I'm specifically thinking about broadening the traditional notion of automatic stabilizers. Last time (5/02) I wanted to broaden such government programs to include a more direct method of stimulating businesses when the economy turned down. This time I want to link the notion of an automatic stabilizer to the environment. Perhaps we could call it an "automatic conservationist" or something like that.
I was reading an article in today's Financial Times titled "Bush plans to relax rules on air pollution." The article is neither long nor detailed, but it basically says that environmentalists are mad because Bush is proposing to give "plants, refineries, and coal-burning utilities more flexibility to meet emissions regulations." One might speculate that this is being proposed, at least in part, to keep energy prices down. As the turmoil in the Middle East continues, gasoline prices creep back up, energy suppliers face tough economic times, and the country's energy production is still woefully inadequate in some areas, this idea might make sense. Of course, the tradeoff is air pollution. Pollution is often cheaper than clean air, especially in the short run from the point of view of a single business. When the cost to society as a whole is examined, in the long run, some kinds of pollution become extremely expensive. One of the modern roles of government is to help the markets align despite the externalities of pollution.
Let's say, hypothetically, there is an optimal point for society on the curve representing the tradeoff between cheap energy and clean air (or water or whatever else gets dirty). This point represents the relative value of one thing against the other to society. All we have to do, from a policy standpoint, is move to this point. From an environmentalist's perspective, we also have to educate society and move that point closer to clean air and further from cheap power. Unfortunately, the calculation is never this simple. Because factors in the economy (like gasoline prices or demand for heating oil) are constantly changing, the price at which a company can provide electricity while maintaining pollution safeguards is constantly changing. To add another hypothetical assertion, let's say that when economic times are good (inputs are cheap, demand for products is high, unemployment is low, etc...) suppliers and consumers of electricity are more able to afford pollution-reducing measures. Therefore, we can say that when economic times are good, we can afford cleaner air. Not only can we afford it, we might prefer to be closer to the "clean-air point" as our higher incomes mean we don't have to trade as much of our standard of living away.
So why don't we create a system where environmental controls are linked to economic prosperity? When output is increasing rapidly, marginal rates of pollution allowed can go down. That way, as we keep more and more machines running longer and longer, some of the extra GDP created will be pushed toward cleaning up the environment. This is a way of cooling down the economy (like raising interest rates) but we're not simply stifling growth, we're simply reallocating resources. When economic times are tough, environmental controls would be relaxed. There is no moral hazard associated with this, because a company still can't make more money when the economy is bad, they'll just lose less.
This idea is not a traditional one. Many people (especially environmentalists) do not correctly view the tradeoffs between low prices and clean air. Many would see the relaxation of rules as contrary to their aims. Of course, if the system results in a lower average pollution rate, environmentalists should embrace it, however low standards may be at some individual points in the business cycle. This system is somewhat analogous to simply raising taxes as the economy is heating up, and using extra tax revenues for environmental protection. Many environmentalists want to do that anyway. Of course, when tax revenues are down, environmental safeguards must face tough budget decisions (as must all other items in the budget).
One potential stumbling point (and there are undoubtedly many more) is how pollution controls linked to "prosperity." What if high-tech and financial sectors are booming and GDP is rising. If that is linked to stronger controls on all industries, it might hurt traditional manufacturing companies (sometimes big polluters), which may have been struggling already. If a system could be devised that would more properly link prosperity by polluters to restrictions on polluters, it would help resolve the externality by helping to assign the costs of pollution to their sources.
I've been listening to this new band. They're called Dashboard Confessional. Actually they're not that new. They seem to have two albums, the first from 2000. Upon further inspection, though, the first album, titled "The Swiss Army Romance" and the second, titled "The Places You Have Come to Fear" seem to share some common tracks (specifically, the good ones). My very first description is to say they're a cross between Weezer and Third Eye Blind. In fact, DC covered the Weezer song "Jamie." I once liked a girl named Jaime, pronounced the same. That makes it more interesting in my world. To further preface this little intro, I should point out that I like both those bands a lot, and that my favorite Third Eye Blind song is probably Motorcycle Drive-By. That gives you some idea of why I would like DC.
The first DC song I heard was "Screaming Infidelities." I saw the video, too. Jessica Choi has some kind of crush on the lead singer, and if it hadn't been for her, I wouldn't have noticed the song when I did. Screaming Infidelities is a great song. It's just 1 dude with an acoustic. There are two things I find really interesting about this song. One is that it seems to have two choruses. First is the chorus that goes "And as for me / I wish that I was anywhere / With anyone / Making out." Then at the end, there's another refrain, which includes the title. The line (repeated several times) is "Your hair it's / Everywhere / Screaming Infidelities / And taking its wear." I think that's a great line. Girls' hair is weird. It's long, smells better than mine, and conjures up an abundance of memories with the greatest of ease. The second interesting thing is the guy's voice. For parts of the song, he's kind of yelling. This is where he reminds me of the 3eb guy.
You can't really hear the Weezer in Screaming Infidelities. You have to try other songs to hear that part. Try "This Bitter Pill" or "Dancing on the Corpses' Ashes." "Dancing..." is a really interesting song. It reminds me of the Dennis Leary song called "Asshole" at times, but blended with a soothing Ben Folds Five piano part. There's even a Blink 182 sound in songs like "Again I Go Unnoticed."
Oh yeah, and there's a song called "Ender Will Save Us All" on the Swiss Army Romance CD. How's that for a cool title?
I can't take it any longer. It is time for me to jump into the Israel-Palestine fray. First, let me throw out some resources. Jim Lerner (Zach's dad) pointed me to a PowerPoint presentation that, while perhaps overly dramatic, is all too accurate. Please watch the presentation. It includes information that people should know. For more information, check out some of the following articles/sources:
“Arab-American Perceptions of U.S. Policy Toward the Middle East” - a good and informative articleAnother Arab Perspective - a piece of crap essay that illustrates how misguided the positions of many of the Arabs and Muslim extremists are.
Here is the complete text of "The Clash of Civilizations" by Samuel Huntington. If I had to pick one general purpose, academic source for this subject, I think Huntington would be it.
This is a good comprehensive resource, and this is the best way I've found to keep up to date on what's going on (in addition to reading the headlines).
For more in-depth reading on the subject, check out From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman. He's a good author, and his books aren't too dry.
Ok. Now that that's out of the way, on to my analysis. It is going to take A LONG TIME and be VERY HARD to solve the problems there. By solve the problems I don't just mean reduce the violence, but rather create an environment in which violence will not soon erupt again. I am going to lay down my interpretation of what is and has been going on in and around Israel lately. I recognize that many disagree with me. I understand and appreciate that. I am however, very interested in this subject, and somewhat education on it. Knowing that, you may take my views for what they're worth to you.
Arafat is a terrorist. There really isn't a way around this. At first, he was openly a terrorist. Then, after the Oslo accords in 1993, he became this more official figure and everyone hoped he would engage in terrorism anymore. Whether or not he actually plots bombings I don't know. He does, though, secure weapons and intelligence, through his organizations, for suicide bombers. He also encourages and incites bombers in his public addresses and writings. He also appears to have ties to militants all over the world, including some in Iraq, Syria, and Iran. He supports terrorism. People are often quick to point out that Israel attacks Palestinians with its tanks and attack choppers, but the Palestinians have nothing to fight back with but homemade bombs. This may be true, in some ways, but it's no excuse. Israel isn't trying to take over all of the Middle East. They aren't going out and killing civilians on purpose. Trust me, if they were, they could do a much better job of it. Some Arabs DO want to take over all of Israel. Also, sending a child or an 18-year-old girl with a bomb strapped to her into a marketplace to blow up innocent people is much different from trying to catch guerilla soldiers, and accidentally shooting the people amongst whom they hide, even if you aren't too careful about who gets in the way. I'm sure Israel has done some ugly things in this conflict - but are they really more ugly than suicide bombings? They're probably less ugly.
So the question becomes: Why don't we deal with him like other terrorists? Even Israel is afraid to kill him. He is a hero to lots of Palestinians. He is also the only authority in the region. Mostly this is because dissidents are suppressed and a calculated system of indoctrination is at work in Palestine. The news there is so biased it's hard to believe anyone pays attention to it, but they do, because EVERYTHING they hear is equally biased, and this just reinforces their biases.
On a related topic, I'm beginning to believe that, like certain others issues, this issue is FULL of personal biases. So, for the record, I am not Jewish. I don't really practice any religion. I don't have any particular connection to Israel. I am 1/4 Lebanese, but my family there was not Muslim. They were Catholics. I don't feel that I am biased, but I'm sure I have my predispositions, just like anyone else.
I was reading an article about private enterprise helping government to produce the kinds of systems and technologies needed in the war on terrorism (ie sensors, identification devices, information sharing technology, etc...). The article makes frequent reference to the relationship of VC's to big business, government, and technological innovation. Somewhere down a ways in the article it mentioned that incubators have fallen out of favor lately, and even suggests a possible role for the government providing "incubation services" to startups. This gives me an idea.
When economic times are tough, what do companies do? One thing they do is lay people off. Another thing they do, because they now have less employees, is vacate office buildings. Sometimes they even sell office equipment, although they probably often put it in storage. This is a big waste, because lots of office equipment obsolesces very quickly.
I am a big fan of automatic stabilizers in the economy. In addition to government spending programs as automatic stabilizers, there are also even more fundamentally automatic stabilization tendencies in a market economy. For example, when the economy is in recession, and interest rates go down, average mortgage payments also go down, increasing disposable income for consumers. What if the government created an automatic stabilization program around incubation. When the economy turns sour, investors are wary of investing in risky new businesses. Whereas the bubble economy was being driven fiercely by internet investment, the number of startups and IPO's now is probably lower than what would be healthy.
So we have too few innovative businesses being funded in a down economy, and we also have vacant office space and displaced workers. What if the government offered a tax break or a subsidy to companies that offered up their extra office space, employees, business services, and equipment to a startup - basically offered to incubate a startup. When the economy was good, it wouldn't be worth it to a big company to spend their time on that, but when the economy turned sour, it might mean the difference between laying people off or keeping them. Obviously, only certain types of firms with certain kinds of expertise would be able to do this. But companies that could certainly do that are companies like Sun Microsystems or HP, which recently laid lots of people off. They have exactly the kind of expertise, employees, and existing systems that an innovative PC hardware engineering firm might need to get off the ground. I would suspect the same relationship might exist with drug companies and biotech startups.
This idea would clearly need a lot more development. What do y'all think?
Karaoke is a funny thing. I've been afflicted with the "Money" craze lately. It's awesome. I've done a little research on the subject, and figured out lots of things. First, I'm going to start with some background information about my new favorite movie, then move on to my analysis of the plot and the stars themselves.
The song their singing is called "Money" and it's by Wax. It's track 5 on her second album, also titled "Money." That, itself, is a cover of an older song called "Hello, Mr. Monkey" by Arabesque. It's from the 70s. It sounds like it's from the 70s. Email me if you want the Arabesque song. Email me if you have the Wax mp3. I can't find it anywhere. I know one of you Korean people out there has it.
Now, on to the movie. I'm not an expert on Karaoke, but the production seems pretty nice doesn't it? The backgrounds are cool and somebody uses a little echo effect on their voices and laughter. The fun really begins when Chubby yells "money" for the first time. About 30 seconds into the movie, she starts to get her dance on, too. She does this Chris Tucker-like dance that she expands on later. Around 1:30 Chubby sticks her tongue out. Then, not 15 seconds later, she goes into this bizarre yelling thing. I really, really want to get the Wax mp3 so I can hear how that part sounds on the CD. When she starts her yelling, Skinny goes down. There's another time that she falls, but I can't remember where. She's obviously embarrassed. Chubby manages to get though it, although just barely. A little after 2 minutes, Chubby starts doing what was instantly a classic in my book. She does this weird-ass thing where she hits her hand with her fist, then brings it up to her forehead over and over, quickly. Sometimes this is punctuated by this little finger wiggling thing. At 3 minutes she begins to hack up some phlegm but thinks better of it. Skinny goes down again at 2:30 from laughter. They miss a couple lines of words at this point. But skinny makes an excellent recovery, and does her best singing in the next few lines. At 2:40, when Chubby comes back in, she seems serious about the singing. For once, they sound good together. It also makes the video 100 times better, because it makes it more real. If you haven't noticed, I consider this the climax. Then, to make sure you remember that she's funny, Chubby pulls a Mary Catherine Gallagher, sniffs her armpit, and smells her fingers.
I hope I have answered a few questions about this quirky video. But I have questions of my own! Why does she yell? What are all those weird dances? Why are they dressed so warmly (presumably indoors)? Also, and this takes a good eye to notice, but I think there is a screen on which the two girls can see themselves. Sometimes when Skinny starts cracking up, it looks like she's seeing Chubby on a monitor. Anyone else see what I'm talking about? The monitor would be down and to the left of the camera, from the viewer's POV.
Note: Although I claimed that this was my favorite movie, the Unit 1 prostitute video, and "Ahhh! You scared me!" are still up real high on the list as well.
First up is the BCG. No girls, I did not misspell BCBG. So, some time ago, one of my professors told us how the Boston Consulting Group got famous by essentially telling companies to embark on lots of projects, even if the ROI might not be there, because the benefits of learning how to do the project would more than make up for minor profit shortfalls. Anyway, I learned this juicy tidbit in class, and then stopped thinking about it forever. Or so I thought.
Then the other day I was reading slashdot, and I found this article about GNU/Linux and Open-source software / Free software (OSS/FS). The section on TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) is what piqued my interest. Notice how a company can save a gazillion dollars by buying Redhat for $76 (or downloading it for free), instead of purchasing licenses for Windows at approximately one $unbornchild per computer.
My reaction was, "Yeah, but all these IT fools at random places are dumb. They could never manage real Linux servers." They might have an equal amount of downtime with either solution, but at least they could get the Exchange server running. I used to work at the Medical Board of CA, where it takes 20 IT staff to replace a hard drive. I was trying to imagine them migrating hundreds of users over to anything. Then I was thinking about how what they really need is training classes.
Total Cost of Ownership --> Technical Training. Then it donned on me. They could use all the money they were going to save on servers and licenses for said classes. There are lots of comprehensive, 1 week courses out there on Linux server administration and setup for about $2,000. So let's say a company has 400 users, and an IT staff of about 20. If each of them went to 100 hours of classes, that would be something like $120,000. Well, if you would truly save $280,000+ with a OSS/FS solution it might well be worth it - even if you had to pay for lots of training. Not only would you still be saving big bucks, but your IT staff are going to be learning a lot about a real OS at the same time. Three full weeks of training each for 20 people is a lot of classroom time - probably more than most IT depts. do in a whole year for all purposes combined.
Now this is even better than what the BCG is preaching, because it sounds like the ROI could be quick (like 1-2 years), AND a company could be increasing their stock of human capital at the same time.
Just another reason why we should all learn to use the command line.