Obamaisms

Inspired by Michelle Obama's confession that she is now, for the first time in her 44 years of life proud to be an American, having been born in the year of the Civil Rights Act, I was left to wonder again at the state of our national politics.

It seems that Obama, by way of his closest associates, is his own worst enemy. 

 

If he cannot win under the almost ideal circumstances he enjoys now--against a superannuated Senator unpopular in his own party, which party has been blamed for a war largely perceived as unsuccessful and incompetently managed, a party which will be blamed for the present descent of the nation's economy, a Republican party more damaged and discredited in public esteem than at any Presidential election since 1976--if, with all these burdens borne by his opponent, Obama still fails of success--might he not, despite all his promise and personal charisma, follow Al Gore into the wilderness, so culpable would he then be for permitting the executive and the judiciary to fall once again under Republican control? 

 

Now, Hillary, on the other hand, though superficially more diminished by her less successful and too prolonged pursuit of the crown, will, out of spite, if nothing else, never leave public office, ever--and may yet become President. Only think: she could run 3 more times before reaching McCain's years--and by then, of course, Chelsea will be of age to continue the Clintonite Presidential tradition endlessly on.  

If They're Wrong We'll Never Know

I do heartily believe that these physicists do not know enough about physics to quantify probabilities of such theoretical events as micro black holes. But, it's generally amusing to read interviews of physicists--each one seems to have a different threshold in terms of willingness to admit inherent uncertainties in their theories--I think those willing to admit the most uncertainty have the best senses of humor (probably the highest intelligence too).

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/science/29collider.html

Immigration Policy

I've been of this opinion for some time, but I have to credit this guy, Ron Guhname, for pulling together a great sweeping analogy to dramatize it:

 

 

 

INDUCTIVIST 

Employers who hire illegals are like drug dealers: When debating illegal immigration, folks on both sides of the political aisle focus on the immigrants. Conservatives argue that aliens are lawbreakers. Moderates and liberals contend that undocumented workers are just that--workers who are vital to the economy. Radicals claim that Mexican immigrants coming to western states are not really immigrants because those states rightly belong to Mexico. They just moved, and the only difference is that instead of driving the U-Haul, they rode in back.

So, everyone argues about the whether the immigrants are a good or bad thing, but all this talk is about the little fish. All to often the big fish get off the hook. This is a big mistake since, in this immigration drama, the employer is the drug dealer and the illegal is only a junkie. The drug dealer gets fat while the neighborhood goes to hell. The politicians are the cops who close their eyes to the transaction in exchange for a dirty money payoff. And the ACLU who sues the employer for investigating the legal status of his workers is the fellow gangbanger who threatens you if you are even thinking about leaving the gang and going straight. Now, none of us likes a junkie, but he is just the little guy. American save their rage for the guy peddling the dope. He is the one who needs to serve some serious time.

Yes, illegal immigration is a serous problem, but so is illegal hiring. We need to shine the light on this issue.

For one thing, focusing on the employers can help us around one major difficulty. In a debate between Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter, O’Reilly asked if it was possible to invade the neighborhoods of illegals with paddy wagons, round up 11 million people, and dump them at the border. She insisted that the issue is about what it right, not what is realistic. But any reasonable person will agree that it’s always about what is realistic. And the only realistic way to send 11 million people packing is to dry up the damn jobs. Dry up the jobs, and illegals will deport themselves. The solution here is simple: we need legislation to go after the real felons--the employers.

Ron Guhname

On the moral origins of PC

http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2008/03/rule-to-live-by-wwho-did-you-read-story.html
I think this is a good stab at the question.
It may decode some of the apparent irrationality and inconsistency of these people.
Of course, they're also keen to oppose anything they might imagine an old-fashioned redneck would support.
To allow one's enemies to define one's positions is to play a weak hand.

On Popularity and Soft Power

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/michael_gerson/
The Myth of America's Unpopularity

Mr. Gershon's analysis of his first two premises is reasonable. However, he gives short shrift to the impact of soft power in international affairs (though I agree that it is harder to be at once popular and decisive). The preeminent recent example of the influence of soft power was the erosive effect we produced in the Soviet Union: we projected strength, as he mentions, but we also projected success and optimism and the conviction that we were morally right and that the Soviet system was morally bankrupt. One of Reagan's enduring achievements was precisely his professional competence in so projecting our character and values into the minds and hearts of those living (and not only those ruling) behind the Iron Curtain. Reagan's command over the tools of soft power was probably as important as his vigorous counters to Soviet military machinations. And why in hell do you think Deng Xiaoping instituted his radical reforms in China circa 1979? Military pressure? Insofar as he faced any (which wasn't very far), the more serious source was the USSR. He could see how sclerotic the Soviet system had become and how dynamic ours remained. In this latter instance we did not need to project our success as aggressively because Deng was possessed of sufficient intelligence to make his own decisions; yet the underlying example we presented remained necessary to the effect. Beyond all this, though, among historians the really grand example of soft power's potential is still the French Revolution and the endless aftershocks propagated in its wake, especially in Europe, but of global extent. Note, though, that the ideas generated do not correspond with any exactitude to the actual facts--and one may argue that the ideas that produced the Revolution had more long-term consequence than the example of the Revolution itself (being a complicated, bloody affair).

It is a question of the power of ideas and how their power is influenced by the character, position, actions of those who attempt to extend their reach.

The American Health Care Dilemma

I tend to disfavor universal healthcare for several reasons.  Imposing a government run command and control economy upon the healthcare sector will by definition distort incentives within the system and thereby render it less efficient; also, it will probably increase the corruption which is already pervasive in the Medicaid/Medicare programs and associated health programs. In addition to this inefficiency and corruption, individual liberty and rights will certainly be constrained by the massive bureaucratic machine managing the system. And if private care is squeezed out altogether, as may well happen by one means or another, we will be deprived of a basis for comparing the efficacy of the governmental sector with that of the private sector. I have long assumed that the private health care sector has one other major advantage: it provides a much more fertile soil for all types of innovation, from the development of new procedures to the creation of new pharmaceuticals and the invention of new medical devices--it provides ample rewards to the innovators and sufficient flexibility to experiment with new ideas and opportunities.
 

There are also arguments of consequence that may be set forth for the other side. There is the moral argument that citizens ought to have a right to decent health care provisions regardless of income. Also, certain specific efficiencies can be achieved more readily under a government controlled system than under our hybrid model (esp. more thorough preventive care and a greater emphasis upon it, elimination of private companies' bureaucracies, and reduction of pay for some health workers).  Another substantial advantage, one which sways many intelligent Republicans, is the disburdening of our corporate sector of a major obligation not faced by their international competition--this is a problem which will only worsen without some type of reform in future.
 

As an interim solution I favor raising the age of Medicare eligibility to 70 by 2025. Also, I would impose rationing upon Medicaid recipients and initiate a program to emphasize preventive care. Those in government programs may simply have to accept rationing at some point--otherwise there may be a tax revolt or the possibility of governmental bankruptcy. I think tax deductions for private health care and health insurance costs should also be increased for both corporations and individuals--this to increase our international competitiveness.  I realize this encourages more health care spending as a whole and merely shifts the burden of spending away from the export sector. Already the government pays for 60% of health care costs in this country when tax benefits are accounted for.  But, all of these contingencies are interim and the future of scientific progress cannot be forecast. Probably we will do what we usually do with problems: we will exchange old ones for new ones.  

Bio-boondoggle

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?em&ex=1202706000&en=d42cfa6f14c01268&ei=5087%0A

My suspicions about the knock-on environmental effects of biofuels were always my main reason for scepticism about the government subsidies in this area.  After all, subsidies sometimes function to level the playing field, and our economy is heavily interlaced with all sorts of subsidies anyhow. But, this reminds me of the boondoggle that half-destroyed the Everglades and enriched our homegrown Cuban sugar mafia, those Faggello brothers or whatever their name is: sugar subsidies.

Is It Possible to have an Entrepreneurial Government?

Certain Israelis affirm it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/world/middleeast/21israel.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

As to the strategic argument that reducing oil demand will lower oil prices and choke off the material resources of Islamic extremists--I think arguments could well be made that impoverishing the Arabs would also encourage extremism, especially since such impoverishment would be all the more painful and humiliating following a period of relative wealth.

"Freaky observers" and Other Cosmological Pranks

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin

 

What has driven these poor fellows to win the crazy prize once again is the maddening problem of infinity--of both time and space. Starting from baseless assumptions, they invent a rigid, highly intricate superstructure of rules, then extrapolate out to the infinitely possible. It reminds me of scholasticism. Calculating probabilities about a universe whose size and nature you do not understand? What? They're trying to put the cart before the horse, when they have no cart. Or horse.

Amusing, though, from a certain viewpoint.
 

Fortunately, in science, accidents are notorious ambushers--in theory the cosmologist-metaphysicians may yet be ambushed by a useful accident. But, accidents only happen if one takes the risk of experiments, and these fellows are too clever to stoop to mere experimentation. Their only risk gathers itself from the unlimited competition summoned by a system of "science" that erects no barriers to entry. Then the question becomes, on what basis do theories overcome the competition? Aesthetics? Propaganda? Temporal priority? Fortunately, the losers can always invent another mad scheme.

The Pakistani Way

http://economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10424283

 

The book reviewed revisits the Pakistan-nuclear proliferation nexus managed by Mr. Khan. This is one of America's great foreign policy failures in recent times. If the book's interpretation is accurate, it begets some wonder concerning what other activities our political and intelligence leaders may have decided to let pass as they let Khan's network pass for all those years. Presumably we remain vigilant at least with respect to our rivals--but have we allowed other supposed allies to proceed with WMD programs under cover of our willful ignorance? And doesn't such a policy stance severely diminish our moral standing on counter-proliferation issues? Is this a certain reward now on offer for any nation that allies itself with us--however temporarily? It is difficult to conceive of a more foolishly short-term approach. Also, why did we let Khan run unfettered through the 90's? Pakistan was then less important strategically.

But, of course, the book may be wrong; maybe we just didn't know about Khan--wouldn't that be a relief? Then, our only problem would be somehow to correct our monumentally wasteful and incompetent intelligence services.