In Defense of the Rich

Here is a gift courtesy of The Economist:

http://economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328935

 

This ought to be sufficient to shoot down those misguided Democrats if they dare question the justice of America's income distribution. Though the argument leaves a few openings for potential adversaries to rent asunder, few of the Democratic persuasion have eyes to see or strength to tear.

 

You have consumption inequality level for decades, ever less inequality in "life satisfaction," and an ever greater gap in working hours (with the rich working ever more, the poor ever less).

 

Of course, money still buys a lower stress level (in theory), longer life expectancy, and various forms of power and freedom.

The Moroccan Way

There is an article today in the NY Times on the Moroccan strategy for handling incarcerated terrorists and radicals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/world/africa/31prison.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

After reading it, though disgusted by the brutality of both sides, I considered that these terrorists are really a non-threat to the government of Morocco (and most other Islamic nations). In virtually every respect they are marginal types, lacking centralized, coordinated organization and competent leadership. Their relatively high profile is disproportionate to their limited power and absence of a coherent strategy to actually overthrow the King. Yet, they do exert some influence. The question is to what effect. From the government's perspective they're a chronic, but manageable, disease of the body politic. Further, it may be a disease that justifies more severe control over that body, the rest of which may then be pacified by the justification of "disease-control." Most of the Muslim world is a prison, one whose strictures are all the more defensible as a result of certain elements of resistance. In other words, these incompetent extremists (who appear by their actions, as opposed to their words, to be more like anarchists than theocrats) form a (witless) pillar of support for these dictatorial regimes. Anarchism is indeed a game at which the police can beat you. And if the dictators are happy enough to retain their power in despite of the forms of democracy available, the terrorists do not generally seem to view this as a less attractive state of affairs than a democratic option might offer--democratic government poses the threat that it might muster up such a degree of popular legitimacy as a dictator could not sustain in our time and thereby the more effectually block their theocratic ascendance. Thus, the two mortal enemies and the two most powerful forces in many Muslim nations conspire by disparate actions to thwart political and social liberalization.

---

The IPCC Conspiracy

It's damn difficult to find a climate change skeptic possessed of any intelligence (I know several people who've been trying, all lucklessly, for years now)--and you can toss the idea of integrity altogether. But, at least this fellow has one point of some consequence to make and, as a special bonus, he even manages (but just barely) to avoid contradicting himself. Nevertheless, an article fairly representative of the amateurism and weak-witted populist conspiracy-mongering of the climate change deniers:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968#

My response:
The article speaks of scientists with vested interests but fails to indicate what those interests may be. It is a phrase infinitely interpretable and, therefore, when not qualified with further explanation, essentially meaningless. Granted that the talk of 2,500 scientists agreeing with every detail and possessing the expertise in each requisite area to offer genuine professional assent--was always transparently loose talk, a sloppy and, strictly speaking, inaccurate representation of the IPCC process. The science is far too detailed and intricate for any individual to fully grasp the entire beast head to foot. But, the source of the misrepresentation, if I am not mistaken, is primarily the media and certain politicians--not the IPCC itself. Consequently, this fellow oversteps the mark in protesting that the reports of the IPCC should be construed as "dishonest and politically skewed." I see little evidence of the former; and insofar as any evidence of the latter may be apparent it conforms to one's common sensical expectations of the nature of such skewing: remember who it is that finally approves these reports. The politicos overseeing this process, though indirectly, nevertheless do exert a degree of influence upon its interpretations where the data are interpretable. Now, stop to consider--would the ruling classes of the nations of this earth wish to bring down upon themselves such a severe test as climate change appears to be? With perhaps a few fairly perverse exceptions (perhaps a few misguided environmentalists and a few nations that might believe they will derive short-term advantages over trade rivals from GHG reductions made by those rivals), most politicos would prefer to duck this problem--Bush is not the only duck, only the worst of them. If you refer to the successive reports issued by the IPCC over the last 20 years or so, you will find that they have consistently underestimated the speed of the warming trend. Probably this decidedly non-alarmist tack has been partly the result of political influence and partly a result of the inherent difficulty of constructing accurate models of the earth's climate.

Due to the endemic and permanent uncertainty of climate science, room will always remain for a range of interpretations to battle it out and to mold the data in accordance with the personal interests and preconceived notions and preferred interpretive methods underlying them--and the observers and reviewers will then perforce select the most persuasive points and paths, the finest collections of probabilities available until the latest data arrive and the battle recommences. But, at present the assembled forces of the IPCC ought to prevail for superior quality and integrity.