I don’t care how good the intentions are, this is clearly socialist thinking. Her last statement is true in principle–”special privileges for none”, but how can she say that and at the same time advocate lower taxes for the poor/middle class than for the upper class, affirmative action, welfare, free health care for the poor etc. Those are all “special privileges” she’s willing to dole out to large segments of the population. What she really meant to say was “mediocrity for all, nothing special for anyone.”

We Are All in It Together, Clinton Says

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

In an excerpt from Al Gore’s new book in Time Magazine, he brings up the following points:

• Americans watch too much TV
• Americans buy into lies easily, (controversial) example: Some people (still) think Saddam was connected to 9/11
• You can buy votes and sway opinions if you can afford enough TV advertising
• No one listens to speeches on the Senate floor anymore. Not even Senators.
• Americans read too little
• Body language and visual rhetoric (e.g. sighs) are sometimes more influential than reason and logic in terms of swaying the opinions of Americans
• Americans feel disconnected from the legislative process and many young Americans question the efficacy of American democracy
• Democratic discourse is enabled by the new medium of the Internet and has the potential to offset the negative effects of passively watching TV
• Net neutrality is essential to maintain the freedom of this discourse

Overall he repeats many well known and oft-debated problems and issues, maneuvering them into and interesting and compelling argument against net neutrality. I’m not sure if that’s the subject of the entire book, but if it is, it will definitely be a strong blow to the tiered Internet movement.

I agree (surprisingly) with most of what Al Gore says in this excerpt, though I am still a little disgusted with how he mixes his personal politics (e.g. 2000 elections, moveon.org, etc.) into his arguments at every opportunity. I think he could be a lot more compelling if he’d stick more to the issue at hand and avoid some of the more polarizing examples even if he feels they’re illustrative examples of his points.

Book Excerpt: The Assault on Reason

Technorati Tags: al gore, the assault on reason, books, book review, net neutrality

After reading the Iliad last week I needed a break and picked up a fluff book – The Prestige by Christopher Priest. It’s entertaining. One part I found somewhat educational is where Priest breaks down the stages of an illusion and the categories of an illusion. I love it when someone can dissect something that otherwise seems expansive into something much more comprehensible and simplifies it to categories. Here they are paraphrased from the book:

The 3 stages of an illusion:

1. Setup – the nature of what is to be attempted is to hinted at, explained, volunteers sometimes participate.
2. Performance – the magical display.
3. The Prestige – the product of magic.

The 6 Categories of illusions

1. Production – the magical creation of something or someone out of nothing.
2. Disappearance – turning something into nothing
3. Transformation – the changing of one thing into another
4. Transposition – changing place of two or more objects
5. Defiance of natural laws
6. Secret motive power – objects moving of their own will

Also, I learned a cool word – prestidigitation – magic tricks performed as entertainment.

Technorati Tags: magic

A summary of how money works in the US:

1. Congress needs money.
2. The money it collects from taxes does not cover the money it needs so it borrows money.
3. Much of the money congress borrows is from a private bank called the Federal Reserve.
4. Congress is then in debt to the Federal Reserve for the amount borrowed, plus interest.

The Federal Reserve (again, a private, non-governmental bank) creates money it lends to the US Government out of thin air. The money has no real value since the Federal Reserve does not have assets (gold, land, etc.) to back the money. The money is printed or electronically created out of nothing.

This type of money–paper money with no backing in physical assets, is called Fiat Money or Fiat Currency–it only has value because the government says it has value.

One of the effects of a currency that is printed upon will is inflation. When the Federal Reserve inflates the amount of money in circulation, the value of money that is already in circulation goes down. This means that if you have $100 dollars in the bank, the purchasing-power of that $100 goes down every time congress borrows and puts into circulation money from the Federal Reserve.

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
–Henry Ford

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”
—Thomas Jefferson

What can be done about this? One solution is that Federal Reserve could be eliminated over time and the US Government could begin to print its own money. In this case there would be some backing behind the money since the US Government has real assets – the ability to tax, sell Federal lands, gold etc.

I started thinking about this here. I found another good documentary on it here. You can find an opposing point of view (a weak argument if you ask me) here.

Technorati Tags: currency, federal reserve, fiat money, money

In 22 years, the US GDP has gone from about 20,000 to 35,000 per capita while energy use per capita has remained almost the same. Apparently it is possible for a country to increase the GDP without increasing energy use. It’s also interesting that the US and the UK are the only two countries who are using energy so efficiently.

Found in a lecture from UC Berkeley’s Physics for Future Presidents.

I found this graph (pdf) from an interesting lecture from a UC Berkeley physics professor who had some good data on the availability of oil and the feasibility of several types of ‘alternate’ energy sources, mostly in the context of automobiles.

Basically this shows that we’re not going to “run out of oil” as is so often stated, but that we’re just running out of cheap oil. He also talked a lot about why we’re so dependent on oil and why other forms of energy e.g. hydrogen and solar aren’t going to replace gasoline, ever. He believes that all cars in the future will be hybrids.

I know very, very little about philosophy. I’m trying to fix this by going back and reading some. Tonight I read Plato’s Crito, in which Crito tries to persuade Socrates to escape from prison and avoid death by fleeing to another city.

If Socrates was so content upon obeying the law and doing what was just, why did he stay in Athens and teach if he knew he was disobeying the law.

If he was not aware that he was disobeying the law, how can he argue that the law could say to him:

‘You, Socrates, are breaking the covenants and agreements which you made with us at your leisure, not in any haste or under any compulsion or deception, but after you have had seventy years to think of them, during which time you were at liberty to leave the city, if we were not to your mind, or if our covenants appeared to you to be unfair. You had your choice, and might have gone either to Lacedaemon or Crete, both which states are often praised by you for their good government, or to some other Hellenic or foreign state

If he was not consciously disobeying the law then his understanding of the law was flawed and thus his acceptance of the law was based on a misunderstanding rather than an agreement that the law was good.

Would not allowing himself to be put to to death, when there are other options–exile or escape, based on the verdict of a law which once he understood, he did not agree with, be morally wrong? Would it not be better for him to do what he would have done had he understood the law better before he was sentenced (either change the law or leave Athens)?

On a different note, I found this part which is closer to the beginning particularly interesting:

In questions of just and unjust, fair and foul, good and evil, which are the subjects of our present consultation, ought we to follow the opinion of the many and to fear them; or the opinion of the one man who has understanding? ought we not to fear and reverence him more than all the rest of the world: and if we desert him shall we not destroy and injure that principle in us which may be assumed to be improved by justice and deteriorated by injustice;–there is such a principle?

Today I heard a congresswoman from California refer to the “ending American occupation of Iraq.” I take issue with that terminology. An to occupy a country is to “take control of by military conquest or settlement”. To liberate is to “set (someone) free from a situation, esp. imprisonment or slavery, in which their liberty is severely restricted.” (Oxford Dictionary)

In Iraq, America (and its allies) have toppled a dictator, stood up a democratic government, held elections and started the process of helping an autonomous Iraqi government secure its country. These things are historical facts. We are liberators, not occupiers.

The important point here is that the liberation has begun in Iraq but is not yet finished. A liberation should be lasting. If America left Iraq today I think there are few who would argue that the democratic government that has been set up would survive. It is likely that the situation in Iraq would be worse that it was when it was ruled by Saddam. There would definitely be an increase in terrorist activity in Iraq and possibly an increase elsewhere in the world as a result.

Were we to leave Iraq today we would be ending the liberation, not the occupation. The question is now, “Should we end the liberation of Iraq?”

I stated what would happen were we to leave Iraq today. What if we stay? It is likely that more American troops will die. Also, the war is expensive. On the other hand, the outcome could potentially be very positive–it could end in a free Iraq which would be good for America, Iraq and the world. Does it make sense to stop the liberation now and allow a known evil–the decline of Iraq, when there is potentially a very great good–the completed liberation of Iraq?

Socrates said in his trial “I will never fear or avoid a possible good rather than a certain evil.” I agree. Regardless of why we are in Iraq, we are there, and there as liberators. To leave now would be leaving in fear and avoidance of a possible good to bring on a certain evil. We should finish the job.

Technorati Tags: iraq, war, iraq war, liberation, occupation

Ok, that title will seem pretentious after reading the rest of the post but there you have it. Today I read The Apology, by Plato, in which Socrates defends himself on trial for corrupting the youth of Athens. Here are a few quotes from his self-defense that I noted:

I will never fear or avoid a possible good rather than a certain evil.

In regards to death. He would rather die, which to him was an unknown, rather than renounce his philosophizing which he considered to be his life mission. Powerful.

I am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by God; and the state is a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you.

Hence the many newspapers called the Gadfly and the figurative definition of the word: “an annoying person, esp. one who provokes others into action by criticism.” (Oxford American Dictionaries)

This is what deters me from being a politician. For I am certain, that if I had engaged in politics, I should have perished long ago, and done no good either to you or to myself. And do not be offended at my telling you the truth: for the truth is, that no man who goes to war with you or any other multitude, honestly striving against the many lawless and unrighteous deeds which are done in a state, will save his life; he who will fight for the right, if he would live even for a brief space, must have a private station and not a public one.

You definitely don’t get the full meaning of this quote out of context, but Socrates provides a very compelling reason for not becoming a politician in his text. It comes down to the (obvious?) incompatibilities between politicians and idealists. I would definitely consider myself to be an idealist and not a politician.

I cared not a straw for death, and that my great and only care was lest I should do an unrighteous or unholy thing. For the strong arm of that oppressive power did not frighten me into doing wrong;

Again, something I’d like to be able to say upon my death.

…that daily to discourse about virtue, and of those other things about which you hear me examining myself and others, is the greatest good of man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living

In other words, blog often

The difficulty, my friends, is not to avoid death, but to avoid unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death.

On being willing to die for a moral belief.

What do I take to be the explanation of this silence? I will tell you. It is an intimation that what has happened to me is a good, and that those of us who think that death is an evil are in error. For the customary sign would surely have opposed me had I been going to evil and not to good.

Finally, Socrates take on death. He felt that there was an “oracle” that led him away from harm and caused him to feel uncomfortable talking about certain subjects. In the case of death the oracle did not speak to him and he interpreted this as a sign that death is not evil or something to be feared.

The Bilderberg Group. The Rothschild’s. The Federal Reserve. The Rockefeller’s. London. Chase-Manhattan. Citibank. Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton.

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial Nation is controlled by a system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation, therefore, and all its activities are in the hands of a few men.

We have come to be the worse ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world – no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote by the majority, but the government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.

…

Some of the biggest men in the United States are afraid of something; they know that there is a power so organized, so subtle, so interlocked, and so complete that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

-Woodrow Wilson

How much do they really control? How much is hype? Can anything be done to change it?

The Copenhagen Consensus has made a list of the worlds top problems in order of priority. Their question is if we had 50 billion dollars to solve a problem, where would we be able to affect the biggest change.

This is one of those ideas that strike you as obvious once you’ve seen it but took genius to invent (and act on). This is their list:

I found this on Classically Liberal who also linked to a video of Bjorn Lomborg, the founder of Copenhagen Consenus speaking at TED.

The implications of this list are provocative. If you agree with the order of the categorization then to focus on any of the projects that are lower on the list would mean (conservatively) that your money and energy could be better used elsewhere or if you look at it in a different light, it could mean that to ignore the higher ranked problems by diverting attention to those ranked lower (the obvious being global warming) is actually causing a higher number people to suffer and die.

Lomberg has also written a book – “Global Crises, Global Solutions” (Cambridge University Press). I haven’t read it yet but I’m excited by the prospect of researching this more.

I hope this doesn’t make anyone feel less guilty than they’d like to.

“The war in Iraq is inflicting a much greater emotional toll on U.S. troops than most Americans realize.”

That’s how the article “Death of a Marine” is introduced. The article then goes on to give the sad story of how one marine was driven to suicide by his wartime experience.

What? Where does this have anything to do with the general state of being of the entire US Military? One soldier? I’d venture to guess that you could pick any war (or probably any peacetime) in history and find examples of soldiers who committed suicide due to their tough military experiences.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert should embarrassed by his transparent attempt at exploiting the emotional story of the death of this soldier to push his anti-Iraq-war agenda.

Technorati Tags: bob herbert

Paul Krugman argues in the NYT that the Republican party of today is no different from what it was under Reagan (contrary to what Time Magazine says this week) based on the following:

• Both administrations supported private healthcare
• Both had bad attorney generals
• Both administrations served the wealthy
• Both were against big government
• Both appointed people based on loyalty rather than credentials

While I’d take issue with most of these points, the fact is, that even if these were true it’s hardly enough evidence to bring about this rather forced speculation that the country would be in the same situation today if Reagan were president as it is today under Bush.

Krugman also apparently is unwilling admit that Reagan did any good for the country while in office–something that I think few honest, thinking people are willing to deny. This in the same breath as praising Clinton for governing well.

Here’s an excerpt in which Krugman attempts to characterize conservatives as people who “see no point in governing well.”

Don’t Cry for Reagan – New York Times

Why is there such a strong family resemblance between the Reagan years and recent events? Mr. Reagan’s administration, like Mr. Bush’s, was run by movement conservatives — people who built their careers by serving the alliance of wealthy individuals, corporate interests and the religious right that took shape in the 1960s and 1970s. And both cronyism and abuse of power are part of the movement conservative package.In part this is because people whose ideology says that government is always the problem, never the solution, see no point in governing well. So they use political power to reward their friends, rather than find people who will actually do their jobs.

If expertise is irrelevant, who gets the jobs? No problem: the interlocking, lavishly financed institutions of movement conservatism, which range from K Street to Fox News, create a vast class of apparatchiks who can be counted on to be “loyal Bushies.”

I’m not buying it. The sweeping generalizations about conservatism are plainly false and contrived. You can find parallels between any two administrations and the ones mentioned here are weak and inaccurate at best. Reagan and his administration were in a league altogether different of that of Bush and as presented in the Time article, there is more than enough evidence to corroborate this.

Interesting take on the sub-conscious. He cites On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins which was a great book.

Your Brain on Baseball – New York Times

Over the decades, the institution of baseball has figured out how to instruct the unconscious mind, to make it better at what it does. As we know the automatic brain only by the behavior it produces, so we can instruct it only by forcing it to repeat certain actions. Jeff Kent is practicing covering first after all these years because the patterns of the automatic brain have to be constantly and repetitively reinforced.

But baseball has accomplished another, more important feat. It has developed a series of habits and standards of behavior to keep the conscious mind from interfering with the automatic mind.

Technorati Tags: david brooks, intelligence, brain