Christmas is coming. Here's a nice stocking stuffer.
|
Fact: John Walker Lindh never attacked or planned to attack US citizens or US soldiers. Fact: Lindh never provided assistance to Al Qaeda. Fact: though Lindh was involved the Taliban, he primarily did so before the United States had any dispute with them, i.e., before September 11th. Fact: Lindh had nothing to do with the uprising at the prison in Mazar-i-Sharif, nor the death of CIA officer Mike Spann. Fact: Lindh was tortured and otherwise deprived of the rights due a US citizen. Fact: the worst offense Lindh pled guilty to (he was convicted of nothing) was carrying weapons for the Taliban. Due to all of that, Lindh is now serving a 20-year sentence in the ADX SuperMax facility in Colorado, where he is kept in solitary confinement 24 hours a day, with only 1 hour outside his cell in the prison yard. Consider the other guests in residence there, and their crimes. Lindh may have broken the law 1, but there is no way that what he did justifies his treatment. He didn't kill anyone. He didn't injure anyone (that I'm aware of). He didn't kidnap anyone. He didn't steal anything. He didn't commit treason 2. As far as we know, he never fired his weapon or even raised his voice in anger. For this he gets 20 years. If there was anything remotely like justice in his case, he would be a free man today 3, but if justice could be relied on, this never would have happened. I just wanted to make sure you didn't forget he existed.
1 I say may because the US government behaved very, very badly in his case, and it's easy to understand how a frightened, tortured, isolated 21-year old might plead guilty to crimes he never committed with the full weight of the federal government against him in the terrified hysteria of late 2001 and 2002.
2 Do you think they would have hesitated to charge him with it if they thought they could?
3 With a new identity, of course
¶ 1610 Posted at 05.37 PM ⇒ No Comments ( issues | terrorism | politics ) Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that latest National Intelligence Estimate (PDF) concludes that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and does not appear to have restarted it. Furthermore, the report states that Iran would not be able to build a bomb until 2010-2015, even if they started now. The Bush administration has been trying to pick a fight with Iran for almost 6 years (counting since the "Axis of Evil" State of the Union speech in January 2002). How do they respond? I give you National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, from the press briefing yesterday: ...we have good reason to continue to be concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon, even after this most recent National Intelligence Estimate. In the words of the NIE, "Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons if a decision is made to do so."And: ...we are very unsure of Iran's attentions [sic], even with respect to the covert nuclear weapons program that Iran has halted. Again, let me quote the National Intelligence Estimate: "We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidentially whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program."In other words, Iran isn't the threat we've been claiming for 6 years, the seeker of World War III (according to George W. Bush in October), the crazed fanatics itching for a nuclear apocalypse. But, because they might change their minds, we have to continue our current strategy, i.e., threatening (and likely planning) war. This only serves to reinforce what I've suspected all along: most of the "tensions" and "crisis" with Iran has been provoked, caused, or outright invented by the Bush administration. As a side note, the Bush administration may have been sitting on these conclusions for quite some time, given Hadley's tap-dancing around the question in the press briefing mentioned above (refer to the Q&A portion), even as they continued the same bellicose rhetoric.
I have a big backlog of books that I've read, but I don't have the motivation to give them a more thorough treatment.
1 *snicker*
2 As in "Binion's Horseshoe," where the WSOP takes place
I found 's Evolution to be rather annoying at first. Baxter traces the evolution of mankind from the time of the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event to the death of Earth in the far future, by way of vignettes of various members of species in the ancestral line. Many of the early ones were rather cutesy, hence the annoyance. Either they got better or I got used to it, as my annoyance diminished as I proceeded. Most of the book should more properly be considered pre-historical fiction rather than science fiction; it's only once Baxter reaches the modern human era that he gets into truly speculative territory. One thing is clear once again: Baxter ain't no optimist. Given the story involves characters separated by millions of years, there isn't much continuity in the traditional sense. The overall arc seeks to make a point about the significance of the environment in human history, and a warning about our future should we fail to heed the point. That characterization makes it sound far more preachy than it actually is; the point is made with relative subtlety. Overall, I'd rate it a fair effort. Baxter's stories are less than compelling, but his imagination and attention to detail warrant respect. 0345457838 978-0345457837.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Fantastic. Our sewer pipe burst. Maybe big grand trees aren't such a good thing after all. It's probably the same one as last time, and the one that tried to kill me last year. Choose an expletive. Don't feel like you have to use only one. I've said it more than once, I'll say it again: houses are terrible investments. Don't buy one unless you have to.
How good are you at guessing? I got 5 clearly right, 2 clearly wrong, and 3 just barely wrong. I am among the 99% of people who are over-confident. Ironically or appropriately, depending on how you look at it, I read the comment about over-confidence and was confident that I was not over-confident.
Extra time in debates is one way the "front-runners" get preferential treatment from the media. "Front-runner" status becomes self-reinforcing. I'd like to steal an idea from the chess world. The candidates are each allotted the same amount of time at the beginning of the debate. From the moment the moderator finishes the question until the candidate finishes answering, the candidate is on the clock. If a candidate runs out of time, that's it; they can't talk anymore throughout the debate. If you want to spend your whole time budget talking about fishing, you can do that. If you want to allocate the same amount of time to each topic, you can do that too. I figure for a 90 minute debate with 8 participants (the current Democratic field), you'd give each candidate a 10-minute clock, with 10 more minutes for the moderator to ask questions 1. For the 9 Republican candidates, it would be 9 minutes each, plus 9 minutes for the moderator. This would also nerf the biased tactic of questions directed at particular candidates. Of course, since this would take power away from the political machines at the center and distribute it more towards the fringes, it would never happen, but it's nice to dream.
1 Maybe the moderator should be on a clock as well.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
There's this recent trend in giving women gifts after they give birth. It's enough of a trend to have made the NY Times. I've heard them called "birth gifts" and "push presents" (in the aforementioned article). Regardless of what you call them, they're a terrible idea. I can think of nothing that could possibly measure up to the pain and sacrifice of pregnancy, labor, and raising children. Any trinket or bauble I gave would just cheapen the event. She's not some woman I hired to be a brood mare, she's my wife. That's not to say she deserves no consideration; indeed, such a gift is insufficient consideration. True consideration is not nearly so easy or simple. The practice also implies something about compensation and equality. The new father gives the gift because the new mother endured far more. Giving such a gift in theory works to return things to equilibrium. That's stupid. A successful partnership isn't about equalizing responsibilities and rewards. "From each according to ability, to each according to need." As a general principle for organizing a society, that fails miserably, but it seems like the only sane system in a marriage. Some abstract notion of equality is irrelevant; you don't keep accounts with family. What matters is whether each member is satisfied with the division of duties and dividends. Such a gift also suggests a lack of equality. Any gift that I give Jessica comes out of our money, regardless of whose name is on the paycheck. Indeed, it is impossible for me to buy a gift for her 1; rather, we are buying something together for her (though she might not know about it [yet]). Saying it's a gift from me to her implies a distinction between my money and her money, and furthermore that my authority is higher than hers2. It's not the 1950s anymore; that's not how things work.
1 Except in the sense of implementing the mechanics of the transaction.
2 We (not I) didn't get her an engagement ring for similar reasons. The money would have come out of our collective assets, and we both would have been poorer for it.
¶ 1617 Posted at 02.49 PM ⇒ No Comments ( deep thoughts | stupid people ) Friday, December 07, 2007
Makes sense. Bonus comic: yup, that's what happened. Bonus bonus: this really works. Anyone for a bonus bonus bonus? Hey! That's where I live! And.... oh... right.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
I haven't come up with a complete and articulate expression of my opinion on affirmative action, but since I was asked directly... I'm not going to bother with any of the issues of fairness or equality because those are a quagmire, and I'm not really sure of what I think about them anyway. It matters more that affirmative action is misguided and ineffective. Affirmative action is the solution to the wrong problem. Some people's level of achievement is diminished by social and economic consequences of their race. Instead of helping those people reach their true potential, affirmative action says we should just pretend they already have. Affirmative action is an attempt to solve a special case of the problem of heritability of advantage and disadvantage. Kids from rich families tend to be rich. Kids from poor families tend to be poor. Frankly, I don't really care what caused your misfortune if it wasn't your fault 1. I want to help the kid who starts off with the disadvantage of being from Louisiana just as much as I want to help the kid with the disadvantage of being black. In either case we have a kid who through no fault of his own is starting life at the back of the pack. To take an extreme hypothetical example... Suppose you're a young black child of an unwed, uneducated mother. In spite of a chaotic home life, you manage to show up to school regularly. Your mother doesn't read to you, but you discover books on your own, turning your back on the babysitter TV. While your peers are getting distracted or in trouble, you forge ahead through school. Finally, after 18 years, society notices you and asks if you want to go to Texas State instead of nowhere. Gee, thanks. Where were they when you were hungry and cold? Where were they when you got beaten up for being a know-it-all? Where were they when your mom wanted you to drop out of school to help support your younger siblings? By the time affirmative action shows up to help, the damage is already done. If we're really sincere about helping those with disadvantages, we'd start much earlier. Is race really the root cause? Or is it just a strong correlation? I think it's the latter. We should focus on helping disadvantaged children regardless of race. Will that help more blacks and more Hispanics? Certainly. In that way, it won't differ from affirmative action. Affirmative action does too little too late. They need to start getting help as early as possible. Affirmative action is more than just an inadequate solution, it's an impediment in the way of doing the right thing. As long as it's there, we privileged few can kid ourselves into thinking we're helping.
1 And even then, I'm willing to be open-minded.
Use a wire whisk instead of a fork for mashing avocadoes.
¶ 1621 Posted at 10.17 PM ⇒ No Comments ( tips | food ) Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Since I seem to be in a mood for tearing down the liberal orthodoxy... I don't think we should have a minimum wage. It has nothing to do with economics. Rather, if we as a society believe that we should guarantee a minimum standard of living for each of our citizens, we should all bear the burden. Instead, what we do is force employers like Wal-Mart to do it. Then the help only goes to those who have the minimmum wage jobs, the costs are borne primarily by one small part of the overall economy, and a lot of the help is wasted on people who don't need it as much (teenagers, for instance). Nobody is owed a living wage, nor is anyone owed a job. It's not Wal-Mart's job to help out the less fortunate, it's all of ours.
Friday, December 21, 2007
On vacation for the last 2 weeks, I haven't been reading any of my regular weblogs, comics, news sites, etc. I've barely opened a newspaper, and the latest Economist is still in my inbox. I guess I read all that stuff as a break from work, but since I'm not at work, I don't need the break. I don't miss the infoload.
Monday, December 31, 2007
I missed Michael Lewis's editorial when it first came out. He says stuff about college football better than me.
|