Al Gore’s Challenge

Al Gore challenged the nation to get to renewable, zero carbon electricity within 10 years.  What Al Gore proposes is the type of large-scale action that is necessary to combat the related crises we are facing.  If you watched it on CNN, you probably didn’t see the website you could visit for additional information.  It is http://www.wecansolveit.org.

Al Gore’s suggestions meet the scale of the challenge that lie before us, not just as a nation but as a species.  America needs to lead, not dig in our collective heels.  Gore demonstrated the type of rhetoric that demonstrates a good contrast between the ideas of the Republican party and his.  The Republican solutions to these crises are actually counter-productive as Gore explains in his speech.

In general, the Republicans don’t win because of the strength of their ideas.  They win based on image.  Glenn Greenwald examines this dynamic in his book Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics.  The corporate-owned, mainstream media plays a critical role.  The MSM doesn’t ask about climate change, they ask about lapel pins.

On the other hand, Democrats play along by trying to blur the distinctions between the two parties.  This is another reason why the FISA capitulation is so disappointing.  Democrats seem unable to convincingly stand by a principle.  The only “strength” they show is by a willingness to surrender even when their base tells them not to.

One thing that is so disappointing about the wecansolveit.org site is that the largest initiatives seem to be contingent on federal government action.  Sadly, the federal government is broken and there is no way it is getting fixed in time, even if the Democratic party is in control of both the legislative and executive branches.  Can we really afford to wait for this broken and corrupt institution before we take decisive action?  Is there any way to get a good head start without federal government help?  Not just researching it, but building it.  I can’t see how we will succeed otherwise.

Joel Spolsky Jumps the Shark

In the 14th Stackoverflow podcast, Joel Spolsky worked on his credentials for being a fuddy-duddy.  Bemoaning the criticism of a post he admitted he tried his best to phone-in, Spolsky sees these new-fangled kids and their conversational-style of blogging as leading to its demise.  He draws a parallel between the plethora of blogs and the low barriers of entry to endless September, which heralded the end of Usenet for many users.

The irony of the situation, the fact the Spolsky routinely employs many of the same devices he criticizes other people for using, seems to be completely lost on him.  How is one supposed to tell the good from the bad, Spolsky ponders?  Surely judging a blog by its design or a book by its cover is insufficient.  How is one supposed to tell the difference?  Here is a clue: PAGERANK.  There is this little company called Google, maybe Joel can remember them between his bouts of senile dementia.  Their whole shtick is that they tend to return good search results for whatever you are search for.

Let’s give it a try.  “Should I disable menu items?” I ask Google.  And, boy am I feeling lucky.  It brings me to this page, by this guy named Joel Spolsky that says “don’t do this.”  Problem solved.

So, let’s be clear about what Joel is really complaining about, it is not the lack of the good, but rather the preponderance of crap.  Joel wants a clergy, and what we have is a free market.  Higher barriers of entry don’t improve signal, they just reduce noise.  This all follows from Sturgeon’s Law: ninety percent of everything is crap.  As more players enter the market, the biggest winners are the dung beetles.

The market is, in fact, better than the clergy, but not for the reasons some people believe.  The market is not preferred because of its best case performance (a disinterested, benevolent dictator is convincingly more efficient).  Rather, the free market has the best worst-case performance, and it is precisely because some crap from the elite’s perspective is allowed to persist.

There is another argument in favor of the free market, but it speaks more to human nature than fundamental process.  When someone reaches a certain level of celebrity, their skill in the task they are famous for usually degrades.  This is part of the reason why sports teams find it so hard to win back-to-back championships, why news anchors are seldom good journalists any longer, artists become one-hit wonders, etc.  There is a tendency to rest on ones laurels and reputation, rather than focus on continually churning out a superior product and improving.  A clergy tends to become ensconced.  A free market ensures a steady stream of challengers and competition.  To the clergy, these challengers are perceived as fleas, and in many cases that is exactly what they are.  Nevertheless, it keeps the clergy honest, and threatens them with the only threat they truly understand, a revolution and a loss of status.  As Dawkins asks: was there ever dog that praised his fleas?  Probably not, but they are a sign of a healthy ecosystem.

In ending, I want to make a few things clear because a couple aspects do get lost in the medium.  I am actually a huge fan of Joel’s.  Disparaging comments above are just ribbing, a meta-example of how the best way for a flea (this blog) to improve its health is by attacking a big, healthy host at a point of perceived weakness.  Nevertheless, I do get annoyed when he takes up positions he obviously hasn’t thought all the way through.  I feel it lessens his authority on other issues I would like to cite him for when he espouses views he makes no effort to properly defend.  So, let us make clear the the creed of the fickle market: “you are only as good as your latest offering” and may we never forget it.

The Quick Fix

Naomi Klein was on Democracy Now! giving her insights on the current crises we are facing.  On the fuel crisis Naomi said the following:

So when you press people who are selling this drill in ANWR, more offshore oil drilling, also drilling into the shale in places like Montana, what they actually say is that the reason why it will lower prices at the pump, you know, soon, this summer, is because it will send a message to the stock market, it will send a message to the oil speculators that more supply is on the way. So, essentially, what they’re saying is, let’s play the market, let’s collectively play the market.

And that’s why it’s significant that yesterday, in the face of Bush’s announcement—and it was a significant announcement, because it was a real indication of the seriousness of this administration to really make this their, you know, final push in office, and they could well win, because this media campaign is really bringing public opinion on side, and we know that the Democrats are pretty weak in the face of that public opinion, and the only thing that they could fight this with is with real commitment to green policies. And, you know, don’t hold your breath.

If one pay close attention to Bush at the press conference, one can see Klein’s analysis is correct.  The core argument of drilling proponents is that drilling would send the message that future supply is on the way, which would bring down gas prices.  No.  What would bring down gas prices would be a firm commitment to alternative fuels.  If speculators saw the U.S. was serious about getting off our collective addiction to oil, and/or the government launched a serious investigation into oil company profits and was serious about windfall taxes, then we would start seeing some relief at the pump.

For some reason, Bush Republicans only seem able to understand the supply side in economics, even then, not particularly well.  More concerning, the American public is falling for the delusion.  Is there any particular reason we are still listening to this president rather than sheer amusement.  How much credibility does he have about anything?  The truth of the matter is that people believe what the president says not because we rationally should, but rather because we want to.  In the end, if these policies pass with popular support, we must also blame ourselves for our own credulity.  There will always be snake-oil salesman, it doesn’t give us the right to check our brains at the door, or play the victim when the “miracle cure” doesn’t work.

Credit Crisis: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac

Paul Krugman examines the coming bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in his op-ed column “Fannie, Freddie and You.“  Basically, a bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is coming.  Both are quasi-government institutions to encourage home ownership.  While, profits are privatived and losses are socialized, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are examples of regulation that worked, well, for the most part.

Krugman points out that both institutions were tightly regulated in terms of lending.  However, they weren’t required to put up enough capital, which left them vulernable to this type of problem when the assets declined.  The capital requirement is just insurance, and without a doubt both institutions should have had more.   Nevertheless, given the scope of the current crisis, taxpayers would be left holding the bag one way or another.  This is the very essence of a social safety net.

The question of whether they should have ever been privatized to begin with is another question entirely, and tellingly, one that Krugman doesn’t question.  Privatizing these institutions gave rise to the perversity of incentives which led to the lack of capital backing.  However, it is unlikely that a corporation would do much better.  The same type of perversity exists, only it is the shareholders left footing the bill instead of taxpayers.  Sometimes, the financial leaders can spur an after the fact taxpayer bailout by pointing out that it is not them who will suffer, but rather shareholders who depend on some form of financial instruments for their retirement.

There are lots things to get very upset about surrounding this entire crisis.  The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout is small in the big scheme of things.  If the government starts buying up bad debt from private instutions that avoided regulation, that is the time to get really upset.

The One-Sided Class War

Ian Welsh has a post over at firedoglake called “There Was a Class War.  The Rich Won It.” The productivity and wages graph is the most significant.  If you read Milton Friedman that departure between productivity and wages is sort of puzzling.  Obviously, if someone is producing more wealth, they should share in the profits.  It is the sensibility that a rising tide lifts all ships.  Then, what the hell?  Why didn’t this rising tide lift all ships.

One isn’t going to find the answer out from Friedman.  One would need to look at a work like Capital by Karl Marx to find a decent explanation for why this occurs.  Don’t expect to hear it from the corporate owned media, or in the classroom.   But, let’s face it, having an anti-intellectual, functionally illiterate, easily distracted, indoctrinated majority does have its advantages.  In this scenario, why wouldn’t the rich do everything to wield the power of government to their advantage?  Why wouldn’t they engage in a propaganda war in order to convince the masses that everything is alright, and those who complain are just whiners?  It has all worked out for Reagan, Helms, Snow, Russert, etc.  Mission Accomplished.  The debt and the trade deficit, it isn’t their problem.  When are the working-classes going to wake up and realize they are holding the bag?

Ramanujan and 1729

I’ve been reading The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing an anthology put together by Richard Dawkins.  It provides another good reason why life is far more interesting than the human imagination.  In it, there is a piece by C. P. Snow that speaks of relationship between Ramanujan and G. H. Hardy.  Ramanujan died at the age of 32. I can’t help but wonder what discoveries he would have made if his life had not been tragically cut short.

G. H. Hardy deserves credit for being able to recognize genius when it confronted him, especially since some of his colleagues apparently didn’t.  Hardy is said to have made the following comment about Ramanujan’s work: “must be true, because, if they were not true, no one would have the imagination to invent them.”  This dynamic is related by Snow in a anecdote he relays when Hardy visits Ramanujan in the hospital.

Hardy used to visit him, as he lay dying in hospital at Putney.  It was on one of those visits that there happened the incident of the taxicab number.  Hardy had gone out to Putney by taxi, as usual his chosen method of conveyance.  He went into the room where Ramanujan was lying.  Hardy, always inept about introducing a conversation, said, probably without a greeting, and certainly as his first remark: ‘I though the number of my taxicab was 1729.  It seemed to me rather a dull number.’  To which Ramanujan replied: ‘No, Hardy!  No, Hardy!  It is a very interesting number.  It is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways.’

That is the exchange as Hardy recorded it.  It must be substantially accurate.  He was the most honest of men; and further, no one could possibly have invented it.

How someone just knows that, I will never know.  But from the informal glancing at Ramanujan’s work, he saw numbers differently.  How much of this was a product of not being substantially formally educated, I don’t know.  I do think that learning in a more open-ended fashion as Ramanujan did, has benefits.  Hardy made some remarks in a similar vein.

Regardless, I double-checked Ramanujan assertion, although there are a few caveats.  Since we are dealing with cubes, we will limit ourselves to whole numbers.  The sum of cubes that one arrives at 1729 are 1^3 + 12^3 = 1729 and 9^3 + 10^3 = 1729.  1729 turns out to be smallest.  The two distinct sum sequence is as follows.

1	12	9	10	1729
2	16	9	15	4104
2	24	18	20	13832
10	27	19	24	20683

In the context of the book, it is meant to show how people of a scientific persuasion see the world differently.  Where one person sees something bland, another sees it as a source of wonder.  In a certain sense, every number has something special about it.  Ramanujan’s gift was seeing what that special thing was.

My Letter Defending PZ Myers

I spent the large portion of my general blog writting time spent crafting an email defending PZ Myers’ academic freedom.  Or more to the point, his ability to express disbelief at transubstantiation.  He is probably safe, with tenure and all.  In retrospect, I probably should have pointed out how much I enjoy his blog and the interesting biological topics he covers.  There is always next time, I guess.  Anyway, a copy of the email is below.

It has come to my attention that Bill Donohue and the Catholic League is engaged in a campaign to get PZ Myers removed from his position at the University of Minnesota, Morris.

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459

As an administrator at a higher institution of learning, I am sure you are aware of the importance of academic freedom. In our modern world, we sometimes speak of academic freedom, freedom of religion and freedom of speech without reflecting on what these concepts actually mean.
Subsequently, they become slogans without any real substance, hollow phrases. So, I would like to take a moment of your time to discuss freedom, its place in society, and finally relate it back to the particular circumstances concerning PZ Myers and Bill Donohue.

If freedom means anything in our society, it has to mean the ability to express unpopular views. Similarly, we do not defend freedom by merely defending the views we happen to agree with, but rather standing up for those with whom we disagree.

Along these lines, I understand that Catholics believe in “transubstantiation.” They are free to believe that if they wish. However, they must also respect the right of other people to say that transubstantiation does not occur, as PZ Myers did.

Complementary to this liberal concept of freedom is the standard of fairness. Fairness is not giving both sides of a disagreement equal standing (as it is commonly misapplied) but rather, holding both points of view to the same standard. If Catholics want to claim bodily theft, they
need to do so on evidence we can all reasonably agree upon, not just the tenets of their faith. Furthermore, threats of violence and other forms of intimidation should weaken our consideration of their claims, not strengthen them.

Finally, PZ Myers, as a member of the intellectual class in society, should be entitled to a significant amount of leeway to express controversial views. Academia, at its finest, does not exist to serve platitudes to those in power, rather it exposes inconvenient truths to the masses. This
sensibility is at the heart of academic freedom and the foundation of the public trust in the university as an institution. The moment the institution betrays that trust as a matter of political convenience, it
passes a terrible legacy of cravenness and capitulation onto future generations.

As an administrator of one of this nation’s institutions of higher learning, you are are a steward, not just of the ideals and values of our liberal democracy as it exists today, but also the possibilities for our nation’s future. As such, your actions and their lasting repercussions are vast, although they may not appear that way now.

The principles combined with the facts show that the case for PZ Myers’ dismissal is wholly without merit. There is no ambiguity. It is just a matter of defending another person’s right to express their views that you might not agree with and others find offensive i.e. the highest calling and
solemn duty for anyone who calls themselves a citizen of a liberal democracy.

Thank you for your time and patience.

The FISA Capitulation

The Senate voted to help cover-up the crimes of the Bush administration and the telecom companies, and presumably some elements of complicity on the part of democratic party leadership.  If Nixon were alive today, he would no doubt be wondering why he couldn’t have been so lucky.

Barack Obama voted for cloture and the final bill, thus reneging on his campaign promise to filibuster any bill that had telecom immunity.  Notably, Clinton voted against cloture, cementing my suspicion that she is vying for the VP spot.

Some are holding their breath that some type of criminal investigation will be launched after Bush leaves office.  This is like hoping that the United States won’t bomb Iran.  We are already in a heads we win, tails you lose scenario on that one.  If McCain is elected, Bush will probably put it off.  If Obama is elected, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Bush went ahead.  At this point, what does Bush have to lose?  Impeachment is off-the-table.

This isn’t just about Congress looking the other way, or performing ineffectual oversight.  It is about covering-up Bush’s previous crimes and vesting the executive with even more power.  We all know how the Bush administration set-up a vast legal framework about executive power which is laughably unconstitutional.  Nevertheless, Congress is doing its part to ensure that a case that challenges Bush’s legal theories is never ruled upon.  Again, this isn’t about some sort of passive indifference.  Democrats are the key enablers in an active cover-up.

Honestly, what do you think fascism looks like?  Is our understanding of it merely superficial?  Is fascism just swastikas, marches, and salutes? Does Bush need to grow a mustache before we start to catch on?

It is important to remember that this capitulation didn’t happen inspite of democratic victories in 2006, but rather because of their victories in 2006.  This Congress has proven its willingness to go along with unpopular policies while cynically pleading for more power.   Just maybe if they had a few more seats, or the presidency, they could have stopped this.  Screw that.  Nader/Gonzales ‘08.

Chomsky on Pozner/Donahue

YouTube has a program of Pozner/Donahue on CNBC from the early 90′. Noam Chomsky is their guest.

(Parts 2,3,4,5,6)

I’m still floored by the Chomsky’s consistency.

I often wonder what the point of demonizing Cambodia was.  Did the press hop on the massacres so enthusiastically because it furthered the narrative of domino theory?  Was East Timor conveniently ignored because it doesn’t fit into any necessary illusion, any prevailing myth about the United States.

As we stand on the cusp of enshrining a two-tiered system of justice by freeing telecoms from civil liability for past lawbreaking, there can be little doubt that the United States of today is run for and by corporations.  Chomsky correctly indentifies that center of power all the way back in the early 90’s.  If there is anything both political parties can agree upon, it is corporate corruption is not worthy of investigation.  The crime of Nixon was to spy on his political enemies, not the little people.

A People’s History of American Empire