my heart is true

I've never considered myself to be prone to self-deception. I hope I've been fooling myself:

The psychological evidence indicates that self-deceived individuals are happier than individuals who are not self-deceived (Taylor 1989, Alloy and Abramson 1979, Taylor and Brown 1988). Lack of self-deception, in fact, is a strong sign of depression. (The depressed are typically not self-deceived, except about their likelihood of escaping depression, which they underestimate.) Individuals who feel good about themselves, whether or not the facts merit this feeling, also tend to achieve more. They have more self-confidence, are more willing to take risks, and have an easier time commanding the loyalty of others. Self-deception also may protect against a tendency towards distraction. If individuals are geared towards a few major goals (such as food, status, and sex), self-deception may be an evolved defense mechanism against worries and distractions that might cause a loss of focus (Trivers 2000).

This paper explains a lot, I think.

the best defense

In my last post I noted that Austin Bay sees an opportunity for Iraq's government to pressure Iran's mullahs into withdrawing their support from the Shia insurgency in Iraq. Michael Ledeen isn't so sanguine:

But dumping responsibility for dealing with Iran in the quivering laps of the Iraqi leaders is precisely the wrong thing to do. We have to lead this war, we have to go after the Iranians. Otherwise, surge or no surge, fifty or a hundred thousand troops more or less, we’re gonna lose. Because the peoples of the Mideast, who have seen many armies come and go over the centuries, are going to throw in with the likely winners. And we can’t win if we refuse to engage the main enemy, which is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Neither is Omar Fadhil:

If the way forward requires maintaining the basic course of the political process and empowering (and cleaning) the current government and its head then the only way to do this is to relieve Mr. Maliki, his party and the rest of the Shia alliance from the dominance and influence of Sadr, and there are two ways to accomplish this: either persuade Mr. Maliki and his team and promise them great support and protection from Sadr's reach, or deal a lethal blow to Sadr and his militia in order to render him unable to inflict harm on Mr. Maliki and other members of the United Iraqi Alliance.

Now really, it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out that the first way isn't working out right, what's needed now is to take the decision to try the second way and deal with the biggest threat to stability in Iraq in the way we should.

Given that Sadr is supported by Iran, we might not be able to shut down the former without crippling the latter. Given that Bush isn't exactly operating from a position of political power, he may not opt to take any drastic measures. If he doesn't, I believe Iraq will be very messy for a very long time.

mad mullahs

The NY Times is reporting that American troops have captured Iranian agents in Baghdad who are responsible for organizing attacks in Iraq:

The American military is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials in Baghdad and Washington.

The Bush administration made no public announcement of the politically delicate seizure of the Iranians, though in response to specific questions the White House confirmed Sunday that the Iranians were in custody.

Gordon D. Johndroe, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said two Iranian diplomats were among those initially detained in the raids. The two had papers showing that they were accredited to work in Iraq, and he said they were turned over to the Iraqi authorities and released. He confirmed that a group of other Iranians, including the military officials, remained in custody while an investigation continued, and he said, “We continue to work with the government of Iraq on the status of the detainees.”

If this is true, we now have solid proof that the Iranian government is actively fighting a war against the U.S. and against Iraq. Granted, this news isn't exactly new--we've been hearing about Iranian interference in Iraq for the better part of two years now--but it *is* the kind of smoking-gun evidence that Iran will not be able to deny. Austin Bay sees an opportunity:

But this is also an opportunity. The Times article points out that the Iraqis have been complaining for years about Iranian troublemaking in Iraq. (The Iraqis also complain about Syrian troublemaking.) The UN Security — once again– called for sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program. As weak as UN sanctions are, they still represent a strategic political problem from Iran. Ahmadinejad’s government was rattled by recent local elections in Iran. Iranian students and other domestic opponents are restive. And now the US has “tactical” evidence of direct Iranian support for attacks on Iraqi forces inside Iraq.

The possibility exists that the Iraqis could play good cop-bad cop with the Iranians. Here’s the Iraqi diplomatic pitch: “You’ve been caught red-handed. Better to deal with us in Baghdad than with the big bad US and its Air Force.”

What might a deal look like? Hard to say, but it should entail Iran giving up its support for Shia militias.

I'd like to believe that the Iranian regime can be convinced to retreat from Iraq, but I'm not so certain. The Iranian government is a puppet of Iran's mullahs whom aren't necessarily students of realist foreign policy. They came into power when their radical followers stormed the American embassy in 1979, but Iran never paid a price for the crime. Iranian supported Hezbollah is probably responsible for the Marine barracks bombing in 1983, but Iran never paid a price for the crime. Iran is probably responsible for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, but they never paid a price for the crime. Iran has been supporting Shia insurgents in Iraq since 2004, but they've never paid a price. Iranian supported Hezbollah was again responsible for initiating war with Israel in 2006, but Iran never paid a price. After decades of belligerent behavior that have gone unpunished, Iran's mullahs might be feeling untouchable. It may take more than sabre-rattling to convince them to back down.

the wild self

Alex Tabarrok, on gift giving:

Someone gives you $100 cash. You go out to the store and buy a set of car tires. Purchasing the tires clearly maximizes your utility. Now imagine that instead of $100 the gift giver gave you a set of car tires. Would you be happy that they know you so well that they purchased for you just what you would have purchased for yourself? I don't think so.

The example illustrates that we want the gift giver to buy something for us that we would not have bought for ourselves. Or more precisely one of our selves wants this - the self that is usually restrained, squashed, and limited, the wild self, the passionate self, the romantic self.

Gift giving, therefore, is about reaching out and giving to the wild self in someone else. Why would we want to do this? Because we want the wild self in someone else to be wild about us.

I concur.

forgive me

Before reading any further, you need to remove all sharp objects from your immediate vicinity; I'd hate to find out that you put a pencil through your eardrum on my account.

Courtesy of Pajamas Media, I give you The Worst Xmas Song Ever. Don't give up after the first few seconds. It gets so much worse. So, so much worse.

"Together" -- Rudyard Kipling

I ran across this poem yesterday when I was flipping through a book of Kipling's poetry at Barnes & Noble. I'll let it speak for itself:

“Together”
(ENGLAND AT WAR)
Rudyard Kipling

WHEN Horse and Rider each can trust the other everywhere,
It takes a fence and more than a fence to pound that happy pair;
For the one will do what the other demands, although he is beaten and blown,
And when it is done, they can live through a run that neither could face alone.

When Crew and Captain understand each other to the core,
It takes a gale and more than a gale to put their ship ashore;
For the one will do what the other commands, although they are chilled to the bone,
And both together can live through weather that neither could face alone.

When King and People understand each other past a doubt,
It takes a foe and more than a foe to knock that country out;
For the one will do what the other requires as soon as the need is shown,
And hand in hand they can make a stand which neither could make alone!

This wisdom had Elizabeth and all her subjects too,
For she was theirs and they were hers, as well the Spaniard knew;
For when his grim Armada came to conquer the Nation and Throne,
Why, back to back they met an attack that neither could face alone!

It is not wealth nor talk nor trade nor schools nor even the Vote,
Will save your land when the enemy’s hand is tightening round your throat.
But a King and a People who thoroughly trust each other in all that is done
Can sleep on their bed without any dread—for the world will leave ’em alone!

I need to read more Kipling.

them long words are hard

Last night at the KC Chiefs fantasy camp event I sat through a 15 minute Q-and-A session with one of the PR reps for the KC Chiefs. I about fell out of my chair when he described all of the back-office administration activities: "You really don't see it, but there's always something matriculating behind the scenes". Oh the irony...

Yeah, yeah, I use words out of context all the time. It's still funny, though.

blogging the bible

David Plotz of Slate is blogging the Bible. Reading it from beginning to end, offering commentary as he goes:

My goal is pretty simple. I want to find out what happens when an ignorant person actually reads the book on which his religion is based. I think I'm in the same position as many other lazy but faithful people (Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus). I love Judaism; I love (most of) the lessons it has taught me about how to live in the world; and yet I realized I am fundamentally ignorant about its foundation, its essential document. So, what will happen if I approach my Bible empty, unmediated by teachers or rabbis or parents? What will delight and horrify me? How will the Bible relate to the religion I practice, and the lessons I thought I learned in synagogue and Hebrew School?

It's interesting reading, largely because his reaction to what he finds is so unbiased by traditional interpretation. He doesn't exactly stick to theology, either. For example:

The first thing I'm noticing about the Book of Judges is that there don't appear to be any judges in it. Sure, they may be called "judges," but they're really generals, left-handed assassins, female guerillas, polygamist warriors, fratricidal maniacs, and holy child killers. No judging seems to occur in Judges—unless your idea of justice is Judge Dredd. But if you want good stories—this is the book to read. It's an adrenaline shot!

Also:

Didn't someone write a book on the biblical roots of capitalism and free enterprise? How did he handle this episode? Our hero Joseph abolishes private property, turns freeholders into serfs, and transforms a decentralized farm economy into a command-economy dictatorship. This is bad economics and worse public policy. This is China, 1949. Joseph is Chairman Mao. (And, to speculate a little bit, perhaps this centralized dictatorship established by Joseph is what ultimately led to the Israelites enslavement in Egypt. Once you create a voracious state apparatus, it must be fed. Is it a surprise that slavery became part of its diet? In a less totalitarian state, perhaps slavery wouldn't have been as necessary or as feasible. This digression has been brought to you by the American Enterprise Institute.)

assassination as a tool of the state

Austin Bay has posted some thoughts regarding the apparent murder of Alexander Litvinenko, and what it means about Putin's Russia. Quoting a Time Magazine article:

Meanwhile, there is the light–uncomfortably glaring–that the case sheds on modern Russia. Vladimir Ryzhkov, one of the few independent liberals left in the Duma, says, “The point is not whether Putin is responsible for these concrete murders. The point is that he is responsible for having created a system that is ruled by fear and violence.” Ryzhkov claims that the armed forces, Interior Ministry, FSB and those who have retired from them to join private security services “are running this country, own its economy and use violence and murder as habitual management techniques.” A U.S. businessman in Moscow seconds the argument. “While you in the press are obsessed by Politkovskaya and Litvinenko, you’ve missed that half a dozen major oil executives and another half-dozen major bankers have been murdered in the last few months.”

It seems clear that Putin is either using or condoning assassination and murder as a tool of the state. Assad's Syria has apparently also taken up the practice of state sponsored assassination, as evidenced by the killings of Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemayel. On the other hand, the U.S. and Israel have both engaged in the practice, assassinating al-Qaeda and Hamas leaders on occasion. In the case of Russia and Syria, I'm 100% opposed to the assassinations that have occurred. In the case of the U.S. and Israel, I think there's a moral case to be made that supports the use of assassination as a tool of the state. But I'm not certain. Here are the key differences that I see between the "good" and "bad" assassinations:

• Russian and Syrian targets have included politicians and journalists that have been critical of Russia and Syria. None of their targets have been involved in any kind of violent aggression. None have been implicated in any significant crimes--Litvenko may well have been involved in some shady business (he came out of Russia's intelligence services, after all), but Russia hasn't made any allegations of criminal activity on his part.
  
• U.S. and Israeli targets have been leaders in organizations that are engaged in violent aggression against the U.S. and Israel. These targets have been personally implicated in violent criminal activity and would be subject to legal action if only the state could get its hands on them. These targets have been seeking refuge among populations that are not willing to cooperate in bringing them to justice.

In other words, the U.S. and Israel have been using assassination as a tool when it is the only realistic mechanism for bringing a violent opponent to justice. Russia and Syria have been using assassination as a tool when it is a convenient method for silencing an inconvenient critic or political opponent. I don't think I'm splitting hairs to suggest that U.S. and Israeli assassination policies seem to be legitimate cases of a state exercising its God-given authority to use force to punish evil:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Romans 13:1-4

Or am I missing something?

my speed-reader is broke

I read pretty fast compared to most people. Probably about a page a minute for normal fiction. My definition of "normal fiction" is made up of a completely abstract combination of variables such as page size, font size, writing style, complexity of plot and general likability of the book, none of which is very well defined in my mind. I just know that when I'm reading "normal fiction", I tend to read about a page a minute. Which is a whole lot slower than some people:

I read fast. Really fast. I read about six paperback pages a minute, give or take.

Her secret is to skip things. I think I do a fair amount of skipping as well, but probably not nearly as much as she does. Anyway, that's not my point. I was reading the comments below her post about speed reading when I came across this statement:

In my limited anecdotal research, I have found the reason why some people read so fast and others cannot is that the latter learned how to read by actually "speaking" the words to what they are reading in their minds, as if they were reading out loud. Those who can read very fast uncoupled that need to "speak" the words in their minds to comprehend what they are reading.

I was stunned to discover that simply reading his hypothesis caused me to start sounding out words in my mind, which momentarily crippled my ability to read quickly. It was frightening. I can't imagine living in a world where general reading requires effort. Yes, some study reading will always require concerted effort to comprehend, but in general I expect words to leap naturally off the page and into my head without any conscious effort on my part.

Now, if my speed-reader has recovered, I'm going to go finish reading The Last Templar. It's in no danger of becoming one of my favorite books of all time. But then, it's a book about modern conspiracies related to the Templar Knights, and I'm not sure that there's ever been a book on the topic that was *really* good, as opposed to just being readable.

a rose by any other name would smell as sweat

I now own a football jersey that has been autographed by Casey Wiegmann and Derrick Johnson, smells of sweat and has my manager's name on the back.

My manager told me yesterday that one of our vendors had reserved a spot for him at a Kansas City Chiefs fantasy camp. He was busy tonight, so I got to go in his stead. We toured the stadium, received personalized jerseys (not Chiefs jerseys, unfortunately), played a 30 minute scrimmage at their practice facility (Wiegmann and Johnson were the coaches), ate some pizza and generally had a blast. I caught a touchdown and also scored on a 2-point conversion. Pretty cool.

The coolest thing has to be the jersey. I mean, anybody can get a cheap jersey autographed by a couple of athletes, but how many have a cheap jersey autographed by a couple of athletes, but the jersey has their manager's name on the back? I'm going to have to start wearing it to work every Friday. I'll make him call me "Schmieder".

the dirty politics of milk

I hate subsidies. When special interests can bribe lawmakers to setup market distorting regulatory schemes, the special interests can effectively steal millions of dollars from consumers without anyone raising an eyebrow. They get away with it because consumers are only getting bilked for a few cents at a time. It's just business as usual. Here's an article about the dirty politics of the dairy industry:

In the summer of 2003, shoppers in Southern California began getting a break on the price of milk.

A maverick dairyman named Hein Hettinga started bottling his own milk and selling it for as much as 20 cents a gallon less than the competition, exercising his right to work outside the rigid system that has controlled U.S. milk production for almost 70 years. Soon the effects were rippling through the state, helping to hold down retail prices at supermarkets and warehouse stores.

That was when a coalition of giant milk companies and dairies, along with their congressional allies, decided to crush Hettinga's initiative. For three years, the milk lobby spent millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions and made deals with lawmakers, including incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Last March, Congress passed a law reshaping the Western milk market and essentially ending Hettinga's experiment -- all without a single congressional hearing.

The last line in the story is a brilliant commentary on why America is still worth loving, despite the frequent stupidity of our government:

"I still think this is a great country," Hettinga said. "In Mexico, they would have just shot me."

something to remember

If you must drive into a ditch when you're on a secluded country road, do it when there's a helpful cowboy with his helpful cowgirl in a big pickup truck complete with towing chains driving down the same road about 30 seconds behind you. You'll be glad you picked that time to drive into the ditch, I assure you.

fighting fires

I think I've figured out what it is that I most enjoy about sysadmin work: fighting fires. No, not literal fires. If I ever have to fight a literal fire while working as a Unix system administrator, things will have gone very, very wrong. The fires I'm talking about are the system outages that have to be resolved as soon as possible, and even then it will be too late. The kind of outages that have customers asking for tens of thousands of dollars in refunds, the kinds of outages that have CEOs screaming for status reports every 30 minutes, the kind of outages that involve dozens of people unable to do their job until I fix the computers that they are depending on.

I'm exaggerating a bit--clearly, any job that features this kind of activity on a daily basis is a job that won't last long, if only because any company that has so little stability in its computing infrastructure is doomed to fail. Alternatively, any sysadmin who sees so many outages happening on his watch is a sysadmin that really needs to go back to answering phones for the help desk. The whole point of employing sysadmins is to prevent these sort of outages from ever occurring, after all.

But any IT shop that is frequently changing its hardware or software infrastructure is going to experience unplanned system outages or will face projects with urgent deadlines that absolutely must be met. These situations can be stressful, but it's a kind of stress that keeps me interested in what I'm doing. Much better to be working under pressure than sitting around waiting for something to happen, doing hardware inventory, reading or writing documentation, looking for ways to tweak software to gain incremental efficiency improvements. I *like* knowing that people are depending on me to get a job done.

We had another outage on our LDAP infrastructure for about 30 minutes yesterday morning. It could have been much worse, but I and a coworker of mine were on the problem immediately, had it diagnosed, developed a procedure for fixing each LDAP client, and had over 300 servers repaired in 30 minutes. It was *fun*. I want that kind of fun more often.

This job has been a bit too boring for my tastes. Fortunately, that should be changing. We just kicked off the planning for a massive overhaul of our core database infrastructure. We'll be migrating our storage platform to a new Hitachi SAN, our database servers to new Sun v890s, and our network gear to new Cisco switches.

This isn't that big of a deal, except for the fact that our customers want no downtime whatsoever (sad for them, because downtime will be unavoidable), and our management wants us to simultaneously be upgrading all of our customers to new versions of our proprietary software platform. And they want all of this done by the end of the 1st quarter. So the entire project constitutes one big fire. I have a feeling I'll be working a *lot* of Saturdays for the next three months. I'm glad. I'm tired of boredom.

the fallacy of power

I've been reading Bowden's Guests of the Ayatollah. Some thoughts after reading the first quarter of the book:

The radical Islamic students who overran America's embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, 1979 believed that they were striking a blow against the evil plots of imperial America. In the minds of those students, the embassy was a critical tool enabling America's continued meddling in Iran's internal affairs. While most of the staff claimed to be serving diplomatic functions, the Iranian students knew that they were actually the agents of a superpower working to impose its will on Iran. The same superpower that had placed the Shah in power in 1953 was conspiring to defeat the Islamic revolution and return the Shah to power--how else to explain the fact that the he was allowed to come to the US for medical treatment? The students who led the attack on the embassy knew that in capturing the embassy they would find proof of America's continued plotting, would expose to the world the machinations of a scheming power.

The students were wrong. Of 66 embassy staffers that were captured, only seven were working for the CIA (three of whom handled communications, and one of whom was a secretary). Those few CIA agents at the embassy had little influence and no control over events in Iran. Far from imposing America's will on Iran, the CIA was primarily concerned with trying to get enough information about the new revolutionary government to understand what was going on in the country. The students spent weeks interrogating diplomats and clerical staff, trying to find evidence of plots that didn't exist. They thought that America was capable of controlling events on a global scale and that America frequently exerted that control, but they were wrong.

America was and is a superpower, but that power has limits. Both our capability and desire to control the world are limited. Many people believe that the primary source of this world's problems is America--we are the sole superpower and we exercise power on a global scale, so problems that exist in this world could be resolved if America would just stop misbehaving. Global poverty, war, famine, environmental problems--they are all either caused or allowed to exist by an America that wields power irresponsibly, the theory goes. The people who hold to this belief are just as wrong as the Islamic students who were bewildered to find that they had overrun an office building full of mundane people doing mundane tasks. America has global influence but it is limited in scope. We are neither the primary source of nor the ultimate solution to this world's problems.

Hitch

Christopher Hitchens is funnier than a woman.

I'm fairly certain that I'm going to get in trouble for linking to this.

Which, I think, proves the point.

Which is a joke, not that women will think it (or I) am funny.

Must. Stop. Digging.

the funniest thing I read today

Mark Steyn on the Iraq Study Group's recommendations for engagement with Syria and Iran:

Of course, Syria “should” do this and Iran “should” do that and, if they were Sandra Day O’Connor, I’m sure they would. But they’re not.

happiness

Last night I got a chance to give a short talk at church. Here's what I talked about:

Why are we so often unhappy? Generally it's one of three things:

1. Possessions -- We don't have enough things, the things that we have aren't good enough and the good things that we have frequently break and decay.
   
2. Relationships -- We don't have enough friends or loved ones, our friends hurt us or let us down and the people that we can depend on eventually move away or die.
   
3. Work -- We work to much, we work too hard and we're never paid enough to compensate for all the grief we have to endure.
   

We can't solve these problems, so how can we be happy in this life? The author of Ecclesiastes tells us how:

Go, eat your bread in joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do. Let your garments be always white. Let not oil be lacking on your head. Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

Ecclesiastes 9:7-10

What's the secret? It seems to contradict what we know to be true. Our possessions, our relationships and our labor seem to be the primary sources of unhappiness, but we are told to enjoy all of these things. How is it possible to derive joy from imperfect possessions, imperfect people and imperfect jobs? It's possible if "God has already approved what you do". When we have the right relationship with God we can view all of these things from a proper perspective. All are blessings from God. Perfect? No, but they are blessings and if we have the right relationship with God, the right perspective, we find joy in them.

Paul makes a similar point:

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me--practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

Philippians 4:4-10

Does God promise perfect lives that are free of frustrations and disappointments? No. But we can pray for what we need and we can pray when we're hurting. When we concentrate on serving God and when we recognize that He has blessed us with our possessions, our relationships and our work, we can be happy. We can be thankful for what we have, we can see the good in what God has given us and we can have peace because of our relationship with Him.

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Matthew 11:28-30

Does Christ eliminate our burdens and make our lives perfectly easy? No. But He helps with our burdens and the cost of serving Him is so much less than the cost in grief of trying to find joy solely in the things of this world. Christ is the ultimate source of rest and peace.

So, how can we find happiness?

• Serve God.
• Recognize the good in what He has blessed us with.
• Trust Him to help bear our burdens.
• Recognize that the ultimate blessing is the life that He has reserved for us.

good bye, self respect, you'll be missed

A couple of months ago a friend of mine showed me a book he had recently obtained--a 19th century 1st edition by a notable author, if I recall correctly. My thoughts went back to that book as I was unpacking some of my own books last night. I picked up an old book, took note of the decrepit binding and yellowed pages and thought to myself "I wonder if this is an early edition?"

I'm ashamed to admit that it took me at least five seconds to remember that I was holding a copy of a work by Aristotle. Yeah, I'm brilliant. But at least I give me something to laugh at.

chillin'

The furnace repairs are underway, finally. A second HVAC guy came out this morning to replace a control unit and quickly discovered that the problem wasn't in the control unit, but in a gas valve. So the original guy who mis-diagnosed the system on Saturday brought over a new valve and he's working on installing it. Here's hoping he doesn't blow up my house.

In the mean time, here are a couple of links that kept me warm while I was chillin' on the couch last night:

• Books are "for to be to get you dead".
• If I buy a new blender I can have myself a delicious cochicken smoothie.

it's a cold night

I usually enjoy cold weather, when I don't have to be out in it. It tends to lose its attractions when I can't get my furnace to come on, though. It's less than 50 degrees in my house right now. I own four blankets. I'm sleeping under four blankets tonight.

The furnace stopped working sometime Friday night. Excellent timing, what with my family staying with me that night. A heating & air guy came out to take a look at it the next day and he determined that the furnace was fine and the thermostat was fine. The problem was a control unit between the two that was receiving the "we need heat" signal from the thermostat but wasn't passing it on to the furnace. Jiggling some wires seemed to resolve the problem and the furnace fired up. Problem solved.

Until I came back from a holiday party tonight, and discovered that the furnace was out again. I jiggled the wires, tightened the connectors, jiggled the wires, and gave up. It looks like the circuit board in that control unit is hosed. Aren't I lucky.

I need to buy a space heater.

frustration

Unix system administration can be a rewarding job, when it isn't frustrating. I needed to change the LDAP configuration of 320 servers today (LDAP is a centralized authentication system for user logins). I did some research and wrote a script that could automatically update the LDAP configuration of any client machine. One hour and 120 servers into the reconfiguration process, I discovered that the ldapclient command (which is a veritable tool of Satan, let me tell you) was not just changing LDAP settings, but was also turning off NIS configurations in the process (NIS is a protocol for sharing common system information across multiple computers). So, I managed to break 120 servers for a couple of hours this afternoon. Thankfully, I was doing this work during our slow period, when nothing important was running. It was a relatively simple task to re-write the script to work around ldapclient's weird behavior, and I got all 320 servers reconfigured and working normally without too much trouble.

LDAP configurations have been a thorn in our side for over a year at this company, so it's gratifying to have written a script will make it a lot easier to manage LDAP reconfigurations going forward. But this means I'm now our LDAP expert, so I'm probably going to come in for a lot more frustration dealing with this software down the road. Did I mention that the ldapclient utility is a tool of Satan?

I was going to post a copy of the script (just in case any despairing Unix sysadmins wander by), but it's so reliant on the particular layout of our LDAP directory that doing so would be pointless.

not much ado about something

We had a big meeting at work to discuss some ownership changes that are coming. But I can't tell you what they are, or what they mean--I know the basic change that is coming, but I don't know how much impact it will have on my employment situation, how much impact it will have on the company as a whole, or anything of any real significance at all. Even if I knew any of these things, I'm sure the FTC would require that I keep my mouth shut about it. So. Not much ado about something.

In the context of the announcement, a managing director from our new ownership team stated that "you never want to make an omelet, because once you mix everything up you can never take it apart again, and you end up with a schmoozle". I'm not positive that he actually said "schmoozle". It sure sounded like it, though. I know the point he was trying to make in context: we shouldn't expect massive changes or instability in the near future, because trying to integrate disparate organizations can create chaos and turn successful businesses into failures. I can understand why he'd want to follow that philosophy in managing his businesses, but I don't think I like that philosophy as a way of living my life. I've lived that way for a long time, and it's really rather dull. Besides, I *like* omelets.

a critical problem

During a recent Bible study we were discussing what Proverbs has to say about criticism:

The ear that listens to life-giving reproof will dwell among the wise. Whoever ignores instruction despises himself, but he who listens to reproof gains intelligence. The fear of the LORD is instruction in wisdom, and humility comes before honor.
-- Proverbs 15:31-33

He who is often reproved, yet stiffens his neck, will suddenly be broken beyond healing.
-- Proverbs 29:1

The point that was made is that criticism is a good thing. It's not easy to accept, it can hurt, but if we swallow our pride and listen to it we can learn some valuable lessons. From criticism we can learn about the flaws we hide from ourselves, about the weaknesses that we don't want to confront.

It's a good point, but it occurs to me that there's an easily overlooked corollary: if criticism can teach us about our flaws, it will be most effective when we allow people to see our flaws. It's natural to fear vulnerability. It's natural to try to control the face we present to the world, to hide our flaws and failures. It's incredibly difficult to overcome our pride and let people see what we're really like, but it's necessary if we want to obtain the full blessings of criticism.

Easier said than done, I'm afraid--it's something I really need to work on.

the power of google

I'm afraid my affection for Google's technology is a little too strong, almost to the point of being weird. But I'm a geek, so weird crushes on technology are at least to be expected, if not quite acceptable.

The three Google tools that *everyone* should use are gmail, calendar and docs & spreadsheets. Why? Partly because it's very handy to have the ability to access your email, scheduling and documents from any internet-connected computer in the world. Partly because these web-based applications are easier to use than their standalone Microsoft Office counterparts (Outlook, Word and Excel). Also because these web accessible, simple to use applications also pack in some features that the (supposedly more powerful) standalone Office applications don't have:

• gmail -- automatic grouping of replies into an easy to follow email thread. Until you see this in action, you'll have no idea how frustrating it is to manage email in Outlook.
• calendar -- you can setup events to send notifications to your cell phone via text message.
• docs & spreadsheets -- revision control is an amazing tool, especially when you share documents for other authors to edit. OK, so Word does this too--but how many people *really* have any clue how to use Microsoft's implementation of this feature?
  

I can envision a future in which the vast majority of my (non-work) computing involves nothing more than a web interface that provides me access to Google's web-based tools. Actually, I'm not too far from that right now. What am I lacking? Civ IV as a Google application?

thunderstruck -- Erik Larson

I recently finished reading Thunderstruck, Eric Larson's latest historical crime thriller. As in The Devil in the White City, Larson uses the true story of a notable crime to paint a much broader picture of social history. Some random thoughts:

• All people are broken--successful business leaders, brilliant inventors, national leaders, murderers, ordinary men and women. None of us is quite normal.
• Even the most cold-blooded criminal is a sympathetic figure when viewed from a certain light.
• For some crimes, capital punishment is absolutely appropriate.
  
• Society owes a large degree of its success in technological advancement to ego.
• Society suffers a large degree of its failure in relationships because of ego.
• People living today have no idea how much slower the world moved prior to the era of electronic communication.
• Eric Larson has a genius for taking simple history and turning it into a book that I can't put down.
• I really need to read Isaac's Storm.

peace on earth

One of the saddest stories in the Bible:

Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly." And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth."

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech." So the LORD dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth. And from there the LORD dispersed them over the face of all the earth.

Genesis 11:1-9

At one time mankind was united geographically, united in purpose, at peace, so confident in its own power and potential that it lost sight of God. That God had to break mankind of this hubris is clear--the purpose of mankind is, as Paul states in Acts 17:27 to "seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him", but this was never going to happen while mankind didn't see a need for God.

The solution to the problem was simple and effective--so effective that it has been tearing mankind apart ever since. In destroying mankind's ability to effectively communicate, God shattered our unity, shattered our ability to rely on each other, to trust each other. Ever since Babel humanity has been divided. Belligerent nations, feuding tribes, shattered friendships and broken families--these are the norm throughout history and they are a direct result of our inability to communicate and understand one another.

The only way to have the kind of relationships that made mankind so united and strong before Babel is to learn to communicate. A few individuals can, with enormous effort, overcome the difficulties of communication and learn to live in peace and harmony. A few marriages are characterized by true unity and a few friendships exhibit complete trust, but when mankind relies on its own efforts and its own wisdom to solve the problem the norm will always be division and conflict.

Fortunately, God has given us a real solution to the problem:

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

Ephesians 2:13-22

Communication will always be hard and peace will always be tenuous, but we can succeed in finding that peace and unity through Christ.

the costs of immigration

Greg Mankiw links to a George Borjas paper on immigration that identifies a serious side effect of immigration to America (illegal or legal):

Using data drawn from the 1960-2000 U.S. Censuses, we find a strong correlation between immigration, black wages, black employment rates, and black incarceration rates. As immigrants disproportionately increased the supply of workers in a particular skill group, the wage of black workers in that group fell, the employment rate declined, and the incarceration rate rose. Our analysis suggests that a 10-percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the black wage by 3.6 percent, lowered the employment rate of black men by 2.4 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate of blacks by almost a full percentage point.

I don't like supporting a policy that I know will directly harm a segment of American society that is already struggling. On the other hand, I believe that the costs of immigration are outweighed by the economic benefits that accrue both to society as a whole and to the immigrants themselves. The proper policy solution isn't to limit immigration, but to capture part of the economic windfall through taxation and use that revenue to provide support and opportunities for those that bear the brunt of the costs.

it's like that

If sports are a metaphor for life, what is art that describes sport? A beautiful metaphor for life? A meta-metaphor? I don't know how to answer that question. I *do* know that I like this song:

Well, beat the drum and hold the phone - the sun came out today!
We’re born again, there’s new grass on the field.
A-roundin’ third, and headed for home, it’s a brown-eyed handsome man;
Anyone can understand the way I feel.

Oh, put me in, coach - I’m ready to play today;
Put me in, coach - I’m ready to play today;
Look at me, I can be centerfield.

Well, I spent some time in the mudville nine, watchin’ it from the bench;
You know I took some lumps when the mighty casey struck out.
So say hey willie, tell ty cobb and joe dimaggio;
Don’t say "it ain’t so", you know the time is now.

Oh, put me in, coach - I’m ready to play today;
Put me in, coach - I’m ready to play today;
Look at me, I can be centerfield.

Yeah! I got it, I got it!

Got a beat-up glove, a homemade bat, and brand-new pair of shoes;
You know I think it’s time to give this game a ride.
Just to hit the ball and touch ’em all - a moment in the sun;
(pop) it’s gone and you can tell that one goodbye!

Oh, put me in, coach - I’m ready to play today;
Put me in, coach - I’m ready to play today;
Look at me, I can be centerfield.

Oh, put me in, coach - I’m ready to play today;
Put me in, coach - I’m ready to play today;
Look at me, I can be centerfield.

Yeah!

--Centerfield, John Fogerty

The song makes me love baseball. Much like the book Summerland by Michael Chabon. I find it odd that I like art about baseball more than I actually like baseball.

patriots don't wear flip-flops

Ok, so this was less substantive than I thought it would be, but worth quite a few laughs.

when it hurts to lose

They say that sex is all over TV because sex sells. I guess this show must mean that in Japan, pain sells. It's a simple gameshow concept--say a tongue-twister without errors, you win a prize. Make any mistakes, you get a consolation prize--the sudden ability to sing an octave higher.

the ten best books I've read

I recently had a discussion that prompted me to think about what books are worthy of a place on my "top 10 books of all time" list. Comparing books of different genres can be a bit like comparing apples and orange soda so I decided to give up on the "top 10" list and construct a list of my "top 5 books that I happen to remember off the top of my head--because I'm too lazy to unpack all of my books and see if I'm forgetting something--while attempting to restrict each genre to a single representative". In no particular order, I came up with:

1. Fantasy: The Lord of the Rings -- Never before has one brilliant author inspired so many posers to follow in his footsteps. Tolkien wanted this published as one volume, so I say it's one book.
   
2. Sci-Fi: Ender's Game -- Never before has one brilliant book inspired so many readers to read so many sequels that were so deeply disappointing. A litmus test for true nerd-dom is whether you love this book.
   
3. Historical Analysis: On the Origins of War -- Kagan's analysis of international relations made me a neocon. It's not a book to read multiple times, but it's a book that affected my politics like few others.
   
4. Comedy/Heresy: Good Omens -- Prachett and Gaimen turn the apocalypse into a laughing matter. Read the footnotes.
   
5. Modern Literature: Bel Canto -- Patchett almost made me love opera. And the lovers lived happily ever after. Until they died.
   
6. Inspired By God: The Bible -- I take back what I said about Tolkien. Nobody has inspired a host of posers to match the uninspired host of posers that have tried to write a better Bible than the Bible.
   
7. Thriller: Sum of All Fears -- Clancy once knew how to write a complex thriller that was, well, thrilling. Alas.
   
8. Classic Literature: Pride and Prejudice -- Austen's best. I love Lizzy.
   
9. Mathematics Texts That I've Never Read: Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic -- Given the number of books I've managed to fit into my "top 5" list, I think this one surely deserves a place.
   

The funniest thing I read today

Michael Schaub via Tyler Cowen: "it sucks that the publishing industry has given up on some great work from some great authors, while books like M is for Murder and N is for No, Seriously, Murder and O is for Oh My God Someone Just Got Murdered are readily available at every chain bookstore in the land."

Update:

I suppose I should have titled this post: "The funniest thing I read yesterday", since I'm technically just 30 minutes into a new day. That's not a lot of time in which to find funny reading material.

not the antichrist

I can't understand why so many Republicans persist in believing that Bill Clinton was the next worst thing to the antichrist. His morality (or lack thereof) notwithstanding, his policy positions weren't all bad. For a recent example:

U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman is rolling out the big gun in his increasingly close primary battle with Greenwich Democrat Ned Lamont.

Former President Bill Clinton is slated to campaign on behalf of the three-term incumbent Monday in Waterbury, Lieberman's campaign spokeswoman said today.

If Lieberman loses his primary contest to Lamont, we'll have lost one of the good guys.

Via Glenn Reynolds

voting

From Alex Tabarrok, the most thought provoking thing I've read today:

Frankly, too many people vote already. I know, that's heresy against the great religion of democracy - i.e. worship of the mob - but other people voting is an externality on me and in this case I will side with Pigou.

For non-economists, this may help to explain the "Pigou" reference:

A Pigovian tax is a tax levied to correct the negative externalities of a market activity. For instance, a Pigovian tax may be levied on producers who pollute the environment to encourage them to reduce pollution, and to provide revenue which may be used to counteract the negative effects of the pollution. Certain types of Pigovian taxes are sometimes referred to as sin taxes, for example taxes on alcohol and cigarettes.

I tend to agree that other people voting dilutes the value of my vote, but I'm not quite ready to sign on for poll taxes. To be fair to Alex, I don't think he's advocating poll taxes either. In context, he's objecting to one of the more stupid get-out-the-vote proposals I've ever seen:

In an effort to improve voter turnout the Arizona Voter Reward Act (if approved) would give every voter a chance to win a prize of $1 million. Great. Why not hand out a bottle of vino with every vote or some crack? Where is Richard Titmuss when you need him? What sort of people won't vote if there is no lottery but will vote if they get a lottery ticket and why do we want these people to vote?

war in the middle east

Events of the past few days in Israel, Gaza and Lebanon have opened up a lot of uncertainty regarding the immediate future of the Middle East. Israel appears to be preparing for an invasion of Lebanon, presumably with the intention of cleaning out the terrorist of infrastucture of Hezbollah. Given the fact that Hezbollah is in some ways nothing more than a tool for Iran and Syria, any large scale attack on Hezbollah may draw in one or both of these nations: either by their choice (a retaliatiory strike against Israel), or by Israel's (a prememptive strike to allow Israel freedom of action in Lebanon). If Iran becomes involved in an open war with Israel, America and/or Israel may take advantage of the opportunity to strike Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

I can't predict how this will play out, but here are some guesses:

• Moderate regimes in the region (Egypt, Saudi Arabi and Jordan) seem to be willing to let Israel take action against Hezbollah--when Saudi Arabia announces that Hezbollah is at fault for tensions in the region, it's the next best thing to granting the IDF permission to take the gloves off.
• Israel can't significantly alter Hezbollah's position in Lebanon without committing ground troops. Hezbollah (and by extension, their puppet-masters in Damascus and Tehran) can win simply by surviving. Consequently, if Israel doesn't move beyond their current strategy of airstrikes and blockades against Lebanon alone, Syria and Iran will probably sit this one out. Why risk open war when the status quo results in victory?
• Since Israel loses if they refuse to escalate their attacks on Hezbollah, Israel will commit ground troops.
• Israel must be assured that Syria will not directly interfere with their operations in Lebanon. If Assad provides assurances that Syria will sit out this conflict, Israel will not launch preemptive strikes on Syria. If Syria refuses to provide these assurances of non-interference, expect to see the Syrian air force get demolished at about the same time Israel moves into Lebanon.
• Syria isn't dumb enough to take on Israel without significant support from other regimes in the region. The only country that seems inclined to offer Syria concrete support is Iran, and they would have to pass through Turkey or Iraq to get forces into the battle. Since Syria will be facing Israel alone, I expect Syria to sit this fight out. On the other hand, it's possible Assad is too proud (or stupid?) to back down.
• Iran is the country who is most likely to cause trouble. Iran's immediate goal is (I'm guessing) to destabilize Iraq, intending to ultimately bring the region closer to their vision of Islamist theocratic rule. The best method of destabilizing Iraq is probably to provoke some kind of Israeli or American attack against Iran, then to instigate "spontaneous" revolt by Iraqi Shiites against the Iraqi government.
• Iran can't interfere with Israel directly, but missile strikes are possible. How Israel and the U.S. respond to such a provocation is probably dependent on how effective and persistent the Iranian provocation is.
• If Iran can cause significant casualties in Israel then the whole region will become very messy.
• Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "very much messier".

As I said, I can't predict anything. The above thoughts aren't worth more than the price of the paper they're printed on. Unless something like the above actually occurs, in which case you read it here first.

Chester's analysis was very helpful in shaping the thoughts above. And unlike me, he knows what he's talking about.

words worth reading

Peter Schramm on becoming an immigrant to America:

My mother tells me, though I don’t remember saying this, that I told my father I would follow him to hell if he asked it of me. Fortunately for my eager spirit, hell was exactly what we were trying to escape and the opposite of what my father sought.

"But where are we going?" I asked.

"We are going to America," my father said.

"Why America?" I prodded.

"Because, son. We were born Americans, but in the wrong place," he replied.

Peter Schramm on being a book lover:

There is something special about owning and reading your own books. I never liked to use libraries. Perhaps it is a natural reaction to the communist propaganda of my youth, but I think that some things just shouldn’t be shared. At least not with just anybody. I like to smell and fondle books, keep them, set them back on their shelf, sometimes to just let them fall open to where they may and read into them again. I fancied that these books became friends, and I just couldn’t bear to part with them.

Cicero on the nature of the limits of American and Israeli power:

A friend of mine said yesterday that he believes Israel and the United States have reached the limits of their power. He believes the battle is joined, is highly asymmetric, and has ground American and Israeli forces to a halt. He wasn't gloating, but was hypothesizing.

He might be wrong. Having power assumes a monopoly of violence. As we restrain our power to appeal to our allies and win friends on the ground, Islamicists do everything they can to monopolize violence through random acts of terror. They're quite unrestrained in that pursuit, and on that level, we are neck-and-neck with them for control on the ground. The battle for the monopoly of violence is symmetrical in this war because we restrain ourselves from unleashing our full fury. My friend assumes that we will restrain ourselves indefinitely, and so we have reached the limit of our power.

My friend will be right -- that the Israelis and Americans have hit their wall -- only if we continue self-restraint. We've made war with our seat belts on. There's no guarantee that things can't get to a point where further self-restraint makes no sense.

Smash on conversing with hunger-striking leftist protestors:

I wasn't in uniform (I only have to wear it for ceremonies), so maintaining strict military bearing wasn't an issue. Also, a heavy blanket of humidity had descended on D.C., so the half-dozen or so remaining hunger strikers had retreated deeper into the park, laying in the shade of a couple of magnolia trees. Their banners were strewn across the grass alongside one of the brick walkways. They didn't appear to be holding up very well with the hunger and the heat.

The same man from Friday saw me approaching, and staggered his way over to engage me. If he recognized me from before, he showed no sign.

I paused in front of the banners, and pulled a big juicy apple out of my lunch bag.

"Day seven of a hunger strike..." the man muttered.

I looked him in the eye, took a bite of my apple, and shrugged.

He turned away, and retreated back to the shade of the magnolia. I took another couple bites out of my apple before continuing my stroll around the park.

I give 'em about a week before they break camp.

call a spade a spade, please

Hezbollah's attack on Israel ought to be pretty easy to describe:

Terrorists affiliated with Hezbollah (which is recognized as a terrorist organization by the U.S.) infiltrated Israel's sovereign territory to launch an unprovoked attack on Israeli military forces and captured two Israeli soldiers.

Here's how ABC describes the attackers: "militants from the Islamic resistance movement Hezbollah struck from across Israel's border with Lebanon."

What is Hezbollah resisting? The Israeli occupation of Lebanon that ended six years ago? Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. When they launch attacks inside Israel they are either guilty of terrorism or they are launching an offensive war as a proxy for Lebanon, Syria or Iran. In either case Hezbollah doesn't deserve to be labeled as a resistance movement.

immigration policy: Borjas vs. Card

Here's a link to one of the best articles I've ever read on the immigration debate. The evidence on both sides of the debate is presented fairly and in depth. The conclusion:

What the economists can do is frame a subset of the important issues. They remind us, first, that the legislated goal of U.S. policy is curiously disconnected from economics. Indeed, the flow of illegals is the market's signal that the current legal limits are too low. Immigrants do help the economy; they are fuel for growth cities like Las Vegas and a salve to older cities that have suffered native flight. Borjas's research strongly suggests that native unskilled workers pay a price: in wages, in their ability to find inviting areas to migrate to and perhaps in employment. But the price is probably a small one.

The disconnect between Borjas's results and Card's hints that there is an alchemy that occurs when immigrants land ashore; the economy's potential for absorbing and also adapting is mysterious but powerful. Like any form of economic change, immigration causes distress and disruption to some. But America has always thrived on dynamic transformations that produce winners as well as losers. Such transformations stimulate growth. Other societies (like those in Europe) have opted for more controls, on immigration and on labor markets generally. They have more stability and more equality, but less growth and fewer jobs.

In other words, the evidence on either side of the immigration debate is hardly conclusive. To my mind, that's a good indication that radical "solutions" aren't called for. If O'Reilly and Rush would calm down, I'd be grateful.

whales: 1, U.S. Navy: 0

The mind, it boggles:

A federal judge in California has ordered the US Navy to temporarily stop using sonar equipment because it might harm whales and other sea mammals.

More info is here.

In other news, I'm considering buying one of these.

your own personal internet?

Ted Stevens is ignorant. That's not to suggest that he's stupid--you don't generally serve as an officer in the Air Force, graduate from Harvard Law and serve as a Senator if you're stupid. Intelligent as he may be though, he is clearly ill-equipped to discuss regulation of the internet:

"But this service isn't going to go through the interent and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.

Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially."

He goes on to explain that the internet is "a series of tubes", and that

"Those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material."

He doesn't understand the terminology (it's an "email", not an "internet"), he doesn't understand the technology (bandwidth saturation will *not* cause a multiple day delay in delivery of an email), and he is almost certainly regurgitating metaphors that have been fed to him by telco lobbyists ("tubes"???).

On the bright side, he's doing us all a favor by expressing his opinions. If he'd have just kept his mouth shut and voted, nobody would have noticed his ignorance. Not that I expect him to get booted out of office anytime soon--he's been around Washington for decades, and there aren't enough geeks in Alaska for this instance of foot-in-mouth disease to cost him an election.

how to become invisible

Some scientists think that cloaking devices that provide invisibility are technically possible:

Forget Harry Potter and his "invisibility cloak" -- theoretical physicists in the UK and US have proposed a clever way of making objects invisible. It would involve surrounding the object by a "metamaterial" -- a type of composite material that has unusual electromagnetic properties. According to the researchers, light rays incident on the material would be bent around the object, only to emerge on the other side in exactly the same direction as they began. Although the work is only theoretical, the researchers reckon that materials invisible to radio waves could be produced within five years.

It seems like an awfully complex solution to the problem. Wouldn't it be much easier to find a volcano, some gold and a blacksmith with some seriously wicked magical skills?

the internet, campaign finance regulation and the first amendment

If Thomas Paine were publishing today, would he be publishing Common Sense and The Crisis as pamphlets or as blogs? If he was publishing on the internet as a blogger, would he run into trouble with the Federal Election Commission?

This post says that the FEC may eventually place restrictions on "political web sites", including blogs. To me, this kind of regulation is clearly unconstitutional--isn't political blogging precisely the kind of public political speech that the first amendment is supposed to protect? Is there any precedent that would support the FEC if it goes forward with applying campaign finance regulations to bloggers?

love according to nerds

My favorite econ blogger on love:

The thesis is simple, and almost everyone disagrees with it upon first hearing. The symmetry thesis: A given person likes (loves) you as much as you like (love) him or her...Perhaps we like other people for their intrinsic qualities less than we pretend. Mostly we like people for liking (loving) us.

Interesting idea. If this thesis is true, then romantic relationships should tend to be self-reinforcing, growing stronger over time. Does the prevalence of divorce disprove the thesis? Or does the prevalence of divorce suggest that real love is often not at the foundation of modern marriages?

illegal immigration--the real solution

Richard Posner points out the real solution to illegal immigration problems:

Once something is identified as a problem, Americans, not being fatalists, insist that there be a solution. But there is only one worthwhile solution to this particular problem, and it is one over which Americans have little control. The solution is for Mexico and the other poor countries from which illegal immigrants come to become rich. As soon as per capita income in a country reaches about a third of the American level, immigration from that country dries up. Emigration is very costly emotionally as well as financially, given language and other barriers to a smooth transition to a new country, and so is frequent only when there are enormous wealth disparities between one's homeland and a rich country like the United States. The more one worries about illegal immigrants, the more one should favor policies designed to bring about greater global income equality.

I find it ironic that so many people are both vehemently opposed to free trade agreements like NAFTA as well as being determined to eliminate illegal immigration. One of the best mechanisms we have for lifting up the Mexican economy is to integrate that economy more tightly with our own. Granted, free trade is no panacea, but it at least opens up opportunities for Mexico to grow her economy.

Or, let's just annex Mexico.

The Da Vinci Code: an alternate ending (UPDATED)

Robert Langdon: "So, you're the last living decendent of Christ?"

Sophie Neveu: "Yeah, I guess so... What should I do now?"

Robert Langdon: "Well, it seems to me that the most important thing is to make sure that the bloodline continues."

Sophie Neveu:

Robert Langdon: "You know, biological clocks, and so forth."

Sophie Neveu:

Robert Langdon: "Speaking of which, I'd be more than happy to take one for the team, as it were."

-----
Update:

Sophie Neveu: "So, I can't walk on water, but I can call down fire from heaven. The sequel ought to be very interesting..."

know your enemy

Baseball Crank takes a look at how Al Qaeda views the war in Iraq:

in assessing both our progress in this war and how close we are to accomplishing our objectives, we need to step back sometimes and see how things look from the other side. As it happens, CENTCOM released today English translations of documents captured from Zarqawi's Al Qaeda-in-Iraq ("AQIZ") that were captured in an April 16 raid. Coming on the heels of Gen. Barry McCaffery's assessment (see here and here) of the war from the US perspective, it's interesting to see almost a complete mirror image of the strengths and weaknesses of the other side and the lessons we can draw therefrom in determining how to sufficiently demoralize the enemy to bring about a decision by the other side to throw in the towel and move its resources elsewhere

The captured documents reveal that Al Qaeda has essentially given up on military victory, instead foccusing on

a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other word, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the American and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them.

His conclusion:

This is such an obvious point that it's amazing it needs to be repeated: the United States can only be defeated by bad press.

Fortunately for Al Qaeda, our press is pretty bad. I'm sure if political pressure leads to a premature withdrawal from Iraq and a bloody fracturing of the nascent Iraqi government, members of our press corps will sleep easy at night in the knowledge that their negativity had nothing to do with the unpleasant consequences.

Protein Wisdom

I've added Jeff Goldstein's Protein Wisdom to my blogroll. He's sometimes profane, often profound, frequently funny and always bizarre. Or he's all four at once.

His thoughts on the constitution prompted me to make the addition.

I must say, the steamed dumpling has a point, there at the end.

billy madison

If bankruptcy judges get to do this, I want to be a bankruptcy judge. It's the funniest footnote since footnote four.

via Ace of Spades

I be back

Ok, so it's been a long while. I've been a bit busy, and when I'm busy I tend to prioritize my reading over my writing.

Speaking of reading, read this. If there's one thing that everybody needs to learn about economics, it's that the conventional wisdom is wrong. It doesn't matter if you're hearing a liberal spouting the Democratic party line or a conservative spouting the Republican party line--either way, it's a pretty good bet that what you're hearing is flawed logic. Our politicians love to take credit for good economic news and shift blame for bad news, but the dirty little secret is that politicians have precious little ability to control the overall state of the economy.

What can they control? They can make sure that government isn't spending more money than it is taking in. They can break down (or erect) regulatory barriers to trade. That's about it. Conservatives have been marginally better than liberals in regards to trade regulation, but both sides of the aisle are having problems grasping the concept that budgets are supposed to be balanced.

Anyway, read the whole thing--I like seeing everybody's ox get gored.

I'll give you something to worry about

Mark Steyn:

What's worrying is that we spend so much time worrying about things that aren't worth worrying about that we don't worry about the things we should be worrying about. For 30 years, we've had endless wake-up calls for things that aren't worth waking up for. But for the very real, remorseless shifts in our society--the ones truly jeopardizing our future--we're sound asleep.

So Steyn does his best to wake us up. Looking for a really depressing way to start the new year? Need something to worry about? Try reading this: Mark Steyn on Cultural Death by Demographics. If you can slog your way through to the end of that one, tackle this as well: James Lileks on Mark Steyn on Cultural Death by Demographics. Here's the short version, excerpted from Steyn's article:

When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it's hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they're running out a lot faster than the oil is.

What will London--or Paris, or Amsterdam--be like in the mid-'30s? If European politicians make no serious attempt this decade to wean the populace off their unsustainable 35-hour weeks, retirement at 60, etc., then to keep the present level of pensions and health benefits the EU will need to import so many workers from North Africa and the Middle East that it will be well on its way to majority Muslim by 2035. As things stand, Muslims are already the primary source of population growth in English cities. Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character?

This ought to be the left's issue. I'm a conservative--I'm not entirely on board with the Islamist program when it comes to beheading sodomites and so on, but I agree Britney Spears dresses like a slut: I'm with Mullah Omar on that one. Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage, are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant?

The refined antennae of Western liberals mean that whenever one raises the question of whether there will be any Italians living in the geographical zone marked as Italy a generation or three hence, they cry, "Racism!" To fret about what proportion of the population is "white" is grotesque and inappropriate. But it's not about race, it's about culture. If 100% of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy, it doesn't matter whether 70% of them are "white" or only 5% are. But if one part of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy and the other doesn't, then it becomes a matter of great importance whether the part that does is 90% of the population or only 60%, 50%, 45%.

Since the president unveiled the so-called Bush Doctrine--the plan to promote liberty throughout the Arab world--innumerable "progressives" have routinely asserted that there's no evidence Muslims want liberty and, indeed, that Islam is incompatible with democracy. If that's true, it's a problem not for the Middle East today but for Europe the day after tomorrow. According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60% of British Muslims want to live under Shariah--in the United Kingdom. If a population "at odds with the modern world" is the fastest-breeding group on the planet--if there are more Muslim nations, more fundamentalist Muslims within those nations, more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations, and more and more Muslims represented in more and more transnational institutions--how safe a bet is the survival of the "modern world"?

Not good.

I'm not joking--that truly was the short version. I would elaborate on Steyn's view of the problem, but there's not much left to say.

On the other hand, there's plenty to say about how best to solve the problem. I'm in the middle of reading Thomas Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map. Barnett isn't writing about the demographic issues that Steyn identifies, but I think his analysis of America's current foreign policy challenges may be useful in understanding how to defuse Steyn's demographic time-bomb. As the Amazon.com review states, "Barnett calls globalization 'this country’s gift to history' and explains why its wide dissemination is critical to the security of not only America but the entire world." If we can't out-breed the enemies of our culture, our only hope is to export our culture faster than they can export their excess populations. Globalization is our Trojan horse. Or possibly it's our Trojan rabbit. I suppose we'll know if it was a horse or a rabbit in half a century or so...